What? There Are Rules?

I'll be the first to admit that the math by which the Democratic Party turns support in a state into delegates to the national convention are pretty complicated and more than a little obscure. The process used in Texas is, meanwhile, especially complicated and obscure. Still this is the kind of thing you would think a presidential campaign would take a strong interest in. But it's seemed for a while now that some of the Clinton campaign's moves only make sense if you assume the Clinton campaign didn't really understand the rules, something that appears to be the case according to The Washington Post's latest reporting where we read things like this:

What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates.

When did they make these crucial discoveries? Just "this month" according to the article. But understanding the rules would have been a big help in designing a strategy for Super Tuesday and the rest of February. Hilzoy correctly notes that this sort of thing cast some doubt on the notion that Clinton's veteran savvy makes her the ideal choice to go up against the GOP.

Comments

Did they really not realize this, or is this yet another move toward softening expectations for Texas?

Posted by Persia | February 18, 2008 9:00 AM

Heh. Apparently "READY TO LEAD" is not quite the same thing as "READY TO CAMPAIGN".

Posted by Jake | February 18, 2008 9:01 AM

1) Hillary's big shortcoming is that she "reasons" like George Bush -- i.e, like a dog trying to figure out how to cadge a treat from its owner.

2) That is, she focuses on what her superrich patrons want. Whether she gets the doggie treat -- approval and money -- is her only criteria for judging "performance" or "reality".

3) Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban already laid down the template for Hillary's campaign:

a) Haim Saban buys the Spanish TV network Univision

b) Univision tells the Hispanic swing vote in California, Texas,and Florida : "Vote por la grande puta, Hillary, per favor!"

c) Hain collects beaucoup bucks from the Hillary campaign for advertising on his TV network

d) All of which flys below the political radar because the rest of America --both citizens and politicans --don't speak Spanish and don't have the slightest clue of what's on Univision.

e) Hillary is elected President and is "good for Israel" -- i.e, sends several thousand soldiers, many of them Hispanic, to die in Iran in order to take out a threat to Israel.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 9:01 AM

The Clinton campaign probably thought they'd have the nomination wrapped up by now, so they didn't need to worry about what the rules are in Texas - they didn't think it would matter.

Posted by Elizabeth | February 18, 2008 9:04 AM

I learned of this obscure process in 1988 when I supported Al Gore in Texas. Because of the caucus after the primary, Jesse Jackson came away from Texas with the most delegates even though Dukakis won the primary.

But I knew this because I live in Texas. Hillary's campaign should have known it because they are runnig for President of the United States, a fairly serious enterprise, and they shouldn't have assumed, as they did, that it would all be over on February 5th.

Let the whining about the unfairness of it all commence.

Posted by Pug | February 18, 2008 9:06 AM

The problem is that the Clinton campaign only ever planned for this to go until February 5th. Even as the Obama campaign was preparing to go the distance, the Clinton campaign was stuck thinking they could wrap it up on Super Tuesday. So it's no surprise they only found out about the rules this month because they weren't even thinking about the race continuing to Texas until recently.

Posted by Mike | February 18, 2008 9:07 AM

Internet guru Peter 'Iron Triangle' Daou: 200 thousand dollars
Campaign spokesjackal Howard Wolfson: 2 million dollars
Jabba-esqe dark uber-pollster Mark Penn: 5 million dolllars
Not knowing how to use the Google: priceless

Posted by joejoejoe | February 18, 2008 9:10 AM

Hubris

Posted by bjd | February 18, 2008 9:11 AM

Persia wrote: "Did they really not realize this, or is this yet another move toward softening expectations for Texas?"

I'd bet it's the latter. NSS (Never Stop Spinning).

Posted by riffle | February 18, 2008 9:11 AM

Persia wrote: "Did they really not realize this, or is this yet another move toward softening expectations for Texas?"

I'd bet it's the latter. NSS (Never Stop Spinning).

Posted by riffle | February 18, 2008 9:12 AM

joejoejoe:
I nominate you for comment on the year.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 18, 2008 9:15 AM

I expect the Clinton spin on this to be that yes, by admitting they are idiots, they are merely tempering expectations that they are competent. You see? Only Obama HOPES to be competent. We're not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Posted by Jake | February 18, 2008 9:16 AM

Look, I don't much like Hillary OR Barack, but this sort of anti-Hillary cheerleading is starting to get ridiculous.

Whenever Hillary's people effectively "play the rules" in an anti-democratic way (say on super-delegates), it's proof of Hillary's anti-democratic nature.

Whenever Hillary's people do NOT effectively "play the rules" in an anti-democratic way (say regarding these crazy TX district rules or the Caucuses), it's proof of Hillary's political incompetence.

