BOR Exclusive: TX Presidential County Convention Results

Texas counties (3.00 / 1)

San Augustine, Moore and Edwards all went big for Clinton
in the primary, so this looks like a good result.

---

by: jpmassar @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM CDT

As an Obama supporter in Iowa (0.00 / 0)

It was very satisfying for us that day - because, as many know, we went into our Iowa County Conventions with national delegate estimates of 16 Obama, 15 Clinton and 14 Edwards. When the day was done, the new Iowa estimates were 25 Obama, 14 Clinton, 6 Edwards.

I am hopeful that will be a similar case in Texas.

---

by: Thatcher @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Iowa, where all has begun (0.00 / 0)

Thank You, Iowa!  

---

by: libero7 @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:04:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brazoria for Clinton? I think the numbers on the spreadsheet are incorrect. (0.00 / 0)

Can someone check this with BOR?

---

by: californiadreaming @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:08:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can someone look at Hutchinson again? (0.00 / 0)

It shows Clinton 3 Obama 1.  On election day it was Obama 75%, Clinton 25%.  Was just wondering if maybe it got put in the wrong column.

---

by: californiadreaming @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:31:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The March 4 "result" is only 11% (0.00 / 0)

reported for Hutchinson County. Most likely it from only one of the precinct conventions. If that is the case the 3-1 for Clinton from yesterday looks consistent when compared to other data from Hutchinson County.

---

by: Over the Edge @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:58:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Percent of votes in (0.00 / 0)

I'm keeping track of this anyway for my DKos open thread, but wouldn't it make sense to put a percentage into that empty cell in the table?

48 delegates is 0.63% of 7,649. To me, that's a percentage that's at least as important than the 1.06% directly to its right.

---

by: Rieux @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:01:50 PM CDT

Good call (0.00 / 0)

Will fix that w/ the next update.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:07:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why is this taking so long? (0.00 / 0)

It seems more than a little absurd that, the day after these conventions took place, fully 120 out of 284 conventions still have not tabulated and reported results.

Not to be rude, but...

What in the hell are these people doing?

Does the Texas Democratic Party not have a mechanism to force conventions to tabulate and publicly report their results in a timely manner?

This is looking like as much of a disaster as the version 1.0

 

---

by: horizonr @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 18:27:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Were you there? (0.00 / 0)

NOTHING has been done right.  My caucus lasted until after midnight, and I knew the convention would be worse, but I had no idea how bad.

They knew we had at least 2000 people coming to our location.  It takes about 2 minutes to check each person in.  Yet they only had 6 lists.  So rough math would tell us that it would take them 2000*2/6 = 666.66 minutes = about 11.5 hours to check people in.  Apparently they don't do math.  They started at 8:30AM and planed on finishing by 2PM.  They were finished checking people in around 6PM.  People who were in line at 8:30 were checked in around 1-1:30.  They also lost about 500 names so many of those people had to wait in another line to verify their identity.

Among tons of other business, they had 52 resolutions to vote on, 3 speakers for and against, each given 2 minutes.  Lets pretend there was zero over run time, zero confusion, zero transition and voting was infinitely fast.  That means resolutions would take 52*6 minutes = 312 minutes = 5 hours 12 minutes.  

They hadn't even started when I left around 7 something.  A friend of mine, who's convention was running faster than mine, stayed for the whole thing and didn't get home until 4AM.

---

by: skintigh @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:03:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

County Spreadsheet? (0.00 / 0)

Will there eventually be a spreadsheet of the final results in each County/SD, for mapmaking purposes?

Thanks so much, this is a wonderful service.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:05:37 PM CDT

Hopefully (0.00 / 0)

If we can get enough counties in...but yes, we're tracking county by county.  

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:07:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm in Iowa also...and closely watching this... (3.00 / 1)

Our Iowa County Convention was amazing, and I'm so excited for Texans as they go through their process today.  As an Obama supporter at the Iowa County Convention, I was thrilled to see many Hillary supporters express discontent with her "kitchen sink" approach, and her endorsement of McCain over Obama.   Since our Iowa County Convention--which was only a couple of weeks ago--Clinton has gone supernova with her attacks.  I really hope, for the good of our party, that Texans break for Obama.

Today will be a good day, because Texas will most likely be officially called for Obama today.  The primary results, combined with today's County Convention results will give us a total in Obama's favor.  

Furthermore, if the numbers show that Obama gained support in the past couple of weeks--and had a net gain of delegates (since the Texas caucus) like he did in Iowa--what a major coup.

This could be a major psychological win for Obama.  Hillary will feel the air coming out of the balloon, as it becomes apparent that she didn't win Texas after all.  Her over-the-top Texas/Ohio post-party will look a tad absurd.

Today will be interesting that's for sure.

---

by: Rovermom @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:07:49 PM CDT

Fort Bend County (0.00 / 0)

My husband is an Obama delegate for Fort Bend County.  He was supposed to be done at 12, but called me then saying it was going to take a couple hours longer because they were still signing people in. He sounded really excited.  In the primary, our county finished somewhere in the 60% (I think 63%)for Obama, and my precinct caucus finished 72% for Obama.  I am a Republican who supports Obama.  My husband is a die-hard Democrat.  I find it all very exciting.  I hope Texas does its best for Obama!

---

by: CLKTX @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:14:28 PM CDT

How can there be a shut out with At large Delegates??? (0.00 / 0)

With the at large delegates how is it possible for a shut out?  The credentialling committee is supposed to used the At large Applications to balance out the delegates to make them refelct the percentage total.  Hillary is going  to be shut out in my district so it is EAST for there to be a shut out if you only have one delegate or two delegates in your precinct and I on't know how many dems voted for Chris Bell in Webb county.  

---

by: oakhill @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:20:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shenanigans Happening in Texas? (0.00 / 0)

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield...  

---

by: eagleye @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:26:03 PM CDT

Whoa... (0.00 / 0)

Which conventions have just delivered for HRC?  Was this Webb?

---

by: mayan @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:32:07 PM CDT

Here is a list by County as they are coming in... (0.00 / 0)

http://precinctconventionresul...

---

by: CLKTX @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 13:56:59 PM CDT

Umm ... (2.00 / 1)

I think those are the March 4th results.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:01:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, that appears to be the incomplete precinct (0.00 / 0)

conventions results from March 4.

---

by: Over the Edge @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:01:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Results Convention by Convention (0.00 / 0)

We've got a spreadsheet up where you can follow along:

http://spreadsheets.google.com...

Sorry it took so long to get that up - as I wrote in the post, we'll try and update it every 30-45 minutes or so.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:17:07 PM CDT

Update from my husband at a Fort Bend Convention (2.50 / 2)

My husband just called to say Obama won 65% to 35% in his convention, but they are still electing at large delegates or something of the sort.

Interesting to note:  A Clinton supporter and head of the Clinton campaign in Fort Bend showed up to a convention that was NOT EVEN HER OWN to speak on behalf of Clinton.  The chairperson called her behavior inappropriate and had security escort her out.  

Sorry about the prior website.  An Obama person sent that to me and I passed it on without really studying it.

---

by: CLKTX @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:20:48 PM CDT

Is it just me, or does... (0.00 / 0)

Grayson county seem rather peculiar? Clinton was decisively winning that primary and caucus before, but now Obama has gotten a huge majority of delegates from there, does anyone know what happened?

---

by: dgm @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:45:02 PM CDT

Our original report was incorrect (3.00 / 1)

Obama did not carry Grayson. Clinton won 21-17

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:20:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the correction :)

---

by: dgm @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:33:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That would (0.00 / 0)

have definitely been a "shocker."

