Stop Saying Clinton Won Texas. Republicans won Texas.

Right now, that is not certain. Sure, she won the primary, but remember that there were many factors going into the primary that may not have been present in the caucuses. Remember that Hillary Clinton's campaign said "it's about the delegates"

"Clinton picked up 65 primary delegates to Obama's 61. But the Obama campaign expects to win the Texas caucuses, which means Obama may net more delegates than Clinton when all the delegate's are finally settled."

http://www.kvue.com/...

CNN just ran a piece about how the Texas two-step may have favored Obama. Surely, the reports around show a moderate win for Obama in the caucuses, and a very small win for Clinton in the primary. How can we explain this discrepancy? More beyond the fold:

Here was a story that ran a few days before the Texas election:

I know I'm fighting an uphill battle here, folks, on trying to convince you Republicans in Ohio and Texas to cross over, pimp yourselves for a day, vote for Hillary to keep this campaign going, this Uncivil War, Democrat Party.  I know what's going to happen.  Even if I convince you to do it -- remember what this is, this is about us winning.  You have to understand, it's not about Hillary winning; it's about us winning.  It's about our party winning.  It's about those people losing.  They've got some problems in the Democrat Party.  It's not all sweetness and light over there, and we need them to continue warring with each other.  We love these stories of black people claiming they've been threatened with violence or their lives because they're not supporting Obama.  We want all this kind of stuff out there.  We want the Clinton campaign to keep pumping out these pictures of Obama dressed up as Bin Laden.  We want this kind of stuff.  If Hillary loses this thing, all of that's going to come to a screeching halt.  We want all the disruption in that party as possible.  It's about us winning. . . .

http://www.alphapatriot.com/...

And guess what guys, we let them get away with it:

"Several people said they were pulling Democratic ballots because of what Rush Limbaugh said," Hatfield said.

http://www.western-star.com/...

According to exit polls, of the 10 percent of Democratic votes that came from Republicans, about 53 percent of the crossovers chose Obama and 46 percent went with Clinton, the Dallas Morning News reports.

But previously these crossovers had voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. And the exit polls also show that Hillary won handily among conservative voters, including many Democrats, 53 percent to 43 percent over Obama, reports the Web site Outside the Beltway — which also noted that "Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners."

http://www.newsmax.com/...

Guys, I think we've been had.
That would also explain why the caucuses are doing so well for Obama. Those republicans intent on sabotaging the election, probably are much less likely to take the time out of their day to caucus for a candidate. Right now, the Caucus results are hovering at 56% -44% and splitting even more.

Don't take this lying down. LET people know about this!

•  Whatever

  we won Michigan for Romney.  It happens.

  by Superribbie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:30:32 PM PDT

  •  Whatever my ass!

    No true Democrat ever votes Repug!

    by lvv on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:53:48 PM PDT

    •  ...in the general.

      No reason not to mess with their primaries.

      by Superribbie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:43:08 AM PDT

•  Enough votes to make the difference..

  the status quo will not give up without a fight.

  by ohcanada on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM PDT

•  News Reporters are JUST starting to report this

  And if its true, Obama should definitely win the caucuses by a good margin. What other explanation is there? In the state with the highest population of talk radio, people who "decided on the last day" are going to be people who heard Rush say what he did.

  EVERYTHING points to the republicans willfully sabotaging our election.

  by beholderseye on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM PDT

  •  Another explanation

    There is another explanation, for at least part of it.

    A large number of Republicans are quite unhappy with their party, and with their presumptive nominee. Some of them decided that a Democrat was preferable. Many were drawn by Obama, but many were drawn by Clinton - especially the 3 AM ad, foreign policy experience, yadayada. She is the Dem percieved by that wing of the right wing most likely to keep them safe.

    The folks who remained to caucus were more heavily weighted to dedicated Dems, and they are tending to favor Obama over Clinton.

    Not to say there weren't "mischief" voters; but we will never be able to know or prove how many were sincere and how many were "gaming".

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:39:55 PM PDT

•  Let them get away with it?

  Not much could have been done to prevent them. Hopefully the numbers were not so large as to have a significant impact.

  by Catte Nappe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM PDT

•  This diary is typical sour grapes crap! n/t

  by bobswern on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM PDT

•  obama won texas :O)

  http://my.barackobama.com/...

  by lawyerbyday on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:34:24 PM PDT

•  Obama DID win Texas in delegates it would seem

  But it seems like this HAS to be the likely explanation for the caucus results.

  by beholderseye on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:35:16 PM PDT

•  Didn't Kos suggest

  Democrats do the exact same thing in Michigan?

  by bugscuffle on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:35:34 PM PDT

  •  I think Rush gets a larger base than Kos.

    by beholderseye on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM PDT

    •  And a more obedient one

      by Alden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM PDT

  •  But furthermore, are you admitting that this

    may have indeed happened? If so, people can draw their own conclusions from it.

    by beholderseye on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:37:33 PM PDT

    •  I'm not admitting it

      happened.  I KNOW it happened.  I know people here in Texas who followed Rush's lead and voted for Hillary.  But it's hard to get mad about it when we do the exact same thing.

      by bugscuffle on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:39:33 PM PDT

  •  Are you comparing Kos to Rush?

    Is this a troll

    by lvv on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:56:04 PM PDT

•  Quoting Newsmax....shame on you

  by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM PDT

•  Where's your messiah now, Jack Dawkins? /nt

  by hhex65 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:43:46 PM PDT

•  Not exactly a strong argument...

  since Obama won Republicans by 10%...maybe the shift was the same reason as the other late breakers...

  by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:45:06 PM PDT

•  This is Junior High School Stuff

  There are definitely Republicans with nothing better to do than go vote in a Democratic primary.  But most people very far out of junior high school have other stuff to do.  Most people are out of their minds with too much to handle.  Wasting time actually following through on a Rush Limbaugh riff?  

  Maybe one of these days we will have some sort of actual numbers.  But it is an insult to all those who worked hard to get people out to vote to suggest that their efforts were not worth much.

  Really it is political immaturity that causes a lack of perspective sufficient to allow the idea that Clinton does not have valid support in Texas among Democrats, Independents and yes, Republicans.  There have been quite a few people who have claimed they voted for Republicans in the past now looking to the Democratic Party in November.  

  It is how you win elections.  You want more people to vote for your candidate than just your own small select circle of friends.

  by Stuart Heady on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM PDT

  •  That is not true.

    I had a coworker vote and caucus for Hillary and he HATES her.  He told me of 4 more people that did it because they want to run against her to get their base out on election day.

    by lvv on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM PDT

    •  Gonna take a lot of dedicated hate

      To keep the streak alive in TX there are going to have to be a bunch of 'em willing to follow through all the way to the State convention in June.

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM PDT

•  There's a very small chance

  that most of Hillary's votes, and thus her success in the state, were actually ballots cast by people who think she would make a very good president.

  by pylonsound on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:50:32 PM PDT

•  Obama is "transformational," but Hillary

  is evil.  Yawn.

  by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM PDT

•  Actually Barack won

  If you count delegates, and that is all that actually matters.

  by dan667 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:16:20 PM PDT

•  Now if we could just ....

  see some consistency from the Obama supporters about crossover voters, you might have a reason to diary this.  In states where there have been open primaries, hasn't Obama (and dKos Obama supporters)actually touted his crossover Republican support?

  Again, more hypocrisy from the Obama supporters: it's 'good' when it occurs in the Obama vaccum, it's always 'bad' when it occurs in any relation to Clinton whatsoever.

  by emsprater on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM PDT