03/05/2008 08:41:23 PM EST

This is what is up with Texas. In my opinion. (with Poll)

posted by bluefella

Texas did not go to Clinton because of the Democrats, I think.  Here's why...

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
McCain had everything pretty much wrapped up.  In Texas, you have to choose which Primary to vote in, Republican or Democrat.  If I were a Republican, and there are a lot more in Texas than most other states, I would vote for the weaker Democrat in their primary.  I have anecdotal evidence that this happened when listening to who the proud Republicans were voting for, at work.  They want to take down Hillary.  They believe they have the machine to take her down in the general.  Hold your breath, vote for Clinton, thrash her until November and crush her election day.  They were displeased that I voted for Obama, I suppose because I wasn't playing along with their plan. 
So there it is.  I don't think Clinton won the Democrats in Texas with the 3am crap.  She won the fake Democrats that didn't vote for Huck/McCain/Paul in the other primary. 

< THE MANK IS BACK! | Howard Dean's Latest Statement Re: Ghost Delegates >

Poll

Agree or disagree?
You're right. Republicans would do that. 55%
50/50 buying it. 20%
You're reaching. 15%
You're totally wrong. 10%

Votes: 20
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
This is what is up with Texas. In my opinion. (with Poll) | 20 comments (20 topical, 1 hidden)
I heard about this too (none / 0)
Apparently a lot of Republicans got pissed because they didn't realize they'd have to vote for all the downstream dems on the rest of the ballot.

by Tom Hanc on 03/05/2008 10:07:03 PM EST

I didn't think of that. (none / 0)
In my district there were very few contests.  Sadly, I didn't know anybody on the local level and just floated the selection wheel a few seconds and hit select.  But yeh, the must have been pissed that they couldn't vote for their favorite judge, dog catcher, etc...  Do you think they actually did enough research to make good Republican selections in the lower races.  Ha!

by bluefella on 03/05/2008 10:14:02 PM EST

I think the conservative talk show hosts (none / 0)
have a double motive here.

First, they figure Hillary is easier to beat, because the script on how to clobber her is already written and they KNOW the base will be insanely mobilized by the name Clinton.

The second part is they figure worst case she wins is not such a worst case.  That'll get them some awesome ratings, being able to bitch and moan about the Clintons again.

It's funny to me how so many conservatives despite the Clintons despite the fact that they were FAR from liberal on so many issues.  Sure, you can point to social issues, but what Dem president isn't going to be pro-choice, etc.?  They all are.

And yeah, he raised taxes *a little*, but nowhere CLOSE to what they were before Reagan.  Then there's NAFTA and GATT, deregulation of various industries/The FCC Telecom Act of 1996, and as Cenk brought up the other day, rendition started under Clinton.

As I've said before, Clinton was a solid, moderate Republican president (the best you can hope for from the DLC) if you really break down his record. In his defense he didn't have congress on his side and he spent much of his second term on defense for complete and utter bullshit.

So there's a *chance* he could've been a little better. You know, like maybe doing something about global warming, especially with Gore as VP for 8 years. Or how about campaign finance reform?

PS---I can't share this clip of Hillary enough. It boils my blood.

by Tom Hanc on 03/05/2008 10:21:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Republicans (none / 1)

Republicans constituted roughly 10% of votes in the Dem contest. 

Republican vote percentages in Texas and Ohio

 

Texas:   Hillary- 52%

              Obama- 47%
 

Ohio:    Hillary- 49%

              Obama- 49%
 

 

 

 

Looks like Hillary one because of the boogieman!

L

by acroso on 03/05/2008 10:27:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You've convinced me. (none / 0)

Clinton wants to be McCain's Vice President.  That clip makes it clear that she prefers McCain over Obama, and it's probably a sure bet that she can't beat McCain.  And what she said sounds like what someone who wants to be Vice President would say.

by EveningStarNM on 03/07/2008 12:45:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Double Motive (none / 0)
Good thoughts, Ihavenobias. It's a double win for them isn't it? But to tell the truth, they'll find plenty more dead horses to beat no matter which Dem wins.
 
That clip of HRC really burns me too. How does she expect to eventually win the support of Obama voters when she continues to insult their intelligence this way? She is walking on paper thin ice here and is likely to get very wet and very cold soon.

by Verified1 on 03/07/2008 04:38:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you're right to a degree (none / 0)

You're right to a degree, but Obama won the Republican vote 53-47% from the exit polls I saw in Texas. Clinton won the Dem vote. Obama won the idies.

 

Clinton did win the portion of the Republicans who considered themselves "very conservatives" who might have been the Limbaugh listeners.

Overall Republicans seemed to cancel themselves out in Texas. I think if Limbaugh hadn't been on the drumroll, Republicans would have went to Obama in crossover because they dislike Clinton via name recognition. 

by acroso on 03/05/2008 10:14:38 PM EST

link (none / 0)

Here's a breakdown of conservative vote in Texas.

