Hillary LOST Texas: Help Spread the News!

Today alone, MSNBC pundits have casually, offhandedly referenced Hillary's win in Texas at least a dozen times that I've counted. Just listened on NPR to somebody referencing Hillary's win in Texas. And again, today, Wolfson is talking about Texas voters, indicating that they've placed their confidence in Hillary.

I've gone beyond irritation. I've gone beyond having my teeth on edge. I've gone beyond banging my head against the wall.

Hillary won Texas? My ass. Time to go postal....

See, here's the thing. Obama won in Texas. OBAMA won. Hillary? Did not win. No win. She lost. Not by much, but she LOST.

As it stands today, Barack Obama took 98, or 50.78%, of Texas' national Democratic delegates, to Hillary's 95, or 49.22%.

I don't give a shit if people don't appreciate the Texas Two-Step primary process in Texas. The bottom line is that is the process here in the Lone Star state -- and it's a process OBAMA won.

Repeat after me: Obama won. Won. He won. W.O.N. Game to Obama.

Did he beat her like a rented mule? Sadly, no. But Obama won. Fair and square. Like it or not. Believe it or not. Obama now.

OBAMA WON. OBAMA WON. OBAMA WON. OBAMA WON. OBAMA WON. OBAMA WON.

Yes, he did. Yes, HE did. Yes, he DID.

It's time to set the record straight. Next time you hear somebody throwing the Texas vote in the Hillary column, tell 'em the truth.

Obama's taking Texas, 98 to 95.

Go in peace and spread the word.

•  Who won?

  Hint: Not the former president's wife.

  by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:39:05 PM PDT

  •  But the teevee machine tells me the Clinton won.

    Are they lying to me? OMG!

    by psilocynic on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:41:20 PM PDT

    •  ZOMG!

      

      by bumblebums on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM PDT

      •  Oh noes!! n/t

        by MaskedKat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:19:47 PM PDT

      •  ZOMG I love that!! LOL nt

        by Elise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:55:49 PM PDT

        •  too bad so sad

          

          by FireCrow on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM PDT

          •  Yep. No pony for Hillary...nt

            by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:20:55 PM PDT

            •  ...either. nt

              by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:55 PM PDT

            •  yep HRC...

              

              by bythesea on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:14:57 AM PDT

      •  great graphic! n/t

        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:38:13 PM PDT

      •  How did you do that?

        How does that animation work?

        by T u g on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:37:21 AM PDT

        •  Dunno - found it on the tubes

          by bumblebums on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:06:11 AM PDT

    •  The craziest part of this story...

      ... is that NBC News reported that Obama won Texas.

      As in MS-N-B-C.

      Apparently they don't read their own material:

      http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

      Delegate update: Obama wins TX

      Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:12 AM

      by Domenico Montanaro

      NBC News has allocated the remaining nine Texas caucus delegates, 7-2, in favor of Obama. That means the Illinois senator has won the most delegates, 99-94, as a result of both the Texas primary and caucuses.

      Obama now leads by 129 in the overall delegate count, 1637-1508. Obama leads by 162 pledged delegates, 1415-1253. (There remains just one delegate unallocated from Democrats Abroad.) Clinton leads among superdelegates, 255-222, per the NBC News Political Unit count.

      Also note, the Obama campaign has passed around that it has picked up two delegates in Mississippi, showing Obama with a 20-13 lead. NBC News' count remains 19-14 for Obama so far.

      by Hudson on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM PDT

  •  Did the primary results change?

    I understand Obama got more delegtes becuase of the caucus plus the primary.

    How do we count popular vote?  What if caucus goers voted twice?  How will we know?

    Does Obama now win the popular vote in Texas?

    It's all so complex, but I know the answer: Obama always wins here and Clinton always wins on MyDD.

    by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:43:15 PM PDT

    •  You can verify the results with the state...

      ...party or Burnt Orange Report.

      The popular vote is step one. The evening after the polls close, Dems caucus -- but can only caucus after proving that they voted in the primary.

      How do we know if they voted twice? Because the voters sign in to participate in the caucus, we verify their ability to participate by having voted in the primary, and both the Clinton and the Obama sides reviewed each others supporter lists before we made the votes official.