(A contrary point is that if Hillary wins a huge popular vote majority over Obama in TX, that will be very important for the nomination battle, whether or not it---undemocratically!---means only a few extra delegates.)

Does Matt REALLY need a junior speech-writing position in an Obama administration so desperately? Has he been told his Atlantic Monthly gig expires at the end of this year or something?

Posted by RKU | February 18, 2008 9:19 AM

Who does this remind you of?

An executive who manages by placing more value in loyalty than competence, failing to plan for an extended conflict, and ignoring the realities on the ground.

Posted by chris | February 18, 2008 9:24 AM

RKU, this is just conclusive proof of Hillary's incompetence and ineptness that she comes out looking like a incompetent, inept anti-democratic tyrant no matter what.

Posted by TLM | February 18, 2008 9:27 AM

Does the Clinton campaign know how to, oh I don't know, campaign?! Rather than focus on spin, maybe they should do some actual work. Their incompetence throughout this primary season has truly been alarming. Back in January I was 100% willing to support Clinton should she win the nomination over Obama; now not so much.

Posted by Kevin Burr | February 18, 2008 9:30 AM

Does the Clinton campaign know how to, oh I don't know, campaign?! Rather than focus on spin, maybe they should do some actual work. Their incompetence throughout this primary season has truly been alarming. Back in January I was 100% willing to support Clinton should she win the nomination over Obama; now not so much.

Posted by Kevin | February 18, 2008 9:30 AM

RKU,

There have been many criticisms against Hillary that are unfair, but this one isn't one of them. Before going public about making Texas a firewall state, she should at least known about the rules in winning more delgates than her opponent. It's true that she probably didn't think that Texas would be in play, but still.

Posted by MGJ | February 18, 2008 9:32 AM

Just pre-spin so that we can safely put Texas into the "states that don't count" if the delegates don't turn out in Hillary's favor.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | February 18, 2008 9:33 AM

For the Mark Penn's benefit, I've compiled the rules:

I been in this game for years, it made me a animal. Its rules to this shit, I wrote me a manual--A step by step booklet for you to get Your game on track, not your wig pushed back:

Rule nombre uno: never let no one know
How much, dough you hold, cause you know
The cheddar breed jealousy specially
If that man fucked up, get your ass stuck up

Number two: never let em know your next move
Dont you know bad boys move in silence or violence
Take it from your highness (uh-huh)
I done squeezed mad clips at these cats for they bricks and chips

Number three: never trust no-bo-dy
Your momsll set that ass up, properly gassed up
Hoodie to mask up, shit, for that fast buck
She be layin in the bushes to light that ass up

Number four: know you heard this before
Never get high, on your own supply

Number five: never sell no crack where you rest at
I dont care if they want a ounce, tell em bounce

Number six: that God damn credit, dead it
You think a crackhead payin you back, shit forget it

Seven: this rule is so underrated
Keep your family and business completely separated

Number eight: never keep no weight on you
Them cats that squeeze your guns can hold jobs too

Number nine: shoulda been number one to me
If you aint gettin bags stay the fuck from police (uh-huh)
If niggaz think you snitchin aint tryin listen
They be sittin in your kitchen, waitin to start hittin

Number ten: a strong word called consignment
Strictly for live men, not for freshmen
If you aint got the clientele say hell no
Cause they gon want they money rain sleet hail snow

Follow these rules youll have mad bread to break up
If not, twenty-four years, on the wake up
Slug hit your temple, watch your frame shake up . . .

Posted by southpaw | February 18, 2008 9:35 AM

This is just another example in the massive misogynist conspiracy against Hillary Clinton. I blame Barock Obamma and his followers for twisting the rules so that many many voters are disenfranchised. Let our votes count. Hillary 08!

Posted by Susan | February 18, 2008 9:37 AM

Susan:
Can you at least spell Barack Obama's name right? Or are you a right-wing troll?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 18, 2008 9:42 AM

Ah, Mr. Joe Klein, did you not recognize Susan's irony? I can vouch for Susan he is not a right wing troll. He only has sticky fingers. In fact there are no right wing trolls on this blog. Just us true blue Obama followers. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 18, 2008 9:48 AM

The problem is that the Clinton campaign only ever planned for this to go until February 5th.

That doesn't matter. Any professional presidential campaign is going to employ people whose sole job it is to know all these rules and crunch all the numbers. I doubt it is the case that "the campaign" as a whole just discovered these rules this month. What the Post report probably means is that senior officials in the campaign just started to pay attention to the Texas rules within the last month.