 

It's true that Limbaugh was on the warpath for Hillary but there were enough R's who wanted to stomp out the Clintons for good in Texas that it was a wash. R's were only 10% of the dem vote in Texas, and I don't think they did much since Obam only won them by a few percent. 

by acroso on 03/05/2008 10:17:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I probably should have done some research. (none / 0)
Maybe the conservatives aren't all in one big email bank that Karl Rove sends instructions through.  If they were going to try to influence the primary, they should have done what I was suggesting they did.  Crap. That means Democrats did buy into the 3am business or simply that our Latin population swung the vote, etc. Who knows? But I sure ya'll will tell me.

by bluefella on 03/05/2008 10:28:11 PM EST

Well (none / 0)
I wouldn't say Hillary won because some republicans voted for her.  But I think it's fair to point out that she may have been *helped* to some degree (not a large one, but potentially a statistically significant one) by this.

Obviously the other factors (like her fear mongering ad for example) are more important though, not doubt about that.

by Tom Hanc on 03/05/2008 10:31:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Texas (none / 0)
If Obama won the Republican vote in Texas...how is it that Republicans somehow helped Hillary?

by acroso on 03/05/2008 11:16:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is hypothetical/anecdotal (none / 0)
But the margins may have been even bigger, etc.

by Tom Hanc on 03/05/2008 11:18:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes & No (none / 0)
Some pubs voted for Clinton-some voted for Obama

The real issue is (how does our party allow this to happen?

One would thing after 2000 we would have our house in order when it comes to elections

Solution:

get rid of caucuses, cross filing and weighted delegates and super delegates. Each state should have a primary with a paper trail with delegates apportioned by actual votes.

we should also split the country into 5 regions of 10 states each. the election should be held over a 5 week period (2 states from each region, each week)

The people would actually get to select their candidate and it would save a tremendous amount of money

by LORD FOUL on 03/06/2008 08:29:16 AM EST

Caucuses are great (none / 0)
They give "regular people" like myself the ability to get involved in the process.  If everything were decided by primary, then only the party insiders would ever be elected as delegates. 

by schmoab on 03/06/2008 12:11:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually Caucus may have helped reduce Rep impact (none / 0)

This is complicated, so bear with me.   Delegates for each precinct are apportioned based on PRIOR voting history.   To be honest, I'm not sure if it's based on Governor's race two years prior, or President's race four years prior.  But either way, that's how it works.  For this discussion, I'll use 2004 results.

A precinct in Brentwood in mid-town Austin has 96 delegates to the County Convention.  This is because they voted heavily for Kerry in 2004.

 My new precinct in North Austin borders red-state territory, which is basically the rest of Texas.  It voted significantly for Bush in 2004.

Also, as Election Judge, I over heard at least half a dozen voters mumble to someone else that they were Republican's crossing the line to vote for [whisper], [whisper].   Later that night, a Williamson County Rep Candidate claimed that he lost his bid because 15-20% of Republican voters participated in the Dem primary rather then the Republican.

So...  Where I live, those crossover Rep's impact was reduced, because we have fewer delegates to the County convention.   Brentwood, where there are far fewer cross-over Republicans, has twice the number of delegates allocated to the County Convention. 

 As insane as this all sounds, it's possible that the caucus/convention portion of our process actually may have REDUCED the impact of cross-over Republicans.

Now there's been confusion as to who those Rep's voted for.   The racists wanted to vote for Obama, because they don't believe the country will vote for a black man (their words).   The politically active Rep's and those that listen to hate radio realize that the only way their weak nominee John McCain will be able to rally the troops, is to have Sen Clinton as the Dem nominee, which will be a big fat bulls-eye for lackluster Republicans to get up off of their couches and go vote against.

But, given the organized call by hate radio to cross-over and vote for Hillary, let's assume that the majority of those votes went for Sen Clinton.

With the cross-over votes, Sen Clinton won the popular vote by 3%'ish.   But did those cross-overs go to the precinct conventions?   Likely not, but if they did, the insane sounding apportionment system that grants delegates would have lessened their impact.

So - I know it all sounds mad, but let's not toss the baby out with the bath water just yet.   Let's give some time to analyze the data, and see if this complex system worked after all.

 AND... You may not have to worry about how the Texas system works for another 30 years.   Keep in mind that many of these rules have been around for a while.  It's only because of this extra-ordinary race that all of this has come to light.

In the future, we'll just be taken for granted, and all vote for the candidate that Iowa and New Hampshire pick.   

by BlueInTexas on 03/06/2008 02:02:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Republicans (none / 0)

Republicans had little if ANY impact on Texas considering they were only about 10% of voters in the Dem primary.

Obama won the Republican vote 52-47% in Texas.

 

 I think the gains Obama made from the Republicans were negligible.

 

In Ohio R's split 47%-47%

Again they didn't matter. 

 

by acroso on 03/06/2008 02:17:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0)

by Tom Hanc on 03/06/2008 03:05:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
pathetic and ill informed as usual (none / 0)
LOL@ the Rush effect. He has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Ask anyone under the age of 40 if they even know who that is care who that is or how often they listen to the radio.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/06/2008 06:55:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is what is up with Texas. In my opinion. (with Poll) | 20 comments (20 topical, 1 hidden)
 Display: