SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Texas Doesn't Count?

THE PLANK FEBRUARY 25, 2008

Texas Doesn't Count?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

After weeks of finding reasons to discount every Obama victory, the Clinton campaign seems to be laying the groundwork to argue that Texas -- the state that they have been pointing to as more meaningful and representative than other states -- doesn't count, either. Why would they be discounting Texas? Oh, I don't know, this might have something to do with it.

Bill Clinton's argument is that Texas is unfair because it has a caucus in addition to a primary, and, as the Clintons have been arguing, caucuses are less democratic than primaries. It's certainly true, caucuses give disproportionate weight to well-organized party activists over ordinary voters. But you know what gives even more weight to well-organized party activists over ordinary voters than the caucus system? Superdelegates. And the Clintons obviously have no objection to that.

(h/t Mike.)

--Jonathan Chait

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 28 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

28 comments

By the time they get through discounting all the states that shouldn't count for one reason of another, including those that were absolutely critical just days ago, one wonders what will be left to count.  Oh, Michigan and Florida, that's right, because those contests were SO fair.  

Hillary's campaign has become little more than a pathetic joke. It is actually a bit sad. I mean, last week when she admitted not even knowing how the Texas caucus system worked? Two weeks before the vote and a major campaign is still trying to figure out the rules? That tells you everything you needed to know about why Clinton's campaign has become a train wreck.

- tjlinko

February 25, 2008 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops. Continuing:  Are you really basing your argument that the campaign is "laying the groundwork" to argue that Texas doesn't matter on the article you linked to?  Very thin.  

- newdex

February 25, 2008 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think I speak for everyone when I say that I wish Texas didn't count either.  Stupid gun-toting, retard-killing cowboy wannabes.  And the Astros suck.

- bcbaird

February 25, 2008 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clinton, just two weeks ago: "Come on down to Texas," Obama - "I'll meet you right here!"

Again, the Clinton camp is better in bluster than in coming up with results - all bluster, no beef.

- jobeek2

February 25, 2008 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bcbaird, you've gotta have more sympathy for us down here in Texas. To be a Democrat here takes real determination and a hard shell, believe me! Texas Democrats are yellow-dog Democrats, and the toughest little yellow dogs you've ever seen.

- gary21cp

February 25, 2008 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well I guess those pragmatic, straight-shootin', boot wearin' cowboys n' cowgirls of Texas must be drinkin' the cool-aid of Obama too. May be it's the heat or the Shiner is still chillin' in the ice chest. Hillary supporters will point to the current polls and the fact that the campaign is determining how the caucuses work as proof-positive of how Hillary's 35 years of experience are trumping Obama's empty-suit, talking-head campaign. I mean...if being POTUS requires 35+ years of experience to manage and otherwise administer an international super power then running a piddly, national primary campaign is cake thereby proving the fact that Hillary's team doesn't have to focus on the little details like how to get people to vote at caucuses in a state that now doesn't really matter.

What next? Superdelegates don't count either?

- singlespeed

February 25, 2008 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All the Clintons wants is a level playing field. I think they are genuinely concerned that Texas, with its hybrid caucus-primary structure, combines the worst features of both. To wit, the irrational exuberance of the primary (a wave that Barack is currently riding), combined with the "insider baseball" of caucuses.

Frankly, the best place to correct these structural deficiencies  is the convention floor.  The Democratic party has an obligation to field the best candidate possible. The Democratic Super delegates  are not obliged to drink the kool-aid primary voters feed it.

- tembrach

February 25, 2008 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Democratic Super delegates  are not obliged to drink the kool-aid primary voters feed it."

Tembrach - is that a spoof? I cant tell parody from genuine opinions anymore in these mad days.. but if it was a parody, it was a clever one.

- jobeek2

February 25, 2008 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sick of this "have it both ways" rhetoric from the Clinton camp. Either your candidate scrupulously wants the fairest contest possiible (in which case superdelegates don't count, nor does changing the goalposts on Michigan/Florida) or they want to play by the rules (in which case you can't whine about the rules of particular contest and, by the way, you still can't change the goalposts on Michigan/Florida). Obama lost NH and carried on with dignity. Hillary finds a reason to discredit the results of every state she loses. The way she's conducted herself in this primary season is just offering more evidence for why she would not be a good president. She's good as part of a system, doing her part, playing the game well, and if she stays in the Senate she do very well there. She sucks as a cool-headed, wise leader, as evidenced by this campaign. Thank God Obama showed up to provide a real challenge, or else we'd be saddled with a Hillary nomination by now (and thank God, she provided a real challenge to him so that we can start to see how he does under pressure - neither candidate has real executive experience).

"All the Clintons wants is a level playing field"

Then please explain Michigan and Florida.

"the irrational exuberance of the primary (a wave that Barack is currently riding), combined with the "insider baseball" of caucuses."

In other words, it combines ALL the features, not just the worst ones. In other words Hillary doesn't do so well with voters. Thank God for party insiders to keep the playing field "level." How Orwellian.