A more interesting question is what kind of Texas ground operation the campaign has had in place, and for how long. It could very well be the case that the people on the ground in Texas have been fully cognizant of these rules, and their recommendations and spending requests have long taken them into account, even if senior officials only began paying attention recently.

Given the fact that the Clinton campaign has apparently been counting on their "Hispanic firewall", one would like to know if there was a disconnect between senior officials who were putting a lot of effort into the Hispanic districts, and local campaign workers who knew that strategy wouldn't pay off as well as might be hoped.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 18, 2008 9:49 AM

I find it difficult to believe that the Clinton campaign really was caught flat-footed on this. Surely, this is some kind of leak that will game out in their favor.

Still, if it's true that they didn't in fact realize this until a month ago, then I agree that it's a sign of poor preparation and poor management. Not knowing the rules and not being prepared to leverage loopholes in the rules for your benefit is shockingly inept and a sure sign of bad judgement.

On the other hand (and I say this as a tentative Obama supporter and believer in the general impulse behind proportional representation), the complicated primaries do appear pretty undemocratic. Why aren't the Dem primaries more reflective of the popular vote?

Posted by sheesh | February 18, 2008 9:51 AM

I find it difficult to believe that the Clinton campaign really was caught flat-footed on this. Surely, this is some kind of leak that will game out in their favor.

I find it difficult to believe people are naively assuming otherwise. OF COURSE they understood the situation in Texas. They're gaming for sympathy, the same way they are about Florida and Michigan. Anticipating that Obama supporters will accuse Hillary of stealing the nomination, they're going after him on the same territory, to neutralize things.

Posted by Bill | February 18, 2008 10:07 AM

As always, look at the numbers:

1) Ohio: (March 4, 141 delegates)
White: 83 percent, Black 12 percent, Hispanic 2 percent

2) Texas (March 4, 193 delegates)
White: 48 percent, Black 12 percent, Hispanic 36 percent

Hillary HAS to win Texas big. The remaining big stakes all have low percentages of Hispanic populations, which have been her core strength

3) Pennsylvania (Apr 22, 158 delegates)
White: 82 percent, Black 11 percent, Hispanic 4 percent
(But Ed Rendell supports Hillary --and you ain't seen filthy politics until you've seen my Pennsylvania, bless its dirty little heart )

4) North Carolina (May 6, 115 delegates)
White: 68 percent , Black 22 percent, Hispanic 7 percent
(Note Big black population -- and Obama talking to John Edwards the other day )

5) Indiana:(May 6, 72 delegates)
White 84 percent, Black 9 percent, Hispanic 5 percent
**************

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 10:23 AM

I don't think this matters very much. Small swings in delegates are basically irrelevant at this point. Neither candidate is getting to 2025 pledged delgates, so it comes down to the supers. If Clinton wins the overall popular vote, the supers will give her the nomination even if Obama has the lead in pledged delegates. I'd be disappointed, but I wouldn't complain all that much.

I also think Clinton will win Wisconsin tomorrow, which will be spun (incorrectly I think) as a massive upset and the beginning of the end for Obama. The anti-Clinton triumphalism is definitely premature. Campaigning against as an insurgent against the Clintons is exhausting because of their relentless spin machine. No victory counts and every defeat is the most important event in the campaign. If Obama manages to come out out on top, he will definitely be battle tested and ready for the Republicans.

Posted by Led | February 18, 2008 10:23 AM

The Texas Rules

The Texas Rules are not really rules at all. They are a kludge of Jim Crow statutes, written and unwritten rules, then deals, settlements, or last-minute judicial decisions that are unveiled the night before most delegates arrive at the state convention.

This is rulesmanship and chaos theory that will likely not stand the test of a contested Presidential nomination.

There are two things going on here in Texas:

First, there is an astonishing interest in the national campaign which will, for instance, bring about three times as many people to the polls in the Democratic Primary than there are funky machines and poorly trained clerks to handle the traffic. Texas is a very low-turnout state by design (Jim Crow). So, the pollsters' "likely voter" projections will probably be wrong. Then, there are three-tiers of caucus.

Second, the state convention will feature about 200 party hard-insiders (DLC/DCCC) struggling to maintain their control of the party. They are split between the two national candidates but determined to lose the November election rather than lose personal control of the party. There will be about 400 party soft-insiders (PPC/DNC), also split between the national candidates, trying to take control and build a strong party.

Third, there will be about 6,000 delegates with plenary power over the entire party, affection for both national candidates, but very misleading directions on how to hold a contested convention as distinct from, say, a game show or a beauty pageant, which is all the state party has made arrangements for.