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:57:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bexar, Dallas, Harris, Tarrant (0.00 / 0)

Any idea when reports may be coming in for SDs in Bexar, Dallas, Harris and Tarrant Counties?

---

by: marc @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:56:59 PM CDT

Later... (0.00 / 0)

Harris just got done counting in one of their districts, and I heard there was some credentials issues in another.

As we said originally when we launched this...patience will be your friend.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:15:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't forget your tip jar! (0.00 / 0)

This is always a good time to help keep you guys writing

---

by: nugget @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:42:44 PM CDT

TexBlog PAC! (0.00 / 0)

http://www.texblogpac.org/?pag...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:53:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Erath County (0.00 / 0)

from a family member there it went 6-3 Clinton..In line with Caucus results from March 4th.

---

by: simba @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:56:13 PM CDT

Who has a family member in Erath County?I (0.00 / 0)

I live in Austin but I'm from Stephenville.

---

by: DyspepTex @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:06:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is me (0.00 / 0)

M family still lives there and I graduated High School in 1994.  

How about yourself?  Do you still have family there?

---

by: simba @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:32:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama Loses Delegates in District 23 (Dallas County) (0.00 / 0)

Precinct 3516 had 44 Obama delegates, but due to a credentialing challenge had to do a redo (Dallas Morning News, Gromer Jeffers, Jr. Trailblazer Blog).

District 23: How challenges change numbers

3:51 PM Sat, Mar 29, 2008

Gromer Jeffers Jr.

Dallas precinct 3516 caucused on March 4 and voted 44 delegates for Barack Obama and four delegates for Hillary Clinton.

On Saturday that district faced a challenge and had to hold another caucus. The new totals: 29 delegates for Barack Obama and four delegates for Hillary Clinton.

The Clinton people, perhaps mindful of the challenge, came back out. Obama lost delegates. [Emphasis added.]

That's quite a difference.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 16:16:29 PM CDT

Yeah, but... (0.00 / 0)

I mean, it is. But at the same time, you got to consider that he's lost 15 votes out of the several thousand that are coming out of District 23.

Shows the process works well. :)

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 16:22:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm... (0.00 / 0)

Maybe it does. If this one precinct changed by 15, I just wonder how many other precincts will have been challenged today.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 16:54:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Looks like Bowie is staying consistent with (0.00 / 0)

caucus results.

Guess those 62.8% of Bowie voters who picked Clinton had something else to do on election night.

---

by: RBH @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 16:33:07 PM CDT

Primary vote totals, Webb (0.00 / 0)

If you want to see the county by county primary vote totals to compare against today's delegate totals, go here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...

By the way, how did Webb county go 51-0 for Clinton today?  It went 77-21 in the primaries.  Is there some sort of supermajority rule?  No Obama delegates showed up?  Anyone have the story on Webb county?

---

by: yyoo @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 17:48:05 PM CDT

Threshold (0.00 / 0)

15% is needed to get any delegates. If a candidate has less than that, then they get zero.  Apparently there's a proposal in SD23 (Dallas) to waive that rule, since Clinton may not reach 15% there.

---

by: Byron LaMasters @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 17:55:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You guys are great!! (0.00 / 0)

Your tip jar needs to be at the TOP of the page

---

by: nugget @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 17:51:44 PM CDT

Some results from American-Statesman, DMN, Chron (0.00 / 0)

District/County/Clinton/Obama
SD11/Harris/43/46
SD9/Dallas/29/44
None/Williamson/44/84

Those results alone take it to 47-53 overall.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:09:35 PM CDT

Number crunching (0.00 / 0)

I get 35/52 in Dallas 8, thanks to favorable rounding.

(87 * 592) / 996 = 51.7108434

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:39:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's correct (0.00 / 0)

Not the 36/51

---

by: tamsterbath @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 23:46:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Raw data from SD10 (3.00 / 2)

I was on credentials in SD10 and calculated the delegate totals for our convention. Obama won in delegates elected at the precinct conventions, 65.5% - 34.5%. Exactly how that will play out in state delegates is hard to predict. There were many folks who left before the credentials report was finally read at 5:30.

BTW, I think there's a miniscandal brewing regarding the poor quality of delegate lists returned to us from Austin. The feeling was that if we tried to use their list, a riot might erupt -- the data was that poor. I worked continuously from 9:30 yesterday morning until 5:30 this afternoon, save for a five hour window to sleep last night, and the result was still chaos. It's disheartening.

---

by: chris @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:23:49 PM CDT

More number crunching (3.00 / 1)

That would be 204-108, but it's probably unwise to use that figure without knowing who stuck around.

Also am I reading some of these reports correctly, that if you were listed as a Clinton delegate on the lists, you have to caucus for Clinton??

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:49:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That second part is false (0.00 / 0)

Maybe a rumor circulated on the floor, but I can say that nobody on credentials was suggesting anything of the sort.

My guess is that the early departures would result in a net gain for Obama. Older delegates tended to vote Clinton, and those were the ones who didn't tolerate the long waits well.

---

by: chris @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:54:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Younger and less experienced people are the least patient. So, I guess that means I totally disagree. :)

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 19:13:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow, that's almost exactly how it turned out (0.00 / 0)

Precinct conventions: 65.5% - 34.5%

District convention: 66.6% - 33.3%

Out of all that mess, we actually ended up with a reasonable result. Thank $DEITY.

---

by: chris @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:54:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Allocation of national delegates (0.00 / 0)

Are the national delegates allocated all on a proportional statewide basis, or is there some other breakdown? Can we add a national delegate estimate to the table at the top?

2008 Democratic Convention Watch

---

by: mattdcw @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:34:10 PM CDT

We will later (0.00 / 0)

With so many counties out, we don't want to start re-doing that math. But basically, all it will be is 67 x the percentage each candidate has...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 19:06:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

that's what I was looking for

2008 Democratic Convention Watch

---

by: mattdcw @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:00:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So it looks like (0.00 / 0)

Obama is going to come out worse from the county conventions than he did from the caucus?

Or is this about which districts have reported and which haven't?

---

by: audiored @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:34:39 PM CDT

Lots of large districts/counties still out - n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Thatcher @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:50:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hard to tell (0.00 / 0)

More often than not Obama seems to be doing a few points worse than he did on Caucus night. Not sure how it will all shake out. Right now it would be a 34-33 split.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 19:01:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

At last, Travis Ct Results! (0.00 / 0)

link here

SD14/Travis/144/313
SD25/Travis/40/70

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:52:00 PM CDT

Hell YES!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

I love Travis county!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:55:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Harris 6 results (0.00 / 0)

SD06/Harris/80/46.

It might be 81-45 depending on the rounding.

link here

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:56:17 PM CDT

Harris 6 corrected (0.00 / 0)

I think you mean 80/66 or 81/65, since it's 146 total.

---

by: Tim Allen @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:25:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What he said n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:41:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bastrop County results (0.00 / 0)

Total delegates awarded SD 18: 32

Clinton: 13 37% of the available delegates.

Obama: 19 67% of the available delegates.

This includes the At large delegates.  The split from the caucus was 60/40 Obama so it worked out pretty close to how the math came from the caucus.

---

by: TXDem08 @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:06:14 PM CDT

Fort Bend (0.00 / 0)

The update has Obama winning SD17 in Fort Bend 44-20 but the spreadsheet shows it 44-20 for Clinton?

---

by: CellarDoor @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:45:26 PM CDT

Did Obama win Fort Bend SD 17? (0.00 / 0)

According to the update by Phillip, Obama won 44-20 but it is entered in the spreadsheet as Clinton 44 - Obama 20. Which is it?