      THEN, we head to a county convention -- usually a six-hour or so affair, but this particular year, an 18-hour-plus ordeal for many districts because of the number of unsubstantiated delegate and precinct challenges lodged by the Clinton legal team.

      Those conventions are closed. Their results are in. The die is cast.

      Oh, and, by the way...Obama won.

      by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:48:01 PM PDT

      •  So what is the asnwer?

        Wom what?  The popular vote?

        by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM PDT

        •  Won the two-step Primary process.

          The total process is what counts. Like it or not, hiving off the primary component is only half the ballgame.

          by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM PDT

          •  Right - as I explained it to my texan friend

            Who, though from Texas, did not even understand the process.

            Obama won the primary because he got more delegates

            Winning the primary in Texas = delegates you get from primay voting + delegates you get from primary caucus

            Hillary  won the popular vote by a slim margin (about 2%)
            Obama won the caucus by a larger margin (10%?)

            His win was bigger than hers, so Obama won the primary in Texas

            The press is at fault on this. I dont think they even understand the caucus + primary vote process at all.

            They report winning a "winner take all primary" the same way they report a proportional primary. Its maddening

            by biscobosco on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM PDT

            •  And Hillary won the primary vote because

              At least 119,000 republican voters voted in the Democratic primary and quite a few of them voted for her.  An I for one find it hard to believe they did it because they like her.

              Boston Globe 3/17/08
              (snip - page 2)
              Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP
              It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

              by SoniaS on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:56:29 PM PDT

              •  this explanation needs to be sent

                to every single paper in Pennsylvania

                http://obamastraws.blogspot.com/...

                a handy-dandy webpage for your ACTION NEEDED ....

                let's shut down the good Govn'r from PA ---- OBAMA WON TEXAS!

                he's talking to every single paper at every single HRC event saying she won TX, FL and MI .... none of which she won ...... repeat, please start sending letters to the papers in PA - they have got to start reporting the TRUTH.

                by bobnbob on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:29:07 PM PDT

                •  and if anyone thinks Obama is unaware of this

                  they should think again. But does he have a public breakdown and try to repeat it over and over and complain in the media?

                  No.

                  The man keeps his cool because he knows that all that matters is the math. Numbers don't lie. Hillary lies. The media lies, but the numbers are on Obamas side and no amount of spinning can change that!

                  by donailin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:22:16 PM PDT

              •  I know we had crossovers in our precinct

                I heard them complaining when they came out of the polling station that "The Democrats are rigging the elections cuz they took all the Republicans off the ballot!

                They ASKED for a Democratic ballot...and did not realize exactly what doing that meant...they would not be able to vote for the local Republicans.

                I loved the irony.  Serves 'em right.

                (And I did NOT support the "HA HA let's have fun voting for Mittens in Michigan" scheme either.)

                by blue armadillo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:36:34 PM PDT

            •  Today I heard Jack McCaffrey on CNN

              say that Obama won Texas.

              by ybruti on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:10:47 PM PDT

          •  AND, wasn't it Hillary that said,

            this race is a delegate race? Hmmm...I guess she was for delegates before she was against them? What do you think Tom? Maybe you could explain that for us...

            by Methinks They Lie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM PDT

        •  It's the delegate count that decides this race

          Obama won more delegates in TX.  Therefore Obama won the TX primary.

          by middleagedhousewife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:16 PM PDT

          •  amazingly, the Clinton campaign *still* hasn't...

            ...figured out that winning the nomination means winning a majority of the convention delegates.

            by N in Seattle on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:12:46 PM PDT

            •  Oh, yes they have

              figured it out.

              by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:38:52 PM PDT

        •  Won the election, Tom.

          It's like asking who scored higher on the SAT, the guy with the higher Verbal score or the gal with the higher Math score?  In this case, Texas, it was the guy.

          by chicago jeff on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:25:02 PM PDT

          •  Not yet

            We won't know until June.

            by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:37:32 PM PDT

        •  TX and DNC made the rules

          Nominee picked with delegates last time I checked.

          Sorry if you had not heard that.