Think four-ring circus.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | February 18, 2008 10:27 AM

Re Pennsylvania politics, here's how we treat people that we LIKE:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/-Trade-to-Japan-leaves-Kendrick-in-shock?urn=mlb%2C67246

"Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Kyle Kendrick was shocked to learn that he'd been traded to the Yomiuri Giants in Japan for a player named "Kobayashi Iwamura."

"I don't know what to think right now," he told reporters outside his locker shortly after getting the news from assistant general manager Ruben Amaro Jr.

Had he truly been thinking, he would have realized that such deals are prohibited. And with a little digging he could have found out that there is no Kobayashi Iwamura playing in Japan.

The "trade" was, in fact, a prank. The ruse was orchestrated by pitcher Brett Myers and was elaborate enough to include Amaro, manager Charlie Manuel, Kendrick's agent, the media and others."

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 10:36 AM

LED,

What makes you think that she will win Wisconsin? I am not saying that this is not a possiblity but I think it would be safe to say that it could go either way.

Posted by MGJ | February 18, 2008 10:39 AM

Another aspects of the stupid TX rules is the apparent massive under-weighting of Latino voters as opposed to black voters, based on what the NYT was saying.

Suppose it turns out that (say) a Latino vote is only worth 1/2 of a black vote. Not sure whether this is a smart thing leading up to November. For example, imagine the gigantic ruckus if it were the other way round and (say) a black vote had only 1/2 the value of a white or Latino vote.

The biggest impact of the DC-region primaries was that Obama *finally* was able to get more than half the non-black vote in a couple of primaries. Prior to that, he'd been consistently losing the non-black primary vote by an average of about 30 (!) points to Hillary, while rapidly converging upon 100% of the black vote.

He now has the momentum, the media, the money, and the delegate lead, so it will be "interesting" to see what happens in the remaining big states. If he wins or splits the non-black vote, he's in great shape. But if he goes back to generally losing the non-black vote by 20, 30, 40 points, things will get really "interesting" at the DNC.

That's why the actual TX votes are probably more important than the stupid TX delegate selection rules...

Posted by RKU | February 18, 2008 10:42 AM

Ready to lead right off a cliff, and it's not even close to Day 1 of her presidency.

Posted by Aleks | February 18, 2008 10:52 AM

This is pretty clearly spin in order to soften a blow in the case of a loss (the race is tightening up in TX) or tie in delegates. Camp Hillary is willing to claim
any rule as discriminatory and any election as antidemocratic. Apparently, it's just not fair that Obama is winning.

I imagine that the clintons are just gearing up for the convention, when they'll be behind in delegates and will be making a full-throated denunciation of their party's primary system in order to squeak out a bitter and decisive win.

Posted by Ben | February 18, 2008 10:57 AM

Another bang-up job in planning, foresight, and organizational strength by the Clinton campaign. Are we going to be hearing in September that they're shocked -- shocked! -- about this radical new concept called "electors" that might force them to reevaluate their plans? Ignoring a whole slew of states is one thing, but Texas was their big firewall! One of their must win states!

Another aspects of the stupid TX rules is the apparent massive under-weighting of Latino voters as opposed to black voters, based on what the NYT was saying. Suppose it turns out that (say) a Latino vote is only worth 1/2 of a black vote.

That's not how it works. It's not race-based at all (though it's not a huge surprise that you and, eventually, Cal will go that route). State senate districts have delegates allocated by how strongly they favored the Democratic ticket previously. The theory is that the staunchest Democrats should have a greater say in nominating the Democratic nominee (this is Hillary's argument in a nutshell, too, of course, what with her position being that we need to look at the voting patterns of the most heavily Democratic states to guide our hand).

It just so happens that the majority black districts went pretty overwhelmingly for John Kerry (on account of them being a key piece of the Democratic base), so their districts get a lot of delegates.

Prior to that, he'd been consistently losing the non-black primary vote by an average of about 30 (!) points to Hillary, while rapidly converging upon 100% of the black vote.

Obama has not been losing the non-black vote by 30 points in most states.

Posted by jbryan | February 18, 2008 10:59 AM

Hillary campaigned in TX for McGovern in '72 (I'm not sure why she's not touting THAT in her 35 years of Experience, someone should ask her), so I'm sure she knows about the caucus rules. I wouldn't be surprised if people forgot about the newer PR breakdown and how that hurts her.

Posted by dbt | February 18, 2008 10:59 AM

It could go either way but I agree that contra intrade and the polls, Hillary has a better chance in Wisconsin than Obama right now.

In close primaries, she has up to now tended to get more late undecideds and there are a lot of late undecideds according to the polls.

