News from the Votemaster
Here are the results from the Texas primary, senate district by senate district.
While Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary 51% to 47%, she netted only 4 delegates from it. For a map of how all the counties voted, look here. Final results from the Texas caucuses aren't in yet, but preliminary results (with 40% of the precincts reporting) give Obama a 56% to 44% lead and 3 delegates more than Clinton. When the full caucus results are known, it is likely that Obama will ultimately net more delegates from the Texas caucus and primary combined than Clinton.
In Ohio, which simply had a primary, Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin, 55% to 44% but it netted her only 9 more delegates than Obama due to the way Ohio allocates its delegates. In Rhode Island, Clinton won a huge victory and picked up a net of 5 delegates. In Vermont, Obama won an even bigger victory and netted 3 delegates. All in all, when the Texas caucus results are finally in, her three-state victory may have ultimately gained her something in the vicinity of 10 delegates.
This problem is going to continue for Clinton all the way to Denver. Her next big hope is Pennsylvania on April 22, but even a sizeable win there, like in Ohio, will probably only result in a net win of maybe a dozen delegates at most. She is about 100 pledged delegates behind and it will be close to impossible to win that many in the remaining primaries and caucuses. The PLEOs will clearly play a big roll here.
Lurking in the background are the delegations from Michigan and Florida, which will not be seated under party rules because they scheduled their votes before Feb. 5, in clear violation of party rules. The governor of Florida (and Vice Presidential hopeful) Charlie Crist, has said he would not be against having a new Florida primary. Of course when a Republican governor offers the Democrats a tasty treat, one should look at all the details to see exactly what he has in mind. Is he doing this to sow discord among the Democrats? Does he think Clinton would win it and be the weaker candidate? What's the catch? He wants the DNC to pay for it. It is estimated that a primary would cost $25 million. Thus what he is really proposing is draining $25 million from the DNC warchest and probably having the weaker general election candidate win it. Sounds like an excellent plan (if you are a Republican governor hoping to be tapped as Vice President). The Democrats could hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan instead of primaries. Caucuses are paid for by the parties but they are MUCH cheaper. The problem with caucuses is getting both Clinton and Obama to agree. Caucuses are sparsely attended and the candidate with the better organization usually wins them. Obama has won nearly all the caucuses so far, so Clinton would prefer primaries. Politics does not have a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get interface like modern word processing programs. You have to parse every sentence very carefully and know the context to see what they are up to.
Yesterday I noted that Obama is having trouble with Catholic voters. In Texas that might be due to the fact that most Texas Catholics are Latinos, but other states don't have that property. There is a at Politico about this issue.
Here are the delegate totals from various news sources rounded to integers (Democrats Abroad has 22 delegates, each with 1/2 vote). The sources differ because in most caucus states, no delegates to the national conventions have been chosen yet, just delegates to the district, county, or state convention. Also, all sources try to count the PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) and unpledged delegates, who also get to vote at the convention. When different reporters call a PLEO and hear "Well, I like Hillary, but Barack has his charms too" they may score it differently.
Needed to win: Democrats 2025, Republicans 1191.
Here is another source for delegate totals.
-- The Votemaster