          Sorta like the Electoral Vote system, heard of that?

          by jhpdb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM PDT

        •  Since this is a race for delegates

          Obama won Texas. Incidentally, Obama won Nevada and it was a tie in New Hampshire and Missouri.

          by NMLib on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:19:18 PM PDT

        •  You're Being Deliberately Obtuse

          We all know that the goal is to win the most delegates. Simple, isn't it?

          by Mr X on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:48:48 PM PDT

        •  Obama won more delegates total

          by v2aggie2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:13:11 AM PDT

    •  Its real easy, the Texas Democratic Party did

      all the work.  Obama 98, Clinton 95.
      Its kinda like saying my baseball team got more hits, or my football team rushed for more yardage. Eh, the only stat that matters is the score.

      by Nailbanger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM PDT

      •  That's delegates.

        I said that Obama had the most delegates.

        But that's not so with the superdelagtes, is it?  The score may not be the most important issue.

        Who won the popular vote?  Isn't that the metric preferred by the Obama campaign overall?

        by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:51:55 PM PDT

        •  I don't think any of us know WHERE we stand...

          ...with the supers.

          What we do know is that Barack Obama won the two-step process. And no matter how you want to view that process. Hillary DID NOT.

          by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:06 PM PDT

          •  I never claimed

            she did.

            I want to know who won the popular vote.  Wining the delegate total is nice for Obama, but showing strength in the popular vote would even be better for him.  

            I could care less actually, but since the Clinton people left, it is such an echo chamber here that someone has to ask questions.  So I do it sometimes, just as I do on MyDD with the Clinton supporters.

            If I were a Clinton supporter, which I am not, I would argue that her victory in the pimary was more significant since so many more voted in the primary.

            If I were an Obama supporter, which I am not, I would argue that the combined vote between primary and caucus favord Obama (if the number supported it).  

            If I were an uncommitted superdelegate, which I am not, I might be slighly influenced by who won the popular vote.

            But since questions rarely are asked here anymore (instead many yell "yay Obama" and says he won already), more sophisticated arguments or discussions never happen.

            Yes, Obama won the most delegates.  But how do you who support Obama tranfer that into anything of value?

            by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM PDT

            •  It's hard to know how to answer you.

              Like or appreciate the rules or not, the Texas 2-Step is a 2-step process that awards the winning delegate total.

              I may be reading you wrong, but you seem to be placing more emphasis on the popular vote in the primary. I would question that, particularly this year, when we know that there were a significant number of Republicans who crossed party lines to vote for HRC on the belief that she'll be easier to beat in the general.

              No one has clear numbers on this, although I've seen estimates that have put it as high as 10 percent of the vote.

              I doubt that it's that high. But given that we know that there was some crossover vote for HRC, given that we know Rush Limbaugh campaigned hard here in one of his biggest audience pools, there was some impact.

              So, again, I ask, why is that measure any more valid than the caucuses? And why is the combination of both -- in which Obama took more delegates -- bad?

              by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:11:09 PM PDT

              •  I am not placing emphasis on

                any particular measure.  I understand the Texas Two step.

                I never said that the "combination of both -- in which Obama took more delegates -- [is] bad?"

                I just wondered.  

                As for Limbaugh and "cross over vote," that could be used to invalidate any popular vote by Clinton.  How do you know whether some Republicans voted for Obama becuase they thought he was weaker.  There seems to be no way to quantify either, so I think you have to just look at votes.  Nonetheless, i understand it is a pro-Obama argument.  

                Yes, Obama won the delegates by three through his dominance of the caucuses.  So what?

                If you could show he also won the popular vote, you'd have much more.  

                I think the answer remains that Clinton won the popular vote in Texas in the primary and Obama won the caucus.  Obama's strength in the caucus was sufficient to give him a three delagate lead overall.    

                Meanwhile, the media as moved on to Pennsylvania and Indiana.

                by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM PDT

                •  Potato, potahtoh.

                  Three-delegate lead is a win, as defined by the Texas election code. And being down by three is...well...a loss.

                  by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:21:26 PM PDT

                  •  I am not arguing that,

                    but I think it is irrelevant now for any real purpose.