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tembrach: "The Democratic party has an obligation to field the best candidate possible. The Democratic Super delegates  are not obliged to drink the kool-aid primary voters feed it."

That's why we have superdelegates! To keep us deluded caucus-goers and primary voters from thinking we're really doing something important!

- gary21cp

February 25, 2008 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tembrach,

Let me get this straight - primaries are not reliable. Caucuses are not reliable. Only superdelegates know best and they should ignore the will of primary season voters.

...

Well, I thought I had some comebacks and smart-ass comments for that, but they all started flying around in my head and there was the whole "is it parody??" and "he's joking, right???" thing going on, too. I think I blacked out for a moment, in fact. I do know that thanks to you, I will probably drink for the rest of the day.

- WoodyBombay

February 25, 2008 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So I guess that means Clinton would be OK with all the insignificant states voting Republican in November. That'd give her about 230 electoral votes.

Brilliant long term strategy.

- hrlngrv

February 25, 2008 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gary

Yes, Virginia, there are superdelegates. And they ain’t for window dressing.  If neither side has won the requisite # of delegates, then the Superdelegate mechanism will be activated.

In fundamental ways the primaries have failed us - to wit,  Hillary was never permitted to go negative on  Obama (i.e. hound him about meeting with the Weathermen).  Do you think the Repubs will have any such qualms in the General election? No they won't.  Barack will be challenged on his patriotism & his  judgment. And if he is  found wanting, we will lose an election once again.. I am sure that the Repubs are armed and ready to open a full fusillade against Barack. And I frankly don’t know if he is tough enough to endure it, and fight back.

If things are not decided by the Convention, two things must occur during the convention

1) the Superdelegates must be released to vote according to the best judgement

2) Delegates from Florida and Michigan  must be awarded proportionately. It is unfair to penalize Hillary simply cause Howard Dean is an ineffective, vacillating doofus

- tembrach

February 25, 2008 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Woody, as long as it's the kool-aid the superdelegates drink.

- anonevent

February 25, 2008 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All of this is reminding me why I distrusted Hillary Clinton and was incredulous at the plausability of her presidency years ago. Nearly a decade of doing well in the Senate, moving towards the center, and the swaing of CW to suggest that of course she was a plausible candidate, slowly ate away at my concerns. Now it's as if I'm waking up to see that, no, the emperor doesn't have any clothes and never did.

(Note: Obama ain't perfect either, btw)

- CharlesFosterKane

February 25, 2008 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tembrach: "I am sure that the Repubs are armed and ready to open a full fusillade against Barack. And I frankly don’t know if he is tough enough to endure it, and fight back."

I am sure of that the Repubs are going to fire big guns at Obama too. They'd do the same to Hillary. Things are going to get ugly there's no question about it.

But it's not just Obama that has to fight back (and I'm confident he will). It's the rest of us Democrats too. WE have to do a better job of countering the attack machine, and not leave it to Obama on his own. The precondition for that is to have a campaign that has made people really believe in their candidate, which is what Obama is doing for us. This is why some people say that Clinton is running a campaign, and Obama is starting a movement. That could make all the difference.

And by the way, Hillary doesn't look to me like she's been restrained from "going negative" on Obama. And why on earth would she want to be the one to hammer him on this bogus "Weatherman" connection?

If Obama wins Texas, which I think he will, there will be a lot of pressure on Hillary to get out on a high note.

She doesn't look like she's entertaining that thought, at least not yet. If she doesn't, she'll pull the whole party down with her.

- gary21cp

February 25, 2008 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree, Hillary wants a level playing field, just like the one in Michigan where she was the only candidate on the ballot, granted she did only win that one by 10%, so I guess we should get rid of uncommitteds too.

So far the only non winning candidate whose popularity has gone up since before this all began is Huckabee. (Edwards being about the same, nobody is angry at him). The guy can go just about anywhere and people will still smile and shake his hand. Even though I disagree with his politics, he is a far better human being than Hillary is.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, Virginia, there are superdelegates."

The implied comparison between superdelegates and Santa Claus isn't a good move for you at this point.

"In fundamental ways the primaries have failed us - to wit,  Hillary was never permitted to go negative on  Obama (i.e. hound him about meeting with the Weathermen)."  

Says who? Who are these shadowy forces that haven't permitted HRC to go negative? And why are they so ineffective, as HRC has gone negative on Obama many times despite her not being 'permitted' to?

"Do you think the Repubs will have any such qualms in the General election? No they won't."

But what if they aren't permitted, either? That would be great!  

"Barack will be challenged on his patriotism & his  judgment."

And they won't bring this up with HRC. Riiiiiiiiight ...

"And if he is  found wanting, we will lose an election once again."

And this doesn't apply to HRC. Riiiiiiiiight ...

"I am sure that the Repubs are armed and ready to open a full fusillade against Barack. And I frankly don’t know if he is tough enough to endure it, and fight back."