It will be a close election with a small delegate difference, and will redouble Obama's enthusiasm in Ohio and Texas, working to prevent the blowouts in those states Hillary would need to dent Obama's delegate lead.

The good thing for Obama is that he doesn't have any more must-win states, just must-not be blown out states.

He'll reach the middle of June with more pledged delegates, more states and polling better against McCain and that will be more than enough for him to get the nomination.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 18, 2008 11:04 AM

RKU:

Does Matt REALLY need a junior speech-writing position in an Obama administration so desperately? Has he been told his Atlantic Monthly gig expires at the end of this year or something?

What's your problem? You an Edwards dead-ender? Hillary keeps pitching them nice and slow and down the middle. Why shouldn't Matt take advantage?

Regarding Florida and Michigan, it was encouraging to see Pelosi say people should play by the rules, even if she's remaining neutral. I never read Hilzoy before but she's done some good reporting lately.

Posted by Peter K. | February 18, 2008 11:07 AM

RKU,

As a former resident of Texas, I can strongly say that Houston and Dallas have sizable Hispanic populations. It should also be noted that Houston is the fourth largest city in the U.S. so that gives you an idea of the sheer size of the city. Texas is far more diverse than what people believe. As a state it has a sizable Asian, Middle Eastern and African population. This is especially true in the Houston area. I also want to point out that Houston also has a sizable black middle class. After Atlanta, it is known as the second best city for African-Americans.

Posted by MGJ | February 18, 2008 11:11 AM

On the other hand (and I say this as a tentative Obama supporter and believer in the general impulse behind proportional representation), the complicated primaries do appear pretty undemocratic. Why aren't the Dem primaries more reflective of the popular vote?

The party rules reflect the preference of the party, not the preference of the state's voters, necessarily. Same reason some states hold caucuses and some hold primaries. I'm not partial to caucuses and apparently the Texas policy is a Jim Crow holdover, but I do respect the state party's right to do what they feel is best (especially since I'm not even a registered Democrat in my own state).

Posted by Persia | February 18, 2008 11:11 AM

RKU, given that you're a Hillary supporter you have pretty much ALWAYS been tired of this anti-hillary cheerleading.

Nobody said it would be against the rules for Hillary to try and win by seating MI and FL, or with SD's. We simply said that we won't vote for her if she does so. You need to understand that Hillary is not entitled to our votes. If she does something we can not support, she has to understand that we will not support her. Nobody is going to sue her over it, we'll just cost her the general election.

If she wants to win, she should focus on having the most pledged delegates. IF she never really planned to get the most pledged delegates, to if she pursued a strategy that made it unlikely, that's her fault and it makes her a bad candidate. She has nobody to blame but herself. We don't have to like your candidate, and she isn't entitled to a victory she can not earn.

Posted by Soullite | February 18, 2008 11:19 AM

one would think, though, that all these individual districts and their unique rules for delegate distribution would play well into a strategy that considered each of these districts individually...something that tried to feel out each of these districts unique trends...you know, a strategy conducted not on a macro, but a micro scale...what am i looking for, here?

Posted by Max B. | February 18, 2008 11:21 AM

If you want to know how a president will run the White House, look at how they ran their campaign, because it's almost always the same. If a candidate's campaign is efficient, smart, and ahead of the curve, they are likely to be the same in the White House. If a candidate's campaign is arrogant, prone to strategic errors, and given to routine deception, they are likely to be the same in the White House.

Posted by TKD | February 18, 2008 11:22 AM

As a resident of Madison, I can tell you that it is very cold and snowy here. I also recived an email from a lesbian friend (Madison has a a lot of lesbians) fervently supporting Hillery because they are both women.

That's my report.

Posted by cw | February 18, 2008 11:23 AM

Ooh, good thought, Max B. Maybe a 'tiny trend.'

Posted by Persia | February 18, 2008 11:27 AM

MGJ:

Well, I admit that about all I know regarding the stupid TX rules is what I've read in the NYT or elsewhere in the last few days. The articles have *seemed* to say that for pretty stupid reasons, the heavily-Latino districts get very few delegates relatively to the heavily-black districts. Maybe, maybe not.

But if it really does turn out that a Latino vote only counts 1/2 of a black vote or something, I'd say that's not a smart thing for the Democrats to be doing.

Posted by RKU | February 18, 2008 11:30 AM

That's just stupid, Matt. How a candidate runs their campaign bears no relation to how they'll govern as President.

Posted by Anon | February 18, 2008 11:32 AM

Lesbians support Hillary en masse. She was reportedly a HUGE lesbian back in her Wellsley days.

