<p>more calls at work than wife unit.</p>
<p>Simba,
The Republicans you spoke of voting for Barack Obama: Was it an “anything but Hillary” vote? Do they not want to vote in their local elections? I’m asking because in my area there is an important (we think) local election.
Can a Republican vote for a Democrat and also vote their local district Republican contests?</p>
<p>It was anything but Hillary. They naively believe that Obama will be an easier target. They have no intention of voting for Obama in November (Most of them were rich).</p>
<p>No. in primaries the ballots are different for the two parties.</p>
<p>Swimcatsmom - here’s a link with an explanation about how the caucuses work:
[A</a> guide to Texas’ electoral two-step | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5583761.html]A”>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5583761.html)</p>
<p>The caucuses are a historic holdover (anachronism) from the time when almost all states had party caucuses rather than primaries (maybe 20+ years ago). In those days primaries were a rarity. I think the logic was that the party is deciding who they want to run, so the decision was something to be made by meetings of party activists. </p>
<p>I think Texas’ unique “have it both ways” system probably reflects an inherent distrust in leaving the selection of the party candidate entirely open to the populace; the Democratic party system of Super Delegates is there for the same reason. The powers-that-be in the party want democracy, but they also want some sort of mechanism in place that will look out for the overall interests of the party, and not make it susceptible to being “hijacked” by an outsider with the power to sway voters. I think the Ron Paul candidacy is a good example of what party insiders are afraid of – Ron Paul’s popularity in part stems from views that are decidedly un-Republican. (Obama is different: despite all the talk of change, he’s been pretty much a vote-the-party-line guy in Washington, though he probably allies himself more with the progressive wing of the party. So while his popularity is an unwelcome surprise to Hillary, most Dems will be very happy to have him as a candidate). </p>
<p>The problem with the caucuses is that while, way back when, no one ever showed up except for those party regulars and activists. So I think the idea in Texas would have been: let the people vote for 2/3 of the delegates, and then let the party elders weigh in and pick the remaining third. </p>
<p>But Obama has been very successful in motivating and mobilizing his people to come, in part because of his appeal to young voters. So he has totally changed the face of caucuses – now they are the most vulnerable to outside influence because it takes a relatively small turnout to change the result. And Obama literally brings in his supporters by the busload. </p>
<p>A caucus requires personal attendance, and can go on for 2 hours or more, and in Texas they begin at 7:15 pm. It will be a lot easier to get a slew of young people there than it will be to get out Hillary’s older demographic.</p>
<p>I think Clinton will win.</p>
<p>Thank you for the link Calmom.</p>
<p>Now I’m really confused :D</p>
<p>It’s all a little bizarre.</p>
<p>just wait for my book report.</p>
<p>simba - waiting with great anticipation.</p>
<p>I think Tuesday’s results won’t be wildly conclusive, but will not favor Hillary getting the nomination. She will withdraw by next weekend, leaving Obama as the nominee. He will beat McCain, become a transformative president after a few initial stumbles, and serve two terms.</p>
<p>Hilary will have a long and distinguished Senate career.</p>
<p>I think it is already safe to say that Hillary won’t win Texas and Ohio by 20 points each, the minimum she needs to make a dent in the delegate count. So while the press may have a field day, the numbers simply don’t add up.</p>
<p>At this point, I think it will be very difficult for Clinton to stop Obama’s momentum. If she does lose to him in Texas and Ohio, I hope that she will withdraw from the race – I’m not in favor of a brokered nomination at the Democratic convention.</p>
<p>i feel like tuesdays results will not give a clear front runner like the media tries to play up</p>
<p>Of course, the issue remains, with those of us who wish for a different outcome than the coronation of OB’s nomination, that HRC has won the states which are the traditional Democratic states in the national elections, and as a result, she is more representative of the Democratic Party. As much as the OB supporters wish for her to go away, there is a core group of voters who think the political mandate is not so clear, especially considering the varying rules of party affiliation during the primary process. For the Democrats to prevail in November, this group must not be made to feel disinfranchised either.</p>
<p>There are always winners and losers in elections. There is a core of voters who believe Nova Scotia is the 51st state. But since she will have lost the popular vote, the delegate count, and the largest number of states, it’s not much of an argument.</p>
<p>Of course, there will be folks who continue to receive a paycheck in order to make it.</p>
<p>If Clinton accrues fewer delegates on Tuesday than Obama, then it is over for her. At that point, the only reason she would continue are:</p>
<p>1) To weaken Obama and thereby minimize his chances to win in November, giving her a better chance to win in 2012.</p>
<p>2) To continue raising funds that could later be (legally) redirected to her subsequent Senate re-election campaigns.</p>
<p>I expect the superdelegates will start flocking in droves to Obama after Tuesday. Nobody seems to be too eager to have a brokered convention.</p>
<p>“Of course, there will be folks who continue to receive a paycheck in order to make it.” </p>
<p>What does this mean, Mini? </p>
<p>Vicariousparent, I think there are other reasons she might choose to continue, with motives less suspect than your beliefs. However, none of us are mind readers, so we will never know all of the reasons why she makes her choice.</p>
<p>It means that Hillary has handlers who are making millions by making believe there are still issues to be raised. And a press that needs something to write about. </p>
<p>She needs to win both large states by at least 20% to be competitive, and it won’t even be close.</p>
<p>Media pundits have frequently said that the Republicans would rather that their man go up against Hillary rather than Obama in November supposedly because her 'baggage" makes her vulnerable to attack.</p>
<p>If the Republican party faithful also received this memo, wouldn’t they instead vote for Hillary on Tuesday, so that she ends up being the one to go against John McCain?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole point of Obama’s politics and campaign is to get away from this kind of traditional thinking and divisiveness and to build coalitions of democrats, independents and Republicans. </p>
<p>I too think Obama will win Texas and Vermont and the party leaders will collectively prevail upon Hillary to end her campaign. Bill Richardson signaled as much today, as has Chris Dodd, and that is just what they are saying publicly. I am sure the message is being put more forcefully in private.</p>
<p>“If the Republican party faithful also received this memo, wouldn’t they instead vote for Hillary on Tuesday, so that she ends up being the one to go against John McCain?”</p>
<p>many are getting them now. I just converted two Obama Republicans to Hillary voters. After Rush’s out-reach program, it was not hard.</p>
<p>“the party leaders will collectively prevail upon Hillary to end her campaign. Bill Richardson signaled as much today, as has Chris Dodd, and that is just what they are saying publicly. I am sure the message is being put more forcefully in private.”</p>
<p>That is just nonsense. The net difference as of today is about 110 delegate. After tomorrow we will see what the difference is. She should go on till PA.</p>