March 11th, 2008
08:00 PM ET
6 years ago

Caucus win gives Obama more Texas delegates than Clinton

 Obama won more delegates in Texas than Clinton.
Obama won more delegates in Texas than Clinton.

(CNN) - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has won the Texas Democratic caucuses and will get more delegates out of the state than his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state's primary, according to CNN estimates.

Under the Texas Democratic Party's complex delegate selection plan, Texas voters participated in both a primary and caucuses on March 4. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses.

An additional 35 superdelegates were not tied to either contest. Clinton, of New York, defeated Obama in the primary by a 51-47 percent margin. But results of the caucuses were up in the air on election night and for several days afterward, due to state party rules that did not require local caucus officials to report their results to a centralized location.

Partial caucus results, representing 41 percent of all caucus precincts, showed Obama last week with 56 percent of the county-level delegates chosen at the caucuses to 44 percent for Clinton. The state party says it will not be able to provide a further breakdown of the caucus results from March 4.

After a comprehensive review of these results, CNN estimates that Obama won more support from Texas caucus-goers than Clinton. Based on the state party's tally, Obama's caucus victory translates into 38 national convention delegates, compared to 29 for Clinton.

And though Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 - or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

CNN's estimate is based on a statistical review, which combined the county-level results provided by the state party with data from the U.S. Census, exit polls and telephone surveys.

That analysis showed that the counties that reported data to the state party last week appear to be a representative cross-section of the Texas population. The analysis also indicates that areas that were won by Obama reported results at essentially the same rate as areas that were won by Clinton.

Every procedure used to statistically model the outcome of the caucuses indicated that Obama had more support than Clinton.

The next step in the delegate-selection process will occur on March 29, when the county-level delegates chosen at the March 4 caucuses will meet in county conventions held across the state. CNN will closely monitor those events and will adjust its delegate estimate for Obama and Clinton, if necessary, based on those results at that time.


Filed under: Texas
soundoff (145 Responses)
  1. Camilla

    Although you have reported that Senator Clinton did not win Texas, the talking heads on CNN are still claiming that she won Texas.

    THANK YOU, Donna Brazile, for stating that Senator Obama's votes are not just from African-Americans. He has energized and provide hope for a diverse group. I have attended every Obama rally in Houston, TX and the mixture of people was amazing. We do need change.

    March 11, 2008 08:45 pm at 8:45 pm |
  2. Leftie

    The only reason Hillary "won" the popular vote in Texas is because of the ditto-head republicans who voted for her in the open primary. They have so much dirt on Bill and his wife that they will do anything to ensure that she is the candidate against McCain. Plus, it's so unfair that Hillary would be expected to be organized enough to actually get her act together in the caucases. Is this a good example her her executive skills?

    March 11, 2008 08:46 pm at 8:46 pm |
  3. Annamica, OH

    Hillary Hater: "We had 7 years of Bush. A guy who picked fights where we did not need them… I would much rather have a President with Judgement than another "fighter" who endorsed the Iraq War with her vote…"

    Don't forget your golden boy's hypocrisy in voting to fund the war ever since he's been in the senate. Oh I forgot about the double standards you guys have for Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton.

    March 11, 2008 08:46 pm at 8:46 pm |
  4. Nancy, Oklahoma

    It is time for Hillary to exit the race. TX was one by Obama! Let's watch out for pandering to prejudicial and racist persons now. Here we go PA. The Ferraro racial remarks are just the beginning. Superdelagates I hope you are taking note. Echo, Echo....do Richardson, Edwards and Gore have spines? Put her out!

    March 11, 2008 08:46 pm at 8:46 pm |
  5. Randy

    Wow, Obama won Texas? Clinton really needs to rethink her staying in this....

    March 11, 2008 08:46 pm at 8:46 pm |
  6. Chris

    Do people that vote in the primary also vote in the caucaus? If so, doesn't that mean they vote twice in one day? That sounds like complete stupidity to me.

    March 11, 2008 08:47 pm at 8:47 pm |
  7. We Really Can

    I know we can make it work, I know we can make it if we try....

    WE CAN, CAN, OH YES WE CAN CAN, WHY CAN"T WE IF WE WANT, Yeah!

    O B A M A 08

    March 11, 2008 08:47 pm at 8:47 pm |
  8. westy

    If Clinton really thinks caucuses are unfair then why didn't she say something back in the beginning. Oh yah because she was supposed to have the nomination "wrapped up" by now.