Posted by Mort | February 18, 2008 11:33 AM

I forgot my Wisconsin prediction.

This is a tough one. I think the nasty weather is negative for Obama, as the fact that this is an open primary is negative for Hil. I'm just going to have to reach into the psychic aether in this....

Obama, by a nose!

Posted by cw | February 18, 2008 11:33 AM

Here is a detailed District by District analyis of Texas demographics/voting patterns which shows that Obama could grab slightly more delegates than Hillary while losing by several percentage points on statewide totals:

http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4472

Caveat: Analysis is by an Obama supporter and has one or two questionable assumptions --i.e., that the dumb white rednecks vote for Hillary while the college-educated, smart professionals vote for Obama.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 11:38 AM

"She was reportedly a HUGE lesbian back in her Wellsley days."

Arrrgghhh. I've noticed in me travels that many lesbians are quite large. I think it's a credit to Hillary that she's taken control er herr heft. Tis a sign er self-disciplin, it tis. It tallys to her favor.

Posted by ol' one eye | February 18, 2008 11:40 AM

Anon,

While I agree that running a campaign has no bearing on governing. Gore is a perfect example of that. But HRC has been going around presenting herself as someone who is always on top of things and who is micro-manager. What has happend so far into the campaign doesn't lend credence to the idea that she can run large organizations.

Posted by MGJ | February 18, 2008 11:43 AM

MGJ: The most recent poll (ARG) shows Clinton ahead beyond the margin of error. It could, indeed, go either way, but the numbers have been trending towards Clinton ever since Obama jumped out to the big lead. This is very unscientific, but I also thought Obama looked tired and defeated in his speech last night. I'm preparing for the worst.

She's a strong candidate. If I wasn't a little tired of her husband, VERY tired of her campaign cronies and sick to death of the war between the right wing and the Clintons, I'd be a lot more enthusiastic.

Posted by Led | February 18, 2008 11:44 AM

Shorter cw, Mort: The cold, blond, Scandanavian Lesbian vote will put Hillary over in Wisconsin, especially since Obama voters prefer warmer, more tropical climes.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 11:47 AM

Nobody said it would be against the rules for Hillary to try and win by seating MI and FL, or with SD's. We simply said that we won't vote for her if she does so.

That's great, Soullite. So unless Hillary agrees to campaign against Obama with one hand tied behind her back you'd rather see 4 more years of Republican rule. Very smart.

I wonder, all of you Hillary-hating Obama supporters out there--suppose, going into the convention, Hillary has captured more of the popular vote than Obama but Obama has more delegates. Would it be OK for super delegates to vote for her then? Or will you guys storm out of the party no matter what if your guy doesn't win?

Posted by Rob Mac | February 18, 2008 11:50 AM

The "complicated" Texas rules are actually designed to make sure any given vote in the primary has roughly equal weight. Each state senate district gets delegates in rough proportion to how many Democrats have voted there in the past. If each district got an equal number of delegates, then voters in Democrat-heavy districts would have their votes diluted.

That seems like an entirely fair way to run a party primary. Trying to spin it as anti-democratic is either clueless or dishonest.

Posted by jt | February 18, 2008 11:55 AM

Led,

Yeah I saw that poll but I also know that during this season ARG has been least reliable polling company. I agree that Obama doesn't have this in the bag and that she is a very strong candidate who inspire many women. I disagree with you about the ramifications of an Obama loss. Obama needs to win this primary to show that he has momentum. Remember Matt's prediction.

Posted by MGJ | February 18, 2008 11:55 AM

If the way you campaign in the primary is indicative of the way you campaign in the general, and perhaps even indicative of the way you'd govern, the Clinton campaign is really not doing much to help itself out here.

As others have said, the Great Gazoogle tells us that Texas, alone as usual, has a 'hybrid primary-caucus system', which is enough to have political junkies working out what the fuck those Texans are doing.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 18, 2008 11:56 AM

There's no excuse for Hillary's campaign to have "just learned" about the delegate-allocation rules in Texas, and as Matt said, it's especially ridiculous given that one of the central theme of her campaign is electoral/political preparedness. However, the chuckling all over the blogs today by Obama supporters is really frustrating -- if Hillary gets a massive popular vote advantage but splits the delegates evenly, I'm sure the Obama camp will be perfectly happy with the result. Then they'll pick up right where they left off with the "superdelegates are undemocratic!!!" argument being pushed by MoveOn and the rest. As a Hillary voter, it does get tiresome defending stupid statements by Mark Penn and botched strategies like "we'll skip February." However, I want to make the point that Obama *is a politician*, and he and his supporters do not have a monopoly on principle or the high road -- as evidenced by the willingness to mask arguments behind the pretty-sounding "will of the voters," -- but only when it benefits Obama, mind you!