---

by: Sopianae @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:46:04 PM CDT

It's fixed now. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Sopianae @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:05:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think (0.00 / 0)

SD 9 includes Denton. It's listed that way on the spreadsheet. :-)

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:51:40 PM CDT

SD 9 most certainly includes Denton (0.00 / 0)

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/...

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:05:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course (0.00 / 0)

You're correct. Sorry. I was thinking Dallas County when I looked down the list. I'd forgotten the very odd configuration. Thanks. :)  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:37:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hello (4.00 / 2)

Long time lurker.

First time poster.  

Displaced Texan.

Donated to the PAC.

Cheers!

---

by: aimeeinkc @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:01:36 PM CDT

And (3.00 / 1)

just linked the BlogPac in a DKos diary to challenge the folks to get to $1000.

You can do it!!

---

by: aimeeinkc @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:23:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Today (0.00 / 0)

We are at 16 donors at $740.01 raised. Y'all are incredible! I continue to be amazed by our community.  

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:26:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dallas 2 Results (0.00 / 0)

SD02/Dallas/30/80

link here

That takes it to 58.5-41.5, with Dallas 16, Dallas 23, Collin, Denton, Jefferson, Harris 4, Harris 6, Harris 7, and Fort Bend 13, left to report as far as urban districts. Harris 6 went 52-48 Clinton, but everything else was a solid win for Obama. He's probably looking at just under a 60-40 split with 55% the votes counted ... but almost ALL of his votes will have been counted at that point. Clinton would have to win the rest of the stat 60-40. If they split East Texas, he's almost certain to win unless he's not viable in all three of the big border counties (Hidalgo, Cameron, El Paso). Tough to tell what the final margin is without more rural results.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:04:05 PM CDT

Oh wow. (0.00 / 0)

I missed Tarrant County. That's another 500 Obama delegates. Clinton would have to win the rest of the state 66-32, and with some small counties awarding only two delegates, it may not happen.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:06:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What did Obama pull pct wise on eday at the caucuses? (0.00 / 0)

Whats the difference between now and then?

---

by: Morter Forker @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:28:35 PM CDT

March 4th estimates (0.00 / 0)

The March 4th estimates were 56.7% for Obama in the caucuses..

As of 100 conventions reporting, he is at 56.97%

---

by: Thatcher @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:34:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

SD-17, Harris County (3.00 / 2)

rolling large for Obama (looks like about 62, 63%, maybe more).

Chair, secretary, credentials committee dominated by Clinton supporters, tried to thwart, to no avail.

Matt Stiles posted an update:

http://blogs.chron.com/houston...

My precinct started at 20-11 Obama, picked up two more on the lack of turnout by Clinton folks, went onto the floor this morning 22-9 Obama.  Obama strong, organized, and efficient in this SD.

Scott Hochberg, out next Senator from SD-17 spoke earlier:

"I walked in," he said of the gymnasium. "I saw points of order from the back, and I thought I was in the Texas Legislature."

http://blogs.chron.com/houston...

Too exhausted to post any more tonight.

Don't let the Blue Dogs getcha down. Primary them.

---

by: PDiddie @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:32:04 PM CDT

I was at the "front mic" (0.00 / 0)

having to read straight from the TDP rules a number of times.

And, yes, I called it the "front mic". Scott would have been proud. :)

P.S. to the TDP: Any way you can make sure the folks running these conventions next time are very, very aware of TDP rules? I'm not talking about the Chair of the Convention (although that in itself would be a GREAT start), but also the Credentials and Nominations Chair?

And, have a real, live, trained Parliamentarian at each convention. Pretty please?

---

by: muse @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:12:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, WORD. (0.00 / 0)

"And, have a real, live, trained Parliamentarian at each convention. Pretty please?"

Can I second that? And call for a vote? ;)

---

by: TxVoodoo @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:25:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trail blazers blog has results from sd 23 and 16 in Dallas... (3.00 / 1)

http://trailblazersblog.dallas...

---

by: Morter Forker @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:32:19 PM CDT

Jeesh! (0.00 / 0)

Don't they know how to report over on Trail Blazers? Who cares about the percentage - it's the delegate count that matters!

---

by: Thatcher @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:36:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By the rules the delegate count should break down that way... (0.00 / 0)

the at larges are supposed to break so that the overall delegation mirrors the percentage.

---

by: Morter Forker @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 21:39:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

my precinct in sd17 (0.00 / 0)

there were 10 Clinton and 8 Obama present for the vote. somehow, the Obama won after Clinton's side nominated 2 people. Talk about a complete lack of strategy, though not that it matters cause the at large make the numbers work overall.

---

by: progrocks @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:07:14 PM CDT

Brazoria County seems way off from (0.00 / 0)

the original caucus results. Are you sure it's right?

---

by: laderrick @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:33:09 PM CDT

did... (0.00 / 0)

people change sign-ins. IN Wood County, we had two Clinton delegates switch to Obama, but Clinton still carried the day 7-4. The convention voted a motion to balance the delegation by percentage w/ the caucus results.  

Vince Leibowitz

---

by: Vince Leibowitz @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:45:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

let me clarify... (0.00 / 0)

I meant, did delegates change their minds or not show up? I didn't mean or imply there was funny business. I'm just SO tired. I just was wondering if people changed preferences or may be Obama's people did better GOTD (get out the delegates)?

Vince Leibowitz

---

by: Vince Leibowitz @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:46:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's possible, but it's not that small, and (0.00 / 0)

it would be really odd for THAT many delegates not to show.

---

by: laderrick @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:50:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We'll try to look into that (0.00 / 0)

It did have a surprisingly big change

---

by: David Mauro @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:52:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: laderrick @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:56:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Damn el paso knocked obama down 3 percentage points alone... (0.00 / 0)

fuck

---

by: Morter Forker @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:35:08 PM CDT

I love you too (0.00 / 0)

any questions about EP?

---

by: Pacific John @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:58:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What happened? (0.00 / 0)

Obama delegates not show up in El Paso?  Or were their credentials challenged?

---

by: yyoo @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 23:46:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You might not like my answer. (1.00 / 5)

We simply stopped the rampant attempts at caucus theft the BHO people tried. It was so bad, I have never even seen a Republican campaign stoop so low. I am certain that any honest Dem who saw what I saw would walk from the BHO campaign. It is absurd that the press has not looked at this.

...I typed a lengthy post, but truncated it down to this. The blogosphere is no longer an objective ally of the truth.

---

by: Pacific John @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:00:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm...what "press"? (0.00 / 0)

I rad the El PAso Times this morning. The caucus report was about on par with other reports around the state.

But before anyone could actually vote, several problems had to be resolved:
# The long lines at the entrance caused party officials to extend registration for an extra hour so delegates and alternates could check in.
# Several precincts had to re-caucus because they didn't do it properly March 4.
# Every voter who registered as a delegate or alternate first had to be certified as eligible, a process that took longer than expected.

STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA!
STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

---

by: MT in Austin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:58:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The press has failed to investigate (1.00 / 3)

the dozens of cases of attempted fraud I helped investigate.

I'll relate one example of many. I was an area captain, and at-large coordinator for many of El Paso's precincts. Few people had a better overview than I did.

In one of my precincts, BHO people seized control of the majority-Hispanic pro-HRC precinct convention, and did not hold a legal election of officers. They ordered my precinct captain, an older Hispanic woman, to sit in a corner while they fabricated and called in more BHO delegates than the total number allowed for the precinct. (Hey reporters, this is in the public record. Please do your job). My own attempts at cell phone diplomacy failed, and these criminals even refused to talk to the admirable BHO organizer I was paired with that evening.

