2,833,000 Texans voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election, but 2,857,000 people voted in last night's Democratic primary.
« A Disturbing Thought | Main | Pennsylvania Demographics »
Random Stat
05 Mar 2008 09:29 am
Comments (25)
I visited the U.S. Census Bureau web site and see their estimates for the state population of Texas for 2007 is 23.9 million and for Ohio it is 11.46 million. Even accounting for differences in percentage breakdown of party registration and affiliation how is it Texas contributes 126 delegates to the Democratic convention and Ohio contributes 141? I viewed those delegate totals for each state on MSNBC. Texas more than doubles Ohio's population yet has fewer convention delegates?
Steve,
The 126 delegates for Texas is the primary only part, the caucus bumps the total over 200.
In the State Senate portion of the delegate allocation in Texas, Hillary ended up +4. So, Chuck Todd and all of the others who were saying that Hillary might lose the delegate portion of the Texas primary were wrong.
The Texas caucus also appears closer than Obama had predicted. So, I think Hillary will actually come out of Texas with more Texas delegates than Obama.
The statewide primary in TX allocates 126 delegates, the caucus afterwards allots 67, for a total of 193. There's also some degree of weighting based on how well the party has done in the state historically. We did quite well in Ohio in the 90's (Clinton won it both times) while we haven't won in TX since '76, so the latter is weighted slightly less than Ohio in population terms.
How many of them were Republicans who voted as Rush L told them to?
The turnout was amazing. Texas blogs like BurntOrange are already encouraged by them and think (after a long period of getting beat like an old drum in every state wide office) that the tide may be turning.
Very interesting stat. Let's write that one down and see what happens in November.
I can't see that Limbaugh-approved strategic voting really would be that big a phenomenon, but it's hard to establish either way.
Look, here's the deal: If the Dem party does not want to disintegrate into civil war, they've got to have a candidate with a clear margin of elected delegates by the time of the convention. Neither side's supporters will accept the result otherwise. And the only way you're going to get that is to re-run Michigan and Florida.
Obama will have some legitimate complaint that this is changing the rules that were agreed upon. But neither side can secure the required number of delegates to win outright, so SOMETHING has to resolve the outcome, and what could fairer than making sure all voters are considered.
This will likely cause Clinton to win the nomination, and may cause moderates (including, possibly, me) to vote for McCain. But it seems the only way to generate a nomination outcome that will avoid civil war and preserve the appearance of Democratic fairness.
Sure, but how many of those Texas voters are in cemeteries?
Interesting to note that twice as many Texas voters voted as Dems in the primary, than as Repubs.
In fact, both Dems out-polled McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX
This will likely cause Clinton to win the nomination, and may cause moderates (including, possibly, me) to vote for McCain.
If you'd like a continuation of what's laughably known as the 'Bush foreign policy' (though it's a guarantee that the rest of the world isn't laughing), and an asleep-at-the-vault domestic fiscal perspective; sure, vote for McCain.
Seriously -- people need to ask themselves if America can afford that. I don't believe we can.
Look, here's the deal: If the Dem party does not want to disintegrate into civil war, they've got to have a candidate with a clear margin of elected delegates by the time of the convention. Neither side's supporters will accept the result otherwise. And the only way you're going to get that is to re-run Michigan and Florida.
...
This will likely cause Clinton to win the nomination, and may cause moderates (including, possibly, me) to vote for McCain. But it seems the only way to generate a nomination outcome that will avoid civil war and preserve the appearance of Democratic fairness.
LMAO. That was great, DougJ.
OK, seriously though, what do you really think? Seating Michigan and Florida seems just as likely to cause "civil war" as not seating them, and it's obviously ridiculous to say that neither candidate can get the votes to win outright. Obama leads in pledged delegates by about 90 right now. That's a clear margin right there, and I don't see anyone suggesting it's going to narrow much. Or if Obama really crashes and burns somehow before Pennsylvania, there's still about 500 total delegates for Clinton to take.
Any independent who would vote for John "hundred years in Iraq" McCain probably wasn't much of an independent in the first place. If Clinton gets the nomination but you still believe too much of what Limbaugh has said about her, vote Nader.
Vote Green instead, Doug.
Michigan: Obama 60:40
Florida: Clinton 60:40
Result: A wash.
Forget about it.
The actual TX delegate count is 228 -- 126 allocated by the primary, 67 allocated by the caucuses (the rest superdelegates?) -- http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08
You can find the latest reported caucus details there, too.
Sadly, 4.5 million Texans voted for Bush last time...
FWIW, my house includes two independents who will vote for McCain in the general and who voted in the Democratic primary last night. I don't read much into turnout numbers in a state with open primaries, when one contest is all but over and the other is very much not.
That said, we really shouldn't have bothered, as we voted differently. Basically, we both had a very mild preference, and definitely not strong enough to try very hard to convince the other.
We are tired down here in Texas of the crap politicians we get! The Burnt Orange report and other blogs revolving around Texas state politics are really pushing netroots efforts to unseat many of the Republicans. The republicans in this state have run their poltics like GWB! My dad is a lifelong republican and voted for GWB when he was governor then when he was in the 200 election, this election he voted for a Dem and will vote for a DEM next for the Governor of Texas because of Rick Perry efforts as a governor. Here is a blue print of the Republican agenda in Texas, pledge no new taxes (while government spending and deregulation of various businesses such as electricity and the University system prices continue to sky-rocket, net effect raising taxes for the benefit of all would have been cheaper), run string campaings against crime (incarcerating many more drug offenders so it pads their resume while true crime has been dropping siince the 90's; Of course the spending on prisons and prisoners is costing us someting like 23000 a person) say that education is important by decrying the influence of secular education (which really means getting rid of evolution in text books, McGraw Hill, and bringing in more theological writing, if you don't believe me look up the Texas Alternative document and Donna Garner), and tearing down your opponent by any means necessary, tis is where Karl Rove rose to influential power.