Posted by Ryan | February 18, 2008 11:59 AM

Rob, if she wants to win, she MUST win on pledged delegates. IF she wants to try and use archaic and undemocratic rules, rules which activist Democrats have repeatedly been promised would never be used in this way, then she deserves to lose.

Your campaign is not entitled to anyones support. They have to earn it. If they are unwilling to do so, they do not deserve to be President. Every other Democratic President in the history of super delegates managed to win on the pledged delegate vote. This isn't about hatred. This is about Democracy. IF the Democratic elite are allowed to get away with this once, they will do this EVERY fucking time. There is NOTHING more important to the state of our Democracy than preventing that from happening.

If you think the rules are more important than Democracy, you're the same kind of scumbag that awarded the Presidency to HWB in 2000. They had the technicalities on their side too, and it didn't make it any less wrong. This is no different.

Posted by Soullite | February 18, 2008 12:00 PM

IF Hillary were a good candidate, she wouldn't be losing to an unknown Senator right now. She wouldn't have assumed she'd win on February 5th, because good candidates don't make those assumptions. She wouldn't have ceded every red state, because a good candidate NEVER leaves votes on the table unless they have to. If Hillary Clinton had run a perfect campaign, as Obama very nearly has, she'd be winning in a landslide right now. She came into this with every single advantage, from money to the best brand name in politics. She manages to squander every last one of them.

Hillary Clinton may be a fine human being, I don't personally know her. She is clearly not the best candidate, no matter how much some may personally like her.

Posted by Soullite | February 18, 2008 12:05 PM

Don Williams:

I picked Obama

Posted by cw | February 18, 2008 12:08 PM

RKU,

It's pretty amusing how you worry about any disproportional representation of Hispanics while claiming that Obama's votes only count if they come from "non-blacks". Apparently this isn't the Democratic primary, it's the old white lady and Hispanic primary.

Posted by ben | February 18, 2008 12:09 PM

Each state senate district gets delegates in rough proportion to how many Democrats have voted there in the past.

I think there's a fair criticism to be made that using general election turnout as the guiding criterion distorts the voting numbers, given that there are some districts that are uncontested, and the election that matters is the primary.

That said, you can also argue that it rewards people who turned out in November 2006, as opposed to thinking that their job was done in the primary. That's a useful thing to encourage in 2008, even if Texas isn't high on the list of Dem target states.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 18, 2008 12:13 PM

Soullite -- two things. One, neither Hillary nor Obama will likely be able to secure a majority of pledged delegates. If that happens, Obama would need the support of superdelegates to win, just as Hillary would. Now, who gets *more* of these delegates is certainly an issue, but the issue simply can't be framed that Obama's victory is "pure" but Hillary's is not. Second -- Hillary had many built-in advantages but also many disadvantages (which are covered much less in the media). If you truly believe that Obama "came out of nowhere" then sure, he's looking pretty good. But if you believe, as I do, that Hillary and Obama are two pretty evenly-matched Senators with different styles and constituencies, then it's folly to say anything other they have both run impressive campaigns -- because they're tied!

Posted by Ryan | February 18, 2008 12:15 PM

"I think there's a fair criticism to be made that using general election turnout as the guiding criterion distorts the voting numbers, given that there are some districts that are uncontested, and the election that matters is the primary."

Fair criticism, O.K. No system can be perfect. (I think using general election votes for president and governor as proxies for "Democrats" is reasonable, though.) But the claim Clinton seems to be making is that voters in Hispanic districts are being disenfranchised, which is just outrageous. If her campaign pushes that rhetoric too hard, they will do real damage to a rising Democratic party in Texas.

Posted by jt | February 18, 2008 12:37 PM

I disagree with Ryan that Hillary has run an impressive campaign. If that were the case she would have wrapped up the nom by Super Tuesday as planned. Hubris has been her undoing.

On the other hand, I like Ryan and wish he would switch. Ryan, won't you come to Obama? He's infallible, you know.

Posted by Lucy | February 18, 2008 12:59 PM

Ryan, one of them will have more delegates than the other one. That is beyond dispute. The only way the Super delegates really 'determine' the winner if they pick someone who isn't already ahead. No matter how you pro-Clinton folks like to frame it, a win by one vote is still a win. Only in an instance where pledged delegates split perfectly evenly is a super-delegate decision justifiable. In that instance, there's just no other option.

It's also extremely hypocirtical of Clinton to claim, on the one hand, that Obama's victories don't count because they come from Republican states; and on the other hand, arguing that Texas is broken because it doesn't provide enough delegates to the Republican areas she expects to win. This encapsulated everything that is corrupt about Clinton and her supporters. You may think we'd be making a different argument if the shoe were on the other foot, it's very unlikely that ANYONE but Clinton would be trying to do what she's trying to do.

Posted by Soullite | February 18, 2008 1:01 PM

I am actually worried that Hillary will win the popular vote and still loses the delegate race in TX. Remember Nevada? If that happens again, be prepared to swim in an ocean of "unfair" arguments.

Personally I think the rules are really really dumb. While it's not Obama's campaign that the rules are as such, we Obama supporters have to work hard at 1. win the popular votes in TX, period. 2. Recognize the fact that the rules are messed up and not to push the Latino voters in Southern Texas away by disenfranchising them further.

I think every vote in Texas should count equally. I rather have Obama lose a few delegates than having him win on the seemingly stupid technicalities. His campaign should send him to Southern Texas and have him take that stand there.

Posted by BringLatinosIN | February 18, 2008 1:46 PM

it's folly to say anything other they have both run impressive campaigns -- because they're tied!

LMAO...Ryan, Ryan...

If we were to agree to race a mile, also agreed that we were pretty evenly matched, and I gave you a 1/2 mile head start but yet we were tied 200 yards from the finish, would that be "impressive" to you? Maybe on my part but certainly not yours.

The shameless spinning and seeming assumption that you're dealing with clueless dullards is typical of Hillary supporters. Amazing.

Posted by Jose | February 18, 2008 2:47 PM

There really isn't that much difference between the way Texas allocates delegates compared to other states except for the weird primary/caucus thing.

The delegates are allocated to the different state senate districts based on the number of votes that John Kerry received in '04 and the number of votes that Chris Bell received for governor in '06.

What happened is that in the 2006 governor's race, there were four candidates, including two reasonably popular Austin figures - Kinky Friedman and Carole Keeton Strayhorn - who ran as independents against Perry and Bell, who had been in Congress from Houston.

Bell did very well in the areas of the state in which he was well known and with the African-American population throughout the state. He did not do as well as Democrats typically due in Austin and further south because of the presence of Friedman and Strayhorn.

And so, when you crunch the numbers to allocate delegates by Bell's votes, there were simply more voters in Houston and Dallas than there were in South Texas. And so those state senate districts get more delegates. It has nothing to do with race or age or gender, but simply on where Kerry and Bell got their votes last time around. It does set up favorably for a candidate who will run well in Houston and Dallas, but this just follows the rules that have been around for many cycles.

Now, the fairness of the primary/caucus business is another matter entirely, and success in the caucus is very much a matter of organization and grassroots investment because noone here really knows about it. My dad has been a government and economics teacher in San Antonio for 22 years, and he never knew we had a caucus as well as a primary.

Posted by Curtis | February 18, 2008 2:54 PM

On the other hand, I like Ryan and wish he would switch. Ryan, won't you come to Obama? He's infallible, you know.

I don't like Ryan and Obama isn't infallible. Hillary has proven beyond a doubt that she is fallible. She had this race locked up before it even started and then dropped the ball in a historic way. Now she's having to make lawyerly "depends on what the meaning of is is" arguments in order to keep herself in it.

Superdelegates can do whatever they want. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm betting/hoping Obama wins Wisconsin slighly, ties Texas, loses slightly in Ohio and wins the popular vote including Michigan and Florida. Then the superdelegates would go with him. If I was a Superdelegate, I wouldn't count Florida and Michigan. Those two think they're better than the other 48 states- that the rules don't apply to them - and Ryan and Rob Mac have yet to produce an argument as to why those two states are so special.

Posted by Peter K. | February 18, 2008 3:01 PM

Again, Former Virginia State Governor Douglas Wilder; Virginia's first African American governor, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he thought Bill Clinton's recent comments, injecting race into the Democratic primaries, had indeed hurt Hillary Clinton's chances. The polls certainly reflect that. Doug Wilder mused over Bill's self-appointed role of spokesman for all African Americans. Wilder says, during Hillary's tenure as First Lady, nothing was done regarding health care.

Wilder went on to say, repeated calls and visits by his staff and himself for information about the proposed Clinton health plan, to tell his constituency and local business leaders, had all been met with stonewalling and secrecy by the Clinton White House. Wilder goes on to say, if super delegates and backroom deals usurps the will of the voter, the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention will pale by comparison to the 2008 convention. The Clintons have had much, much more than eight long, well-paid years to effect the very changes they’re now clamoring to make. But before we turn the page and close the book on those two: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 19, 2008 12:51 AM