There were a number of ethical BHO organizers on the ground, like the one I was paired with, but our records suggest that about 20% of all BHO organizers were casually willing to break the law. Some, like the above, seem to me to belong in jail.

Like I said, I have never even seen this kind of behavior from Republicans.

---

by: Pacific John @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:04:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's a rather hefty charge (3.00 / 1)

if you have a shred of credibility, you'd name names and publish things publically... otherwise you're chatter on the internet...

PS: in senate district 13 in Harris County on Primary Day, the election judge of precinct 30 was seen paying voters openly to vote for Clinton (crackheads etc), threatened to send the Obama election attorney to jail, and faked the primary as much as he could.  

Then when the Senate District 13 convention convened yesterday, there was found to be shenanigans on the credentials committee as two "obama" supporters turned out to be fake and were infact publically clinton, leading to an unfairly unbalanced credentials committee that then attempted to disqualify 100's of Obama delegates from SD13 (where hillary made threshold with 16.1% barely.   These types of activites are done by supporters with public responsibility.

What you're talking about sounds to be a rogue overzealous supporter...  your charge that the organizers are willing to do illegal activities amounts to public slander and if you'd like to give me a list of names with proof, with your name, then we can discuss law suits....

Otherwise John, Shut your fucking Pie Hole. Fucked up shit happens on both sides, and your cowardice to voice this on a blog is typical...  but you cross the line when you implicate the official campaign.

---

by: kubla000 @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would be happy to review this (0.00 / 0)

with reporters. As I said, this allegation can already be found in the records.

But thanks for the advice.

---

by: Pacific John @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BTW (0.00 / 0)

one of those "precincts [that] had to re-caucus because they didn't do it properly March 4," was the one I just mentioned. Funny how the press can make fraud sound so innocuous.

---

by: Pacific John @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dallas... (5.00 / 1)

I just saw on television a live report form a Dallas SD convention that said they expect it to go on until midnight. Of course, the reporter failed to say which one it was. Any ideas?

Thanks, Phil, for reporting the Wood County results I sent in. I was Credentials Chair in WC and believe me, I've got stories to tell. Needless to say, it was a long day (2 p.m. until 9 p.m., people got there at 1, I was at a Clinton delegate reception at 11) but it was a wonderful time.

It was a wonderful exercise in democracy, and our county chair, Dr. Charles Thompson, our entire Credentials, Rules and Resolutions Committee, and our permanent secretary, Sarah Bailey King, all get major props for good work.

I was at the podium much of the convention as a lot of questions were referred to me, so I'm pretty hoarse right now.  

Vince Leibowitz

---

by: Vince Leibowitz @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 22:44:04 PM CDT

Probably SD 23 (0.00 / 0)

Southern Dallas County, Royce West's district.  Sounds like it was really chaotic down there.

---

by: tejassaluki @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:23:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Any idea (0.00 / 0)

...whether Texas officials will call it a night at some point and go to bed, or will they (and we) keep updating until 2, 3, 4, 5 a.m. Central?

---

by: Rieux @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 23:14:36 PM CDT

Check those Harris SD15 numbers... (0.00 / 0)

...I could have sworn the final tally when it was over was 158 Obama, 59 Hillary.  Then again, Ken Yarborough just wanted to leave at that point, so who knows.

---

by: Michael Redding @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 23:39:45 PM CDT

We'll check everything tomorrow... (0.00 / 0)

Pretty sure we got those right, as we've been double-checking. But some of the larger counties have "at-large" adjustments that weren't reported until long after most folks met.

We're going to call County Chairs tomorrow to verify, just to double-check. That's why we haven't projected anything yet (as we promised -- just reporting tonight).

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 23:42:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

...I was there for that final adjustment.  And that's the final count we all voted on (unless the "real" final adjustments were being made after the end of the convention for old time's sake.)

See ya in Austin (hopefully you can escape Yankeeland for the hooplah this summer).

---

by: Michael Redding @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 00:17:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No more spreadsheet updates? (0.00 / 0)

Is is just the blog not being updated, or is the spreadsheet frozen for the night also?

2008 Democratic Convention Watch

---

by: mattdcw @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 00:16:17 AM CDT

The spreadsheet as well (0.00 / 0)

If I'm around for a little longer, I might update the sheet (but not the front page of BOR).  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 00:26:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

SD 13 (0.00 / 0)

I guess you guys didn't have anyone in SD13 in Houston, because your copy had basically no reaction to Obama's biggest win.  Your spreadsheet shows Obama got 256 of its 341 delegates (2d highest total delegates after Travis County). That's 80% Obama. This is a good site but you guys are a little Travis-centric.  Did you know the 'Horns are playing in Houston today?  

---

by: JTK in Houston @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:46:13 AM CDT

WAY TO GO SD13!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

Congrats on the great victory for Obama!!!!!!

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:42:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

We actually mentioned the large win when we reported it -- read through our entire site. We aren't "spinning" anything, just reporting.

And yes, I grew up in Austin, TX all my life -- and here's hoping the Houston crowd helps send my team to San Antonio!

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (5.00 / 1)

Awesome job people; from someone on the other side of the Atlantic, I'm immensely grateful for all your efforts, and just wish I could donate to your PAC (am not a citizen).

---

by: redrose @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:01:46 AM CDT

Couple of updates I found (3.00 / 1)

So diggin around this morning I found a couple of more county results.

via the BarackObama web site...
http://my.barackobama.com/page...
I found in the comments that:

Harris 7 = 119-70 (53 were at large delegates for Clinton)
Tarrant 10 = 66% Obama (should be about 208-104 Obama)

---

by: JoshPhillips @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM CDT

Sunday - That means Clinton would need.. (0.00 / 0)

Almost 82% of the remaining delegates just to erase the Obama lead! I guess the "Operation Chaos" voters did not bother to caucus.

STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA!
STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

---

by: MT in Austin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:33:39 AM CDT

Early Morning bad math! (0.00 / 0)

It was actually 77% of remaining delegates. Either way, It is look really good for Obama.

STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA!
STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

---

by: MT in Austin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but.... (0.00 / 0)

She only needs to improve her results by a tiny fraction (0.46%) in order to reduce Obama's take from the Texas caucuses from +9 net pledged delegates to +7. That looks entirely possible.

---

by: Rieux @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I registered for an account here (3.00 / 1)

just so I could say thank you for what you're doing.  This has been a fantastic effort, and one that puts the traditional media to shame.  As a Michigander and currently disenfranchised voter, I'm enjoying living vicariously through all of you.  Keep up the good work!

poe
Check out my protest blog.

---

by: poe @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM CDT

Remember this when you for for state reps (3.00 / 1)

Michigan and Florida voters need to keep this year's primary in mind when they vote for their state offices in the future. State reps were told in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be and they chose to move their primaries anyway.

I know what running a red light gets me -- a big fine, higher insurance rates and possibly an accident. I don't run a clearly red light then complain about the consequences.

STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA!
STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

---

by: MT in Austin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

question (0.00 / 0)

I know what running a red light gets me -- a big fine, higher insurance rates and possibly an accident. I don't run a clearly red light then complain about the consequences.

No one is sympathizing with the DNC. They're sympathizing with the voters. The voters have every right to complain. They were done a huge disservice.

What about when the cop runs the red light?

What happens when 'the power' causes fines and insurance cost to double?

Should 'the people' pay that cost? That is essentially what is happening to the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan.  

---

by: Pat C. @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with MT (0.00 / 0)

FL and MI should demand a recall of their state legislatures and Governors for the disservice done on their behalf. Both states should call for the removal of their State Democratic Party Leadership.