Odd, because he has beaten back HRC's attacks pretty convincingly. Did you see the last debate, when HRC unleashed her silly "xerox" comment about "plagiarism" ? He pretty easily knocked that whole meme down. (Oh, and how come HRC got away with bringing up the "plagiarism," anyway? I thought she wasn't permitted to go negative!) I think the guy from Chicago can do what it takes.

"If things are not decided by the Convention, two things must occur during the convention"

It's beginning to look like "things" will be decided by then. But let's go on ...

"1) the Superdelegates must be released to vote according to the best judgement"

You don't think any superdelegated will judge Obama to be the better candidate? Even in this smoke-filled backroom horse-trading scenario you're obviously hoping for, Obama could win out. (Not likely, though, with HRC and WJC busting balls and keeping lists.) And again, you think the vote tallies throughout the entire primary and caucus season should count for nothing?

"2) Delegates from Florida and Michigan  must be awarded proportionately. It is unfair to penalize Hillary simply cause Howard Dean is an ineffective, vacillating doofus"

Poor, poor HRC. It's all just been so unfair. Let's honor the party and not campaign in these two states. But now she needs them, so hey - they count after all! And Howard Dean, that poor doofus - his ineffectiveness cost the Dems control of Congress! Oh, wait - he was party head and the Dems took over Congress. Nevermind.

tembrach, you obviously admire HRC a great deal, and that's great. I will vote for her quickly, unreservedly and semi-proudly if she is the Dem nominee. You just shouldn't have this crazy sense of entitlement when it comes to her and the nomination - it looks like she might lose it. That happens. No one is inevitable. Obama is not inevitable. HRC is not inevitable. This is why I try not to get to personally and emotionally wrapped up in one candidate. Why, just think of the emotional devastation that's going to litter the landscape if/when Obama loses. It's going to be bleak, baby. Bleak.

- WoodyBombay

February 25, 2008 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BCBaird: "...And the Astros suck."

Them's fighting words. Pray I never see you in a dark alley.

- guyminuslife

February 25, 2008 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd be more worried about the independents and Republicans in Texas than the delegate allocation.  The reason the polls have him ahead is because about a quarter of the voters aren't Democrats. Clinton is ahead in registered Democrats, as the poll shows.

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ooops, sorry for double posting,but I missed this:

"The precondition for that is to have a campaign that has made people really believe in their candidate"

Except Obama hasn't even proven that *Democrats* believe in him. Bad form for, you know, a Democrat primary process.

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Except Obama hasn't even proven that *Democrats* believe in him. Bad form for, you know, a Democrat primary process."

Want to explain how he's won in closed states too, like Maine, Nebraska, DC, Connecticut, Alaska, Louisiana, Delaware, etc.? You've got primaries, caucuses, black-heavy, white-heavy there. The works. How can you say that Democrats don't believe in him? Is he not ahead in both popular vote and delegates?

- rozenson

February 25, 2008 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gary, at this point, the opportunity for going out on a high note has been blasted to hell - "Shame on you, Obama!"

Ahem! I called this! I knew she'd go nuts at the reports of her "graceful" valedictorian. Ha!

- psantillana

February 25, 2008 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jmkerr - I think these people will vote for Obama in the general:

obamacans.wordpress.com/.../hello-world

- psantillana

February 25, 2008 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether their gripes about Texas delegate selection are warranted or not, Hillary Clinton's belated grasp of its uniqueness bespeaks a failure to plan, further dispelling her illusion of competence.

- srdiamond

February 25, 2008 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rozenson,

Speaking as a Mainer, the Democratic primary is semi-open (same day registration, etc). Beyond that, your point holds.

- nlaverty4

February 25, 2008 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

<<

to wit,  Hillary was never permitted to go negative on  Obama (i.e. hound him about meeting with the Weathermen).

>>

Does anyone know what this means? This is America, it's a free country, if Hillary wants to talk about the Weathermen, she's welcome to.

By the way, the notion that the Baby Boomer / Vietnam protester / Watergate Committee Queen is the one insulated from association with 60s radicals is a fascinating one. Please continue!

- mcorey.geo

February 25, 2008 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From a right-wing voter in Dallas:

"In Texas, a vote for McCain in the primary would be a wasted vote in that it's rather apparent he will win. So if I want my vote to have a chance of counting, I am forced to either send McCain a signal that I'd prefer someone more conservative OR to select which dem I'd prefer to have McCain run against.

"At present, it's looking like I'll be casting a vote for Hillary. I can't believe I just said that! Excuse me while I lose my lunch!!

"The dem race in Texas is close. My current thinking is that she will indeed be easier to beat and that any mud the MSM and left tosses out there on McCain will be easily matched with a selection from Hillary's pig pen full of mud. Not to mention how disenfranchised many on the left will be if Hillary sneaks in at the end to steal the election away from Obama (with the aid of all her negative ads and undercover info drops)."

(Sorry, but public posting on an Internet forum seems fair game to repost somewhere else, if nothing else for educational purposes. No identities revealed -- I don't even know the identity of this poster.)

- gary21cp

February 25, 2008 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close