    March 11, 2008 08:49 pm at 8:49 pm |
  9. bond

    Scoreboard Obama

    March 11, 2008 08:49 pm at 8:49 pm |
  10. Evelyn New Jersey

    There are no caucus votes, and most of the Repulicans who voted for barack will vote their own party. He cannot win the General Election without their support.

    March 11, 2008 08:50 pm at 8:50 pm |
  11. Emiel

    Finally finally CNN discovered what was showing on their website in the Texas results page for a long time already: not at all a win for Clinton. In the meantime she has been spinning her 'big wins' big time. If she ever again complains about media being against her I will burst into uncontrollable laughter.

    March 11, 2008 08:51 pm at 8:51 pm |
  12. Dave Williamson

    I have been watching this 'dem' primary for awhile, and for the life of me cannot figure out why dem's would support a party that sanctions so called 'super-delegates' whose sole responsibility is to make sure the candidate of choice is that of the party boss wishes. Why should certain people have more 'voting' power than the people themselves. Sounds rigged to me. JMHO

    March 11, 2008 08:51 pm at 8:51 pm |
  13. Lolita

    You may be right except for one thing Mir, Obama is actually ahead in the popular vote. He is ahead in the popular vote, the delegate count, and number of states won.

    March 11, 2008 08:52 pm at 8:52 pm |
  14. BING

    sorry – the caucus process is not democratic and disenfranchises voters – how many people participated in the primary? the primary winner won the state and that is Hillary Clinton by 100,000 votes or 3.6%

    This victory is when the "battle" between these two ended – victories in PA, IN, and Edwards endorsement + NC equal the end of the road for Obama.

    March 11, 2008 08:52 pm at 8:52 pm |
  15. WY

    Hillary's campaign has been so disorganized. One would think that as long as she's been planning this, which I'm going to guess started at 12:01 p.m., January 20, 2001, that she would've planned for such contingencies as a caucus. If someone doesn't automatically rollover for her, they're going to complain about something being "not fair."

    The way her campaign has been run shows how her administration will run. Yikes and yowza.

    March 11, 2008 08:52 pm at 8:52 pm |
  16. Jim in VA

    Anyone that thinks the caucus results are unfair, think of this...in a primary, you go vote without necessarily talking to other voters. In a caucus, you make a public declaration of support, which means that you will have to debate your position prior to your declaration. Obama has done well in the caucus states because as soon as people actually have to debate about the candidates, hillary supporters finally realize that Obama is the better candidate. The caucus results favoring Obama proves that more uninformed voters vote for Hillary, but once they actually are forced to learn about both candidates, they choose Obama

    March 11, 2008 08:53 pm at 8:53 pm |
  17. Lucas, Nashville TN

    I think this calls for a good, old-fashioned...

    >>>>>> RETRACTION <<<<<<<

    The media widely reported her the winner, and I think they should make public statements that they called it WRONG and too EARLY.

    March 11, 2008 08:54 pm at 8:54 pm |
  18. Pennsylvania for Obama

    OBAMA WiNS TEXAS!!!!!!!!

    March 11, 2008 08:54 pm at 8:54 pm |
  19. THANK YOU TEXAS

    THANKS TEXAS!!!!!!!!!!!

    Obama 08

    March 11, 2008 08:54 pm at 8:54 pm |
  20. Ade

    To all you Hillary supporters who are crying about the Texas 'two-step' being unfair..... didn't Bill win Texas using this EXACT system when he was running???

    Stop complaining!!! Obama got more delegates...deal with it!

    March 11, 2008 08:54 pm at 8:54 pm |
  21. Mike

    A great man said. Politics favors the wealthy, the shameless and the beautifull. Well the Hillary monster has the first two of these attributes.

    March 11, 2008 08:55 pm at 8:55 pm |
  22. Barry

    Two words: HA HA!

    March 11, 2008 08:55 pm at 8:55 pm |
  23. joe

    a caucus process that was beyond repair where many were left

    out or just left cuz of chaos..

    those caucus votes are not a true picture

    and should be taken to court!!!

    March 11, 2008 08:56 pm at 8:56 pm |
  24. Emiel

    Remark to all Hillary supporters who for Texas suddenly started looking at the popular vote: fine with me! But then have the guts to admit your lady is not winning at all if you look at the complete USA.

    March 11, 2008 08:56 pm at 8:56 pm |
  25. E.L.

    Interesting how Clinton supporters decry caucases as being undemocratic but at the same time you don't have a problem with the superdelegates overturning the will of the people. Obama leads in all catergories. That you can't deny. If you are going to be the guardians of democracy why don't you decry the superdelegate system also. Sounds like more doublespeak to me.

    March 11, 2008 08:57 pm at 8:57 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6