Look - I am sympathetic with the voters. But it was reported all year long in 2007 what was going on in those 2 states by their states' media. To say they didn't know the consequences going in, means they were watching too much American Idol and Wheel of Fortune, and not enough of their local news.

By the rules, they should not be seated. However, I would say that in the spirit of Democracy, they will - it just won't be by the results of the illegitimate primaries in those two states.  

---

by: Thatcher @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:50:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

confused (3.00 / 1)

How could the voters have stopped the Democratic party from pushing up their primaries?

Do I understand your position correctly?

Are you blaming the voters for not paying enough attention to the media?....then not blaming them for not taking action for stopping them?  

---

by: Pat C. @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:53:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

close (0.00 / 0)

What I am saying:

Where were the outcries to the state Parties from the voters last year when they were told that their votes wouldn't count because of the state Parties' decisions?

I'm put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the state parties ... they could have figured out a solution to this in 2007. They did not.

However, like I said - where was the outrage BEFORE the primaries? All of this rage and protest after the primary - as if they weren't all informed many times in 2007 that this was going to happen.

---

by: Thatcher @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

understood (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you, the blame falls flat in the lap of the state parties. I disagree with anyone that feels the voters should bare a part of this responsibility.  

---

by: Pat C. @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:15:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

np (0.00 / 0)

I can appreciate your view. And again, I sympathize with the situation the voters are in, but I think their anger is directed at the wrong people.

---

by: Thatcher @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:19:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree that the voters got hosed.... (0.00 / 0)

I agree the voters got the fuzzy end of the lollipop in all of this. They have their state legislatures to blame. That is who they need to hold accountable.

I also believe that, if all candidates were campaigning in Florida and Michigan (or at least all on the ballot, in the case of Michigan), the outcomes would have been different.

HRC is claiming victory in Michigan when no other major candidate was on the ballot. What's more, 40% of the voters in the Democratic primary voted uncommitted. Basically, knowing their vote didn't count, 40% of the voters came out to vote "not HRC". That means "none of the above" did quite well against a well-known Senator and former first lady.

STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA!
STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

---

by: MT in Austin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:45:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Believe me (2.00 / 1)

There was plenty of outcry.  Our party elders were determined to thwart the process at our expense.  After 2004, the DNC held meetings about which states to move up, and MI was rightly in the mix.  Ultimately they voted for NV and SC.  We lost that one, but Carl Levin and else everyone had a fair hearing.  I know because I watched it on C-Span.  ~: )  

I absolutely do not hold the DNC responsible for this mess, but our state party and those who pushed relentlessly for this thing.  The irony is, if they would have left it alone, we would have had a substantial impact in the primaries.  

What pisses me off the most about all this, and there's a lot, is that HRC is going around claiming victory here when she was essentially the only one on the ballot, and everbody lets her get away with it.      

poe
Check out my protest blog.

---

by: poe @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:31:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ME TOO! (3.00 / 1)

I just created this account after seeing your reply about giving THANKS...so...

Philip and the rest of the community helping out....A BIG THANK YOU for this INCREDIBLE effort!!  And to think that, this was all done for free and with all those fast-paced updates all through the night...AMAZING!

I noticed a ton of sites linking to Burnt Orange and a TON of Democratic Underground folks watching this space religiously...hope we didn't pollute your server too much :D

Thanks once again everyone....
Power to the People

---

by: quantass @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll join in and thanking the BOR crew (4.00 / 2)

This was the best site of information, that all the major sites were linking too.  

Congratulations to the BOR and thank you for all your incredible hard work!

---

by: sonia @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:14:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cameron County (3.00 / 1)

I have just been introduced to the Burnt Orange Report and have three initial comments.  First, it's nice to find another gathering place for yellow dogs (I guess it is fashionable to refer to ourselves as progressives).  Second, I am impressed with the rapid reporting of the convention results so far (keep it up).  Third, Hook 'em Horns (you are excused if you don't update convention results again until after the Texas-Memphis game today).

I sent in some corrected results from Cameron County late last night -- the posted results on the spreadsheet are slightly off.  The final results from the convention after the at-large selections were 54 Clinton delegates (all from the precinct and grouping caucuses) and 26 Obama delegates (4 from the caucuses and 22 from the at-large selections by the nominations committee). The convention split (based on sign-in sheets and credentials committee report) was 63% for Clinton, 31% for Obama, and 6% uncommitted.

---

by: ChagoFuentes @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM CDT

Something wrong with the spreadsheet? (0.00 / 0)

The last couple of updates have miscalculated the delegate percentages. In Sunday morning's first update, 6,242 ÷ 7,649 is 81.61%, not 81.42%. Is there something wrong on your spreadsheet? Or some other kind of typo?

---

by: Rieux @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM CDT

I should add (3.00 / 1)

That I made a huge number of typos on my DKos thread trying to follow along with, and analyze, your results.

Thanks, Burnt Orange Report!

---

by: Rieux @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leon numbers? (0.00 / 0)

The Leon results are not very consistent with the March 4 results, in fact they are reversed.  Is this the actual result, or possibly a typo?

---

by: Dee @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is how (0.00 / 0)

the County Chair has reported it. There still could have been a mistake, however.

---

by: David Mauro @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:34:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reporting in from Austin County (0.00 / 0)

Our convention ran as smooth as silk!

We are sending 6 Delegates for Senator Obama and 2 Delegates for Senator Clinton to the State Convention.

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: liberaldemdave @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:23:32 PM CDT

What's up with Dimmit county? (2.00 / 1)

According to the spreadsheet, Dimmit county has 5 state delegates. But the results show 1 delegate for Clinton and 0 delegate for Obama. What happened to the other 4 delegates?

---

by: Sopianae @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:33:48 PM CDT

Good call (0.00 / 0)

Don't know. Took it off.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:05:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand the comment in the diary "at least 4% of the remaining delegates coming from the "state Superdelegates."

if there are 250 or so outstanding superdelegates, and there are about 1000 total delegates remaining, it seems the superdelegates are about 25% of the total remaining delegates. Do I understand this correctly?

2008 Democratic Convention Watch

---

by: mattdcw @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:38:32 PM CDT

I think it's from the grand total (0.00 / 0)

of: 7649...not of the remaining 1000 or so.

---

by: valadon @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:19:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Superdelegates are not pledged delegate (0.00 / 0)

I hope they are not adding superdelegates to the raw total used on your front page because by definition they are not pledged delegates.

Otherwise it will comparing apples and oranges.

---

by: Sniper fire in Tuzla @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:41:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is what I took this to mean (0.00 / 0)

We're now at 86% of delegates in, with at least 4% of the remaining delegates coming from the "state Superdelegates." The remaining 124 county conventions will only account for 10% of the delegates -- and Collin County, which convened today, will be a significant portion of that. Time to start analyzing the results...

---

by: valadon @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:49:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spreadsheet woes? (0.00 / 0)

Um ... the spreadsheet says the total number of delegates counted has gone down somehow. And it doesn't match the front page. Yet, all the big districts have reported. What gives?

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:09:52 PM CDT

What Happened? (0.00 / 0)

What happened to the spreadsheet? It shows that each of them lost close to 600 each.

---

by: SD_DAVE @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:19:47 PM CDT

THANKS (0.00 / 0)

Thanks guys for fixing the spreadsheet... :)

---

by: SD_DAVE @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:22:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two many delegates shown (0.00 / 0)

Denton and Hardin both show one more delegate between the candidates than they have total in the state delegates column.  Any idea what the right numbers are?

