|02-11-2008, 01:14 PM||#1|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: DIA Tunnels
Texas Dem Primary could surprise
Due to some weird specifics, Texas might not serve as much of a "firewall" for Hillary Clinton.
The last time the Texas Democratic convention delegation was at stake in a national fight was 1988. Michael Dukakis won the state wide primary, but virtually split delegates evenly with Jesse Jackson because of the state's unique Democratic nominating process.
Here's a short version of the party rules, which are 11 pages long.
A total of 126 delegates will be awarded based votes in each of the 31 state senatorial districts.
But the number of delegates available in each district is not equal: Delegates are allocated based on the votes cast in districts in the 2004 and 2006 presidential and gubernatorial elections.
In the heavily urban, black districts of state Sens. Rodney Ellis of Houston and Royce West of Dallas, a good voter turnout in the past two elections means a combined total of 13 delegates are at stake in the two districts.
Obama nationally has been winning eight out of 10 black voters, exit polls have shown.
But in the heavily Hispanic districts of state Sens. Juan Hinojosa of McAllen and Eddie Lucio Jr. of Brownsville, election turnout was low, so only a combined total of seven delegates are at stake.
Clinton has been taking six of 10 Hispanic votes nationally. So a big South Texas win might not mean many delegates for Clinton.
In 1988, Dukakis won the Texas primary with 33 percent of the vote. Jackson won 25 percent. Al Gore had 20 percent and Richard Gephardt, 14 percent. But despite Dukakis' clear plurality victory, he split the delegates almost evenly. Dukakis took 72 delegates, Jackson 67. Forty-four were uncommitted.
"In '88, Jesse Jackson paid attention to the caucus process and had grass-roots organizers," said Garry Mauro, a former state land commissioner and Clinton supporter. "Dukakis did not pay attention to the caucus process."
The primary/caucus process they are talking about is explained here:
Basically, 2/3ds of the delegates are distibuted on the basis of the primary, with 1/3 distributed on the basis of the evening caucuses. And even the delegates distributed as a result of the primaries are determined by a districting process that tends to favor the African-American segments, due to their relatively higher turnouts in the last two elections.
|02-11-2008, 04:06 PM||#3|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: DIA Tunnels
Here's another potential surprise down the road ... this one in favor of Hillary.
Puerto Rico clout:
Consider this scenario:
Obama sweeps the Potomac primaries on 2/12, and wins by a reasonably close margin in Wisconsin the following week (and takes the Hawaii caucuses the same day.)
That would probably give him a lead of over 100 delegates going into March.
Let's assume that Texas is a basically a wash for reasons dicussed above. Hillary holds onto Ohio (where, for the past several months, she's maintained a 20 point lead.) And let's assume that the smaller states, Vermont and R.I., aren't real decisive one way or the other. In that scenario, Obama maintains a lead, but it's cut more or less in half, down to somewhere around 40-60 delegates.
The Obama lead goes back up into the 60-80 range on March 8-11 with wins in the Mississippi primary and the Wyoming Caucus.
Then there is nearly a month of nothing, until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22. That has 188 delegates at stake, and it would be huge. At the moment, it seems like Hillary would have the edge there, and maybe enough to pull within 10-50 delegates of Obama. Once again, it's a horse race.
Through May, you have a caucus in Guam (9), with primaries in N.C. (134), Indiana (84), Oregon (65), Kentucky (60) and W. Va. (39). Obviously, North Carolina is the big prize, and Obama would probably be favored there, but Hillary could offset that with wins in Kentucky and Indiana. (Not inconceivable, since she did very well in Tennessee.)
That leaves Oregon & W.Va and those could also split.
So the entire month of May could turn into one big wash.
Then comes the finish in June. Montana and South Dakota have primaries, rather than caucuses. So far as I know, neither is a winner take all situation. Even assuming Obama succeeds in both states, the margins probably wouldn't be as large as what he's accomplished in the western caucuses. He might wind up with 60% or less of the delegates.
And you end up with Puerto Rico, where Hillary is supposedly a very strong favorite, with 63 delegates at stake: more than Wyoming, South Dakota and North Dakota combined. And if they indeed go in anything resembling a winner take all "block," that could decide the nomination.
|02-11-2008, 05:20 PM||#4|
Don't Argue With Me
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin, TX
I'll be voting Obama. He's my only hope left to prevent a six month duel between Hillary and McCain. Talk about a lose-lose situation.