                    The media moved on and Texas is ancient history now.  

                    But I agree you are logically correct.

                    by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:22:34 PM PDT

                    •  But Texas ISN'T ancient history...

                      ...when the Clinton camp keeps touting it as an example of her big-state strength. As they do. Daily.

                      Peace out, Tom. Still want that beer in Austin.

                      by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM PDT

                    •  irrelevant? We haven't picked a nominee yet!

                      it is a cute arguement

                      but a dumb one when it come to reality

                      Al Gore is not president

                      HRC did not win TX

                      by jhpdb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:15:56 PM PDT

                      •  exactly--Al Gore is not president

                        and Hillary did not win TExas.

                        this particular election is not decided by popular vote.

                        by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:42:06 PM PDT

                •  Gore won the popular vote Tom and

                  Global warming is ended

                  and there never was a

                  War in Iraq

                  by jhpdb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM PDT

            •  there is no popular vote

              it's a myth.  

              it's a delegate game, period.

              The popular vote is about as important as the average shoe size of caucusgoers.

              by VelvetElvis on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM PDT

              •  We can't even know what the total popular vote is

                because several caucus states don't even report it.

                They don't report it because it's only the delegates that count. If it were the popular vote that counted, states would not have caucuses. It would be all primaries, with no need to count delegates.

                Fortunately, Obama has a nearly insurmountable lead in the popular vote too, because he's won the most primaries.

                But that still doesn't matter, although it will have an impact on John Q. Public.

                by Fonsia on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:22:27 AM PDT

            •  TomP

              We won't know the final tally until June. Burnt Orange has done a great job analyzing it. They have endorsed Obama, but they do an excellent job of trying to keep balanced about all of it. BOR is quite good in case you haven't checked it out. It's entirely possible that the delegate numbers could change even though the higher up delegates go the more committed they become.

              She won the popular vote in Texas (and 4 more primary delegates than Obama), but not the overall "projected" delegate count (so far) from the conventions. Again, it won't be completely settled until June 6th.

              126 delegates were selected from the primary:
              Clinton won 65 delegates
              Obama won 61 delegates

              67 delegates are chosen from the conventions:
              So far, Clinton has 30
              So far, Obama has 37

              If projections hold, yes, Obama will win the overall delegate count, by 3 delegates:

              Clinton = 95
              Obama = 98

              Again and again, we won't know the final tally until the national delegates are selected in June.

              These numbers can change ~ just in case I haven't made that perfectly clear.

              Oh, and we shouldn't forget that Texas has a total of 228 National Delegates.

              So, the 193 "pledged" delegates will eventually be added to the the 35 "unpledged" superdelegates. to total 228. Many people seem reluctant to accept that these superdelegates will make all the difference in who actually ends up "winning" the state.

              But there's the "math" for you. Please go over to BOR if this isn't clear and ask the great readership to help.

              As Phillip Martin states on BOR:

              As we have stated before, the final caucus results won't be until the state convention on June 6, so these are not final numbers, but rather the current state of the race, should it end today. Obviously the Caucus numbers can and will change in the coming months -- but it's also fair to report where we are now.

              So, when they say the superdelegates will decide it, well, yes they can and definitely will. :-)

              by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:30:13 PM PDT

        •  The popular vote is important, but when we say

          Barak won Texas, the meaning has to be delegates, not including the supers.  In this context, it is the only number that has meaning.

          As far as the popular vote, it is one valid metric for supers to look at.  But if Hillary recieved every super in Texas, it still wouldn't be Hillary won Texas.  Otherwise, we would have to wait for some states, and re-evaluate every state to see who "won"

          by Nailbanger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM PDT

          •  It also means the activists who make phone calls

            knock on doors, give financial  support, and care enough to come out to caucus and to a convention, count more than the rethug crossover vote - who could have come to caucus too had they felt strongly enough

            by revgerry on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:36:40 PM PDT

          •  At present, the superdelegates...

            ... according to Politico, stand at:

            • 11 - Hillary
            • 10 - Obama
            • 11 - Undeclared

            So, at present, Obama has more combined delegates from Texas, too.  Worth mentioning that there's something like 70 add-on superdelegates (from the states, I think) that haven't even been named yet.

            by Land of Enchantment on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM PDT

        •  TeamHillary says the popular vote doesn't matter.

          Didn't you get the memo?

          by khereva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM PDT

          •  I do not receive memos

            from Team Hillary or Team Obama.

            Sorry.

            by TomP on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:06:22 PM PDT

        •  It's true that...

          Clinton has a lead in the number of superdelegates who have endorsed either candidate.  It is also true that Clinton won the primary, and therefore she has the highest popular vote number for Texas.

          I think both the delegate count and the popular vote are important.  I'm not sure why you think the popular vote is the preferred metric of the Obama campaign as both sides have agreed this is now a delegate hunt.  In any case, Clinton won the most votes during the primary.

          And technically, not even the delegate count is official yet as there is still the state convention to consider.  The delegate numbers for Obama out of Texas should be +3 or +5 over Clinton by the end.

          by BasharH on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:16:11 PM PDT

          •  It's always been a delegate hunt. That's how

            the nomination is decided. That's how the nomination has been decided for many decades.

            When you say

            both sides have agreed this is now a delegate hunt.

            you appear to miss the point. It's always been a delegate hunt. The candidates don't get to change the rules midstream by agreeing to something. The rules are the rules.

            by Fonsia on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:29:59 AM PDT

        •  the metric preferred by both candidates

          Is to win the democratic primary.

          To win the democratic primary they need to reach 2025 delegates. Delegates are what count. End of story.

          In a pure caucus state there are no popular votes but delegates from those states count as much at the national convention as any other delegate.

          by biscobosco on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:24:01 PM PDT

        •  Not really

          In fact, the Obama campaign has been pushing the pledged delegate number, as was the Clinton campaign until they realized that they couldn't win it.

          by NMLib on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:20:20 PM PDT

        •  Right, TomP

          in Texas, there are 35 Super Delegates.

          MATH:

          228 Total Texas Delegates

          193 Pledged Delegates (conventions and primary)
          + 35 Unpledged or "Super" Delegates =

          228 Total Texas Delegates.

          by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:47:45 PM PDT

        •  the HRC people are the only ones talking about

          popular vote.

          they can keep moving the goalposts all they want.

          it's delegates that count.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:40:50 PM PDT

    •  Delegates.

      That's what primaries provide.

      That's what she lost.

      That's what Obama won.

      Oh, and as to "how will we know," the thousands of bullshit complaints filed by Team Hillary in their failed attempt to disenfranchise Texans should have sorted that out.

      by khereva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:01:27 PM PDT

      •  Not yet

        It's not a done deal.

        by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM PDT

        •  Oh, I'm sure she and her operatives

          will do their best to try to steal the state convention, too. Difference is that the credentials committees, having gone through this crap once already, will be less likely to put up with it again.

          The delegate/alternate bit will be the bit to watch there.

          by khereva on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:26:40 AM PDT

          •  Oh, please.

            Enough already.

            by suswa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:26:33 PM PDT

    •  the details the details!

      well you see, Hillary did win the popular vote.  And yes, she did win the primary.  And the final count of the caucus will not get certified till the convention in June.  So yeah, poor dears, it's complicated.  And by the not-really-complete-story, it can be said, truthfully, that Hillary won... something.  But I have noticed a frustrating trend in the news media that they call it how they called it originally, until there is some 'final answer.'  Now Melody knows, having been there, and everyone in Texas knows, because they live there, that Obama edged her out of several delegates, and as Nancy Pelosi has stated repeatedly (and so has Howard Dean), it's the delegates that matter.

      But on primary night they had a number and they are going to stick to it until June, when Hillary's campaign gets beaten back into the 'lost Texas' column long after the news matters anymore.

      by louisev on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM PDT

    •  We don't count popular vote, Tom...because

      popular vote is irrelevant in Democratic primaries.

      You know this.

      by Elise on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:57:38 PM PDT

    •  Complicated? Gore won in 2000, right

      he won the popular vote

      Who cares about the electoral college, too complicated right?

      by jhpdb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:02:02 PM PDT

    •  Obama won, period.