---

by: ewiley28 @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:35:20 PM CDT

The State is Probably Wrong (0.00 / 0)

For Denton County, almost every precinct was miscalculated for the precinct convention because of redistricting.  Our precincts were all redrawn and renumbered.

For example, I calculated 31 delegates to county for my precinct.  That was what was on the envelope, too.  But the state had us at 20 because it did not account for the combining of 427 with 404.

---

by: Aimlessness @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

WHAT MONTH AND YEAR WILL THIS END? (0.00 / 0)

WHAT IS THE EXACT DATE for the D's to know how many points each candidate got?

I went to the caucus weeks ago.

Feels like it is taking forever.

---

by: salsal @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 17:04:00 PM CDT

The state convention in June (0.00 / 0)

June 6th the final sign in will commence to allocate the 67 Texas Caucus delegates.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 18:00:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great Work! (0.00 / 0)

I really enjoyed watching all the county results come in last night and today.  I also used this site to check out the vote on primary/caucus night back on the 4th.  

Are you all going to track the state convention results in real time?

---

by: MikeNT @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 19:08:59 PM CDT

Hopefully (4.00 / 2)

That may be trickier, but we'll figure out a way to make that work.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 19:23:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Collin County here... (3.00 / 2)

We have started the convention but we've been waiting hours for the tabulation of the percentages for at-large delegates.  Still waiting.

We are watching a really good Republican movie about how they think and how we should react/teach to them.

We have only got as far as reading the rules.  I'll report back as soon as we get to some significant step.

Denise

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 20:41:42 PM CDT

Great (0.00 / 0)

Feel free to e-mail us directly any updates, in case we miss them in the comments.

results@burntorangereport.com

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 20:53:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Will do... (0.00 / 0)

Still watching Republican films ;-)

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 20:57:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what is taking so long (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand something..a friend of mine is in colin County and at the convention and has been there since 11.  I understand that democracy takes time and you need to give, but he has been sitting around since 3 or 4 doing nothing.  They are not telling him anything and it seems like a big waste of time.

What is going on and why so long.

---

by: simba @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 21:30:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was thinking the same thing (0.00 / 0)

I was actually thinking how much it would suck to have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) right about now for them. Could you imagine? I don't have ADD but I think after that long of an experience I would probably have it afterwards. I know for sure it would discourage me from taking part in the process the next time around. I think it would actually drive me out of the state....All I can say is thank gawd I don't live in Texas. That isn't meant to be offensive to you Texans, I just can't believe that what seems like should be a few hour process that takes 8+ hours to do is a little....er a lot ridiculous.

---

by: SD_DAVE @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 21:38:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We were told by the Texas Democratic Convention people... (0.00 / 0)

that we are one of the best conventions and here we still sit.

It is terrible and can't go on.  I hope everyone stays just to vote for the resolution to get rid of the darn caucus and conventions.  There has to be a better way to do this.

www.nas.org is one answer although I would rather not have geographical areas.  I would like a toss in the hat and 5 states get pulled, and so on.  That way every election we'd have different states going first.

A work in progress and people really need to start working on it.

Okay, they have just called all delegates back into the convention.  Maybe we'll start working.

I'll let everyone know.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 21:55:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

Good Luck!!!!!!!11

---

by: SD_DAVE @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:27:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

please explain (0.00 / 0)

how is states like Iowa and other that have caucus it is not like this. I mean they start at 5 PM and are done in time for the nation to know.

Why is Texas so long?

Just looking for answers.

---

by: simba @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:16:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We have more people n/t (0.00 / 0)

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:20:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe because... (0.00 / 0)

The population of the entire state of Iowa could fit in Harris County (Houston).

We go by county which means a lot larger population.

Collin County: 698,851
Texas: 23,507,783

Dallas County: 2,345,815
Harris County: 3,886,207 (Houston)

Population of Iowa 2005:  2,862,541

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:26:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great points (0.00 / 0)

I am tired tonight and that is the very obvious and right answer.  makes sense.

Just frustrated...and I am sure the one there are even more frustrated.

---

by: simba @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:39:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Population, for one thing... (0.00 / 0)

Iowa has a population of about 3 million. Texas is in the neighborhood of 24 million.

My local precinct caucus had well over 600 people (probably closer to 1000), sending 69 delegates to the county convention. My county had about 7 THOUSAND delegates from precinct caucuses.

---

by: laderrick @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:30:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Minor Analysis of Results (0.00 / 0)

I thought I'd share some numbers regarding the partial results, and some projections based on the partial March 4 precinct results:

In counties that have reported, actual results show the following total change from projections based on March 4 reported results:
 Obama +75,  Clinton -22, Uncommitted +3

Note the change is net positive, because some counties did not report any March 4 results, and my projections for those counties were zeroes.  Not counting those zero projections, the changes are"
 Obama +56,  Clinton -62, Uncommitted +3

If I add my projections from March 4 numbers for counties that have not reported to the county convention numbers that have been reported, I get:
 Obama 3985, Clinton 3203, Uncommitted 3  (without superdeleagtes)

This does not include any results for 43 counties that have not reported any results from either precinct or county conventions.   Those counties have 113 total state delegates.  They are all small; the largest is 16 delegates.  They would seem likely to be predominantly Clinton territory.

This is based on the county results available here around 7:20 CDT.

---

by: colorado_bob @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 20:44:57 PM CDT

Results (0.00 / 0)

This is based on the 9:00 pm Sunday posting:

If Clinton won all of the remaining delegates (which, let's say, is highly unlikely) she would win 51.35% of the delegates.  Though this may overstate the obvious Obama is assured of winning the the highest numbers of delegates in Texas.

I appreciate the analysis from Colorado Bob and look forward to seeing more in the upcoming days (or whenever all are the results are in, whichever comes first).  

---

by: atticus22 @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 21:45:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tentative National Convention Numbers (0.00 / 0)

Based on current results (which match the incomplete results from the precinct caucuses), Obama would get 24 of the 42 at-large delegates and 14 of the 25 PLEOs (for a total of 38-29 from the convention portion of the delegation).

Assuming worse case scenario for Obama (only 120 from Collins, Guadulupe and Hunt Counties, none from the remaining counties, and only 100 of the 280 undeclared superdelegates), Obama would have 3949 delegates at the State Convention.  That number would give him 22 of the at-large delegates and 13 of the PLEO for a total margin of 35-32.  

Assuming worst case scenario for Clinton (Obama getting 150 from Collins, Guadulupe, and Hunt Counties, 80 from the remaining counties, and 200 from the undeclared super delegates), the extra 180 delegates would only give him 1 extra at-large delegate and one extra PLEO.

---

by: tmess2 @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:28:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hardin And Denton SD 9 Wrong (0.00 / 0)

Hardin and Denton's totals don't add up.

The Clinton + Obama total in each county is 1 greater than the listed total.
20 + 42 doesn't equal 61
9 + 4 doesn't equal 12
One of the three numbers in each line needs to be fixed (not sure if it's the candidate numbers or the total).

Thanks for all the hard work!

---

by: greentexas @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 20:56:52 PM CDT

we're aware of this (0.00 / 0)

There are a couple that are over and about 4 that are under but all are off by no more than 2 delegates and taken together, mostly a wash. We're looking for people in those counties to reconfirm the exact numbers.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:44:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

37-30 delegates from caucuses, Obama up 3 in Texas (0.00 / 0)

With these percentages, Hillary has 29.8 delegates, and Obama 37.2.  Assuming these percentages hold, that'll mean 37-30 delegates and a 7 delegate.  This means Obama won Texas!

