<p>Thanks to all those Texans who understood which candidate is all hat and which candidate has the cattle!</p>
<p>HILLARY '08</p>
<p>Didn’t Obama still get more delegates in Texas because of caucus?</p>
<p>yup. 2.5 million votes were less valuable than the votes of 100,000 or so circus goers.</p>
<p>Have they finished counting the caucus votes? I think it will likely be so close, it will be called a relative tie. I think the larger point that Hillary can now make is she has won in states (NY, CA, TX, etc…) necessary to win the general election. The show of solidarity from Hispanic voters in those states is a big deal. McCain, with his friendly immigration policy, will likely be hoping for those same votes.</p>
<p>But don’t you think that if Obama were the candidate all those Clinton voters would vote for him? I know a few Republicans who are definitely voting for Obama if he’s the candidate who wouldn’t vote for Clinton. I can’t speak for McCain’s attractiveness to Hispanics however. I also think more independents like Obama. </p>
<p>Re delegate count in Texas, last I heard it looked like Obama was still likely to be four or five delegates short in Texas even with the caucus vote.</p>
<p>mathmom,
I know many Clinton supporters who will either stay home or vote for McCain because they are so opposed to putting such an inexperienced person in the Oval Office. Obama has turned off many middle-aged women with his arrogance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The final number of Texas makes no difference. A few delegates more for Clinton or a slight advantage for Obama in total Texan delegates won’t influence the next months. </p>
<p>Let’s remember that winning each individual state and talks of momentum are pure rethoric and campaign spin. Didn’t Empty Suit John Kerry not have plenty of momentum four years ago? At the end of the day, the total of delegates at the convention is what will --or should-- matter. For all the Clinton’s camp spin, she only gained 12 delegates and the remaining number in play are dwindling rapidly. She is still about 100 behind. </p>
<p>Without Clintonesque shenanigans, the mathematical chances of HRH to pull this off are as high Huckabee’s chances to catch McCain were on March 1. In the meantime, the continuous dogfight among the democrats is exactly what the doctor ordered for the McCain campaign, especially now that they can call back the Clinton stealth “supporters” who did their job on March 5.</p>
<p>I was amazed at the number of people I spoke to today who voted for Clinton but are going to vote for McCain regardless of who the Dem candidate is. </p>
<p>I was not surprised that this happened because it has happened in prior years. I was just surprised at the number who did it. I heard people talking about possibly 10% of the Clinton popular vote in Texas were stealth “supporters.” </p>
<p>But, the Wednesday morning edition of *The Dallas Morning News *published a state map showing who “won” by county. Obama won in the large urban areas DFW, Houston and Austin (excluding San Antonio). In the less populated counties it was Clinton all the way.</p>
<p>AH, the Lone Star State.</p>
<p>I have to say, I do think being able to vote in the other party’s primary is not fair.</p>
<p>Because of this cross-over voting the Republicans will end up with exactly the opponent they want the most-Hillary. Then the fur will really fly. More politics as usual. sigh!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do realize that it’s nearly impossible for Obama to get the required # of delegates as well don’t you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you be more specific, runmanstl? What arrogance? Please site specific instances, if you would.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s an interesting little ‘feature’ here in Texas…being able to vote in whichever primary you choose. But it does work both ways. And the one thing that prevents it from being a total gaming of the system, at least with regard to caucus delegates…heavily Republican precincts have very few delegates to allocate in the caucus round. So the effect of Republicans participating in the caucus is not as profound as Rush would like everyone to believe. I know quite a few Republicans who went back to caucus and wasted 4 hours of their time in a huge fiasco of a process, just to try to affect the allocation of 2 or 3 delegates in our overwhelmingly Republican precinct. Joke was kinda on them in the end.</p>
<p>I wish people would STOP labeling Obama as inexperienced. He has valuable experience -he just hasn’t sat in the senate forever. Hillary brags that she has 35 years experience-I guess she counts everything past graduating from law school as “experience” -don’t be conned. Read the details rather than falling for the lines you hear repeated in sound bites. Study up and stop being lazy-learn the facts!</p>
<p>it doens’t really work both ways- there was no call by left wing pundits to go in and vote for huckabee</p>
<p>just the idea of trying to manipulate the system like that is nauseating, but not suprising of Rush</p>
<p>Yes, please do. Go to Obama’s website and read his plan for removing troops from Iraq. It is flat out alarming. Setting aside whether it was right to go into Iraq or not, the problem of leaving Iraq is extremely complex with profound economic risk to the world. As my dh says, removal of daily production of about 2 million bbls of crude, should this region become destabilized, is no laughing matter. You all be wishing for the good old days of $100 bbl crude.</p>
<p>CGM - what I meant is when we have had hotly contested Republican primaries, Democrats have crossed over and voted as Republicans.</p>
<p>The point of Republicans voting for Hillary was not to make sure she was the nominee. Rush Limbaugh knows that she cannot mathematically become the nominee. He just wanted to see the Dem nomination fight last longer and get more negative and indeed we will have one month of that at least, and quite possibly 5 more months of that. Both Hillary and Barack will end up looking like bickering juveniles (“mommy, I’m more experienced”…“are not…” “am too”… etc).</p>
<p>In the meantime, McCain gets to do fundraisers, build alliances, select a Vice President and a whole team, look Presidential, go visit the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc.</p>
<p>^ Exactly…better for Hillary to bloody Obama first. Knocking that halo off is tricky business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only that, but several who bragged within my earshot about crossing didn’t “get it” that you had to do the caucus to effect anything.</p>
<p>citygirlsmom–it was not an original idea with Rush. It has happened forever. And, as Idmom06 said, it has been done by both parties.</p>