      The Texas system is a two step process.  That's how it works.  That's what the process is.  There isn't "HRC won this and Obama that" only one or the other won.

      by Philoguy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:55:28 PM PDT

  •  Who won first?

    Absolutely.

    by Mogolori on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:49:14 PM PDT

  •  Melody, I think I can hear

    you from Oak Cliff all the way up here in Oak Lawn...LOL.

    He won.  We knew he would.  :)

    by Texas Blue Dot on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:50:47 PM PDT

    •  Sorry. But SERIOUSLY. They should cut this...

      ...shit out.

      by Melody Townsel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM PDT

      •  Peace and Beer Melody

        Obama won

        Tom P has been President Gore's chief number cruncher for the past eight years

        by jhpdb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:32:51 PM PDT

        •  Obama hasn't won

          yet. Drink and be merry. Go ahead.

          by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:53:43 PM PDT

          •  Obama won TX eom

            by jhpdb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:42:18 AM PDT

            •  Not yet

              And maybe not at all depending on the "super" delegates and what happens at the state convention.

              Sorry.

              by suswa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:28:14 PM PDT

      •  No need to be sorry... sing it! (n/t)

        by Texas Blue Dot on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM PDT

    •  People Are Hearing Melody in Oak Lawn, IL

      Sing it, Sister!

      Obama Won!  OBAMA WON!!!

      by Empower Ink on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:18:41 PM PDT

  •  Here's a tip

    to assauge your frustration, Melody. Yeah, I keep reading it too.

    by anastasia p on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM PDT

  •  CNN now shows Texas as a split.

    They are treating the Primaries and the Caucuses there as two separate contests.

    CNN's Democratic delegate calculator is where the split is seen.

    by Jimdotz on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:23:58 PM PDT

    •  Well, there is some logic there

      because the delegate allocation does happen from two separate pools.

      However, when all the delegates are put together.

      Obama WON Texas!

      by boadicea on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM PDT

      •  So far...

        Let's put the right spin on it.

        by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM PDT

    •  CNN's delegate calculator is also

      giving Michigan and Florida to Clinton if only by assigning her color- light blue- to both of those states.  That is disconcerting since Obama (nor Edwards et al.) did not campaign in those states.

      My husband is from Flint, Michigan and comes from a very large family with 5 aunts and uncles and 21 1st cousin's on his father's side and 12 aunts and uncles and 46 1st cousin's on his mother's side who are registered voters. We just heard this weekend that every flipping one of them is voting for Obama except my mother-in-law who wants Clinton.

      Now the hopeful thing here is that my mother-in-law and roughly 70% of her side of the family have ALWAYS voted Republican!!! Now truth be told, Genesee Co. MI usually goes to Democratics anyway (heavy UAW presence) but we consider this to be huge since most of my mother-in-laws  have always questioned my allegiance to the Democratic party. However, they are so disgusted with the Republicans that they have had it. I suppose the fact that Michigan is in an economic depression because of Bush policies has helped too.

      When my mother-in-law told me she was voting for HRC I did not question it because 1) I was shocked into silence and 2) I feel that at least she's come over to party...we'll take care of rest later.

      by ferallike on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM PDT

  •  I've been spreading that News

    for a different reason.

    LOOk Rush's Dittoheads Probably Tipped Texas Primary to Hillary

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:29:53 PM PDT

    •  Oh, why

      do we give this man so much credit for anything? Is there any actual polling or anything to validate this?

      Or just the spin that will even use "Rush" if it helps promote Obama.

      by suswa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:57:54 PM PDT

      •  We had his dittoheads voting in my precinct

        I had one couple come up and complain to my face that the Democrats were cheatin'. (They KNEW because the Republican candidates were all taken off the ballot!!!!  hahaha!)  I heard some others complaing along the same lines throughout the day as they went back to their cars.

        And we are NOT that heavy into Rush country in my precinct.  In areas where he is really popular I imagine the effect was greater.

        Obama, with hardly any campaigning here managed to close a double digit gap and win the delegate count and very nearly the popular vote. Without the Limbots - it may well have been his primary victory too.