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:47:46 PM CDT

Final Delegate count (0.00 / 0)

With the Collin county results counted, Obama's right 37.43. I don't think there are enough outstanding votes in East Texas where he's going to win by more than 55-45 to offset West and South Texas. So it's almost certainly 37-30 if everyone shows up to the state convention. To get to 37-31, Clinton would have to win the remaining counties 55-45. So, 37-30 it is.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:50:08 PM CDT

Is Collin County in? nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: laderrick @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:56:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have given prelimaries... (0.00 / 0)

We are doing the caucus RIGHT NOW!!!

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:41:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

And how long has everyone been there? I would be pissed if I was there.

---

by: SD_DAVE @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 00:05:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It looks like... (0.00 / 0)

The final tally won't be in until later in the morning.  I am staying until the end but the last count was possibly 5 more hours.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:32:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OMG (0.00 / 0)

HOLY SH*T! What a discouraging process.  Thank you for hangin' in there.

---

by: SD_DAVE @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, we sent the final report at 7:10am this morning... (0.00 / 0)

did we get the prize for longest ;-)

or most screwed up!

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 22:40:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To change (3.00 / 1)

To get the margin to 38-29, Obama would have to bring his percentage to 56.7164% of the vote, or 4348 delegates for him, which would require he get 59.4% of the remaining delegates

For it to go to 36-31, Clinton would have to bring the margin to 47.0149%, or 3605 delegates for her, which would require she get 65.3% of the remaining delegates.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 22:59:00 PM CDT

Changing delegate counts. (0.00 / 0)

You need to remember that there are two sets of delegates being elected at the state convention -- 25 PLEOs and 42 at-larges. The numbers need to be run separately for each set of delegates.

E.g.:

50.001% gets you 13 PLEOs and 21 at-large.

51.2% gets you 13 PLEOS and 22 at-large.

53.6% gets you 13 PLEOs and 23 at-large.

54.001% gets you 14 PLEOs and 23 at-large.

56.0% gets you 14 PLEOs and 24 at-large.

58.001% gets you 15 PLEOs and 24 at-large.

58.4% gets you 15 PLEOs and 25 at-large.

---

by: tmess2 @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:34:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why do these take so long? Can we change it? (3.00 / 2)

First, know I support caucuses.  But the Rules require a lot of things that could be streamlined.   Also, every county does their credentialing diffently which can cause a LOT of bizarre results and organizational chaos if not done correctly.

The best analogy I've come up with is that the Rules make this like a baseball game.

You can't do inning two without completing inning one.
You can't do inning seven without completing inning seven.

There is no way to know if the first inning will go seemless and fast, or it will meltdown and take forever.
Three pop flies, and you're over.  Ten walks and you're there forever.

Much of this could be done in a simpler way if we think ahead for 2010 and 2012.   The State Party could build registration systems online that all the counties could use...and ticketing systems to verify entrance.  Just my off the top of my head idea, for one.  This was my 19th County Convention, so I've seen it all.   And I also can predict a convention train wreck before it's derailing.   Leaving these complex things to the last minute and volunteers (I love them) making up organization systems on the fly is ludicrous.

We should just create a system that works, give access to all counties to use it, and we'd not only have better conventions, but we wouldn't be reduntantly entering data over and over and over (as I sit here volunteering and typing up the Travis County State delegation).

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:04:01 PM CDT

I would think.... (0.00 / 0)

I would think credentialing could somehow be done ahead of time.

Why not have the caucus system signin done on a computer so the results can be gathered more efficiently? Do it much the same way we vote in TX. Check in, sign in, then caucus electronically. Then have the program determine number of delegates, alternates, etc.  

STIMULUS CHECKS FOR OBAMA!
STIMULATE OUR FUTURE!

---

by: MT in Austin @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:23:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

YES! (0.00 / 0)

You'd think in the computer age, and that we use thumb prints at license registration that something could be done to speed things up and verify.

We've been talking about it all night but it will be a long process to fix.

---

by: SemperFiWM @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:37:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good work (0.00 / 0)

Take the rest of the night off!

---

by: JC @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:48:33 PM CDT

Wow (0.00 / 0)

This has turned out to be a real nail bitter.  The delegate split could be either 38-29 or 37-30.

Do all the the state super delegates have to indicate who they support by a certain date?  Or are they free to change their minds up until the state convention?  Kind of like the national super delegates.  Because it looks like the 276 remaining state super delegates who haven't committed to either candidate yet, according to the spread sheet, could end up being the deciding factor on whether we see a 38-29 split or a 37-30 split.

---

by: MikeNT @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM CDT

Everybody is free to change, (0.00 / 0)

not just the state superdelegates. The results of the last 10 primaries and how the candidates behave will influence a lot of state superdelegates, and a few currently pledged delegates, too.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 14:53:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's more bizarre than that (0.00 / 0)

Remember, ALL of these delegates could change their vote at the state convention. There is nothing binding them and indeed a number of Clinton delegates switched sides at the Travis County convention Saturday. Not a ton, but there were a few. All of the 'pledged' 7000+ delegates to state can vote again for whomever when they sign in on June 6th. Same thing with the "state supers".

Now, the difference between the two is that the pledged folks actually are activists and much less likely to switch at this level because these are the die hards. The "state supers" (county chairs, SDEC, & DNC) are totally opposite and in many cases stay completely neutral because of their official positions and having to heal rifts in their own counties. They are basically just extra votes (and were made automatic because they would otherwise take up that may seats away from average folks because they would all want to run for delegate to the state convention anyways and would likely win).  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 14:57:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Results that look highly suspicious: (0.00 / 0)

Limestone, Guadalupe, Hutchinson, Falls, and Cherokee results look very suspicious to me.  Obama had massive leads in those counties' caucuses on election night.  Any chance the numbers were transposed or something?

---

by: californiadreaming @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:33:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good call (0.00 / 0)

Some of those were backwards. Fixing now...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:53:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was wondering why the counts changed internally (0.00 / 0)

That would explain it. Thanks!

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 16:02:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Numbers (0.00 / 0)

Some numbers:

4: The number of delegates Senator Obama trails Senator Clinton by after she took a 65-61 from the March 4 Texas primary.
36: The number of delegates (out of 67) Obama needs from the precinct/county/state convention to leave Texas with more delegates. 61 + 36 > 65 + (67-36)
52.99%: The percentage of state delegates Obama needs to get those 36 delegates with rounding. 35.5001/67 = 52.99%
4059: The number of state delegates (out of 7660) Obama needs in order to achieve this percentage. 7660x52.99% = 4059
3959: The number of state delegates Obama currently has from county conventions as of 8 p.m., March 31
100: The number of state delegates Obama currently Obama lacks to reach this number as of 8 p.m., March 31
206: The number of state delegates still available from county conventions
70: The number of those 206 Obama is likely to receive based on how he's done in other counties of similar size. Of the 60 smallest counties that have reported so far, Senator Obama has received about 32% of the delegates. 206x32% = 70

The conclusion?

It is very likely that the winner of Texas will be decided by...

...

...the state super delegates! :)

---

by: b0mbrman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 21:48:23 PM CDT

Re:Numbers (3.00 / 1)

While your bottom line is close to being correct, you are making the mistake of using 67 as the multiplier.  For most situations, using 67 will give you the correct answer, but it's not accurate for all situations.

Under national party and state party rules (DSP Part III, Section D.4&5), there are two separate delegate elections at the state convention.

One of the elections is for pledged PLEOs.  These are 25 delegate slots set aside for party leaders (legislators, mayors, county officials, etc.).  As such, the key numbers for this group is every 4%

Delegate allocation for the PLEOs is as follows:

15% = 4  
18.0001% = 5
22.0001% =6 etc.