We are tired of it and want a more representative government that actually represents some of the values which have been trashed an manipulated by these guys. Let's at least turn this state purple. And guys and gals let's make sure we put a Dem in the White House.
I don't think the Democratic party is going to disintegrate into civil war and Democrats really need to get a grip on themselves. We have two great choices and if we are lucky we are going to get both of them. Hillary Clinton isn't going to quit, she's going to win and while that might irk some people they had better get used to the idea. Barrack Obama isn't going to quit either. There are still important primary elections to be won or lost and the game hasn't been won by either candidate, but clearly there is going to be some wheelings and dealings in Denver and we can only hope that the delegates remember that their decisions must reflect the wishes of the voters. The larger than expected turnout in Texas is duplicated by larger than expected turnouts in every state that has had it's primary so far and the increase doesn't look suspicious at all. Democrats have good choices this election and we enjoy voting for both of our competent and experienced candidates. I have only sympathy for the republicans. McCain is the worst possible choice for them. He's not going to be able to create any enthusiasm in his party, he's practically an outcast among the neo-conservatives, he's old and obviously exhausted and he's waffled on every major republican issue. So if the Democrats are united behind the candidate selected at the convention, we'll be just fine. Attempts by republican operatives to create an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust inside the Democratic ranks will not be effective. Democrats need to hold their tongues and stop being so disrespectful to each other. We're Democrats, not republicans. We are the party of tolerance and inclusiveness. This anger and hatefulness is uncharacteristic of our party's historical behavior.
He's not going to be able to create any enthusiasm in his party
Unless he's running against Hillary Clinton.
Oh please, that argument is as tired as McCain is ancient. Hillary is not divisive, the people who hate Hillary are divisive. True Democrats will vote for the candidate their party nominates. There is no place in the Democratic Party for haters.
I hear you James, but I am sure like you I read alot of newspapers and alot of blogs. I do think we need to hold the ranks and back whomever wins the nomination, OK. But I am an Obama supporter and relatively young, his ability like Bill Clinton before him to bring new people to the voting booths can not be under appreciated by the democratic electorate, right? SO here we are and we have two good candidates, but as I am sure you know both of them are not pointing out the weakness or the failures which John McCain and the republican party must own up to coming into November. I have heard Mr. Obama mention them but I have not heard Mrs. Clinton, this leads me to believe that she is only interested in winning. I am and many other voters are interested in winning as well but I do not want to drop the ball and keep the finger pointing at Bush's failures to effectively manage our country and recklessly taking us into war with Iraq. I do not want the Republicans to say that they stand for changes regarding environmental laws and regulations and I do not want them to say that they are interested in new energy sources while at the same time employing a foreign policy stance that no doubt exacerbates oil prices because of Iran, China and Russia who are making plenty of money off of our blunder. But let me state that I am mostly anti-corporate unless it is local and self-sustainable so I have my bias. I just think this election is pivotal in America's future as well as the rest of the worlds and to adapt to the new playing field we need a person who is new and has not adopted policies, granted they were her Husbands, in the past which keep the corporate status quo as it is. Let me say again that I will vote democratic but if she is the nominee, I will simply bite my tongue and be looking for 2012. She supported Wal-Mart’s union busting activity, although I am not sure how much influence she could have had because she was focused more on getting a more fair shake for women within the company. She says she did not support NAFTA but she is quoted at the time as saying she did, now I would imagine that it would not be good policy to not support your husbands major trade agreement but this is a democracy can we not have disagreements on the record for posterity sake? She tried to support changes in Health care but basically got put in her place as first lady, and as a senator she has been very supportive of healthcare issues especially those for children. I hope that you can see that I am not an OBAMAbot or whatever they are calling his supporters these days but rather believe there needs to be more honesty in government especially when you disagree and especially when you make mistakes. Clearly Obama has no problem saying that he has made some mistakes, and in fact he has been very candid, of course you may reply what about Rezko, after reading about 10 article regarding the case and also the indictment against him where OBAMA is not a witness and is not named in the suit I just don't see anything there, maybe I am blind but it just doesn't add up. And if there is nothing to this then Mrs. Clinton is just using rhetoric for rhetoric sake rather than focusing on the issues, which is ironic because she says she is all about substance. I do not want to see a campaign that is about dirty laundry but between her, John McCain, and Barack Obama I would think his youthful nature would entail less laundry, so negativity works only so far. I am sorry but this is what I think and I will again say that we have much better candidates than the Republicans but I am ready to see new blood enter Washington hopefully for the better of all American whether the be poor, rich, young, old, black, hispanic, white act. I am tired of the haves keeping there foot on the nots, thanks for listening,
Gotta Go stay solid
Amber,
You're so inspiring. Now I so want to sit on my ass and rack up more debt for my kids, and warm up to 100 years in Iraq. Ahhhhh, it's all good.
gopkjdw mydeqwx jaxt lmez dfgztqplc yguhrj qxefhkvdn
gopkjdw mydeqwx jaxt lmez dfgztqplc yguhrj qxefhkvdn
Comments closed March 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
And 51% of them are freaking morons! Jeez, how much longer does this have to go on? I'm sick of primaries and debates. And I'm sick of Hillabee!
Posted by Traven | March 5, 2008 9:35 AM