In the range that is likely

46.0001% = 12 (approximately 3524 state delegates)
50.0001% = 13 (approximately 3831 state delegates)
54.0001% = 14  (approximately 4137 state delegates)
58.0001% = 15 (approximately 4443 state delegates)

The other delegate allocation is 42 at-large.  That delegate total flips at approximately every 2.39%.

If you are looking at final numbers for Obama between 50 and 60%, the key numbers are as follows:

48.81% = 21 (approximately 3739 state delegates)
51.191% = 22 (approximatley 3922 state delegates)
53.572% = 23 (approximately 4104 state delegates)
55.953% = 24 (approximately 4286 state delegates)
58.334% = 25 (approximately 4468 state delegates)

Given the current totals, Obama could mathematically get to 40 delegates from the two parts of the convention, but very unlikely.  On the other hand, he is already guaranteed 35.  To get to 36, he needs approximately 117 delegates.

---

by: tmess2 @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 00:29:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re:Numbers (0.00 / 0)

Very good point!

So to win the delegate count and get 36 delegates, he needs 23 of the at-large and 13 of the PLEOs, or as you said at least 53.57% and not 52.99% as I said.

The size of the ranges between thresholds is pretty interesting:

53.57% of the state delegates (not 52.99%) => 36 national delegates
54.01%(not 54.48%) => 37
55.95% (not 55.97%) => 38
58.01% (not 57.46%) => 39
58.33% (not 58.96%) => 40

Visually, it would look something like this:
36----37--------------------38--------------------39---40

My goodness, math is hot...

---

by: b0mbrman @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Add-on delegates (0.00 / 0)

I have not seen any discussion of how the 3 "Add-on" delegates are selected.  These are unpledged delegates, but they are typically chosen based on primary or convention results.  The Texas delegate selection plan says they are chosen at the convention, and nominated by the convention's "Committee to Nominate At-Large Delegates".  There is no mention of what that committee has to consider; it sounds like the convention has no choice but to endorse the committee's nominations.

That Committee has 34 members, one member to be elected by each Senate District Caucus and three members to be appointed by the Permanent Convention Chair.  This Committee will clearly be pro-Obama (Obama will have the majority of delegates in at least 18 of the 31 Senate Districts, and the chair will be elected by the convention, which will have an Obama majority).

I presume this means the convention will name either 3 Obama add-ons, or 2 Obama and 1 Clinton add-ons (they will be officially unpledged).

---

by: colorado_bob @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:22:28 PM CDT

Re: Add-on delegates (0.00 / 0)

In looking at the numbers, I was surprised by how close 3 of the Senate Districts are (SD 3, 22, and 24 are all within 9 delegates), 2 for Clinton, 1 for Obama.  But that doesn't seem like it will matter.  Note that Obama currently leads 19 SDs, including SD24 by 4 votes.  I don't know whether the supers caucus with their SDs.  I would assume they can, but I don't  expect that will greatly impact this nominating committee.

---

by: colorado_bob @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:49:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Add-ons (0.00 / 0)

It's tough to tell because the add-ons are used to give delegate slots to people who should be delegates without taking them away from the newcomers.

I just got back from the State Committee Meeting in Missouri (which under the Missouri Delegate Selection Plan chooses the unpledged add-ons and the Pledged PLEOs).  Despite Clinton having a slim majority of the members in attendance, we proceeded to elect as the unpledged add-ons our Attorney General (who will be our candidate for Governor) and our other state-wide official (even though she had endorsed Obama last July).

I would think that the nomiations committee for the Texas Democrats would want to make your candidate for U.S. Senator one of the unpledged add-ons.  Beyond that, the Texas folks would have a better idea than I would of anyone who "has" to be given an add-on spot.  If there isn't anyone else, they might give both of the remaining 2 to Obama or split it 1-1.

---

by: tmess2 @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 23:14:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

El Paso? (0.00 / 0)

I have a question to the second result of El Paso:

It's a 157-18 split...but this would be only ~10% for Obama.

What about the 15% threshold?

---

by: Wolle @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:29:42 AM CDT

Answer (0.00 / 0)

The 15% threshold only applies to the allocation of at large delegates. A campaign can win delegates from the precincts if there are clumps of support (think UTEP or the like). Those cannot be taken away from a candidate even if they are below 15% threshold for the entire convention.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:38:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ahhh (0.00 / 0)

thx

---

by: Wolle @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:39:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No Problem (0.00 / 0)

A legitimate question!

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fort Bend County / SD 18 (0.00 / 0)

http://fortbenddemocrats.org/c...

Total delegate votes cast: 630

For Barack Obama: 414

For Hillary Clinton: 215 "

You reported a 48-15 win for Obama. Shouldn't it be 41-22?

Obama    ~65,82%  * 63 delegates = 41,46
Clinton  ~34,18%  * 63 delegates = 21,53

---

by: Wolle @ Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:35:57 AM CDT

Not necessarily, due to precinct gatherings (0.00 / 0)

See Article IV, sections C.10.(c) and (d) here:

http://www.txdemocrats.org/the...

"[At the county/SD conventions] the precincts or grouped precincts shall caucus and make nominations within their respective caucuses...[and] elect their Delegates"

Thus, the hetero/homogeneity of each candidate's support can be a big factor in determining how many state delegates they will get from the county/SD convention.

Though, I should note, at-large delegates seek to return to the county/SD-wide proportion.

---

by: b0mbrman @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 14:20:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Counties with no conventions (0.00 / 0)

Does anyone have a clear idea what happens to the delegate allocation when a county did not hold a convention?  I first assumed that no delegates are allocated, and the total at the state convention is decreased.  But the party rules

http://txdems.bluestatedigital...

and state law

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/st...

say that "For any county which has no Delegates present in person or by proxy, those votes shall be apportioned based upon the vote of the Senatorial District so that the Senatorial District can vote its full delegate strength."

That sounds somewhat clear.  The mention of proxy is totally unclear to me (in both sources).

The current results have 4 counties where it was verified that no convention was held.  There are 77 others with no results.  I checked the Obama website lists of convention locations and times (the list on the txdems website is gone).  For 43 of those, a time and place are given.  For another 29 (plus the 4 known to have no convention), there is wording that details are not known.  For another 4 there is a statement that there would be no convention.  And for 1 county there was no information at all.  If someone from BOR would like a list of which counties are which, I can provide it.

I also ran some numbers assuming that all 38 counties for which no convention info was given would send no delegates, and that the total of these within each SD would be apportioned in the same way as the current total for that SD.  That would yield 57 for Clinton and 36 for Obama.

---

by: colorado_bob @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 00:06:02 AM CDT

mmh... (0.00 / 0)

Does that mean that Roberts, Hudspeth, Hansford and Armstrong will vote 1-0 Clinton, because she has won SDs 19, 28, and 31?

---

by: Wolle @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:23:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

maybe... plus a correction (0.00 / 0)

That is one interpretation of the rule - that each county without representation would have its votes divided proportionally according to the SD allocation (call that interpretation A).   The interpretation I chose above (call it B) was that the total of all unallocated counties in each SD would be allocated proportionally.  So SD19 would have 5 such votes split 3-2, SD 28 would have 27 votes split 19-8, and SD 31 would have 11 votes split 7-4.

As a total, interpretation A would give Clinton 58, Obama 9.  Also I found a mistake in the numbers I posted above - interpretation B would give Clinton 42, Obama 25.

Another question is how the superdelegates (mainly the county chairs) from these counties fit into this rule.  If a county chair shows up with no other delegates from the county, does (s)he get to vote the entire county allocation?

Again, I hate to just speculate.  Does anyone actually know how this piece works?

---

by: colorado_bob @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:11:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]