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

Caucus win gives Obama more Texas delegates than Clinton

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption=" 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. Dave

    Wake up and smell the roses. If the Democrats keep fighting. We are looking at another 4-years of the Bush white house if Mc Caine wins.
    All this fighting will split the party. Secondly, the only bubble that is going to burst is the Democratic Party. When they loose the White House.

    March 11, 2008 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  2. Drew

    Ok, Obama won the caucus. Hillary won the popular vote.
    He's won 12 (incl Texas) caucuses to Hillary's 1. Let's keep in mind that there is no caucus in November. The fact that Hillary does better in large states with only popular votes doesn't bode well in Nov. for Obama.

    March 11, 2008 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  3. kay kay

    Clinton keeps fighting that the rules are should count MI and FL, caucuses don't matter, small states dont' matter, blah, blah, blah. What matters at the end of the day is delegate count pure and simple. Those are the rules they both started with. And don't even suggest Obama has wanted to change the rules of how superdelegates vote. While they have suggested it would be wise for the SDs to go along with the popular vote they have not asked for a rule change.

    Bottom line, Obama is focused on getting the right result, and Clinton is focused on the fight. As usual.

    March 11, 2008 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  4. V. Sheldon

    Gee Hill. Guess Texas wasn't all you cracked it up to be. Sorry.:-)
    Yes we can..........

    March 11, 2008 08:30 pm at 8:30 pm |
  5. Raymond Johnson Jr

    I find it hard to beleive that American voters accepted as fact, Hillary
    Rotten Clinton's claim that she's ready be president on day one.
    everything she has was handed to her,By virtue of her name recognition.She pulled strings to become Senator of New York.
    If the truth told, Barack Obama 's experience is more Valuable
    He started from the lowest level as a Organizer, and worked to
    become a United States Senator.Hillary Rotten Clinton had the
    benifit of name recognition and masterful Mud slinging to reach
    her goals.

    March 11, 2008 08:30 pm at 8:30 pm |
  6. Erin

    GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!! Thank you for voting for our best candidate!!!!!!!

    OBAMA 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    March 11, 2008 08:30 pm at 8:30 pm |
  7. LQ Rochester MN

    Annamica, OH Are you a spambot or what?

    Yes, Fran he does need 2025 delegates to become the nominee. No one is going to get 2025 pledged delegates thru the primaries or caucuses. It has been declared physically impossible.
    The "experts" – not Obama supporters – have said that even if Clinton wins the rest of the elections, Obama will still beat her in delegates.

    I used to be a Clinton supporter but she is one dirty fighter. The stuff that her campaign has done, I thought would only be done by repubs, never by a democrat against another democrat. She really has no integrity and no shame.

    And please explain to me how Obama has had it all handed to him on a silver platter. Oh, that's right – African-American men in this country have really had it easy – I forgot. I guess those firehoses I remember seeing on tv being turned on full blast against black CHILDREN in the southern part of this country must have just been one of my nightmares – stuff like that couldn't have happened in this country in the 1960's, because African-Americans have had it handed to them on a silver platter.

    March 11, 2008 08:31 pm at 8:31 pm |
  8. Joanna

    Can anyone calculate the voters state by state? I do think Hillary won more voters but less delegates now. Because in the big state, a pledged delegate represents more voters than in the small state. And in the primary, a pledged delegate represents more voters than in the caucuse.

    March 11, 2008 08:31 pm at 8:31 pm |
  9. uchujin

    P.S. By the way, I will admit however, that the TX caucus has turned into a mess and should not be considered indicative of the process when administered correctly. Many caucus sites have been unbelievably underprepared for the response and involvement of the electorate this year. Earlier contests may be excused, but not TX, not this late in the game and there was no excuse for the disorganization and unpreparedness that was evidenced there.

    March 11, 2008 08:32 pm at 8:32 pm |
  10. Herman

    About time you got it right CNN...

    Obama more Texas delegates than Clinton...

    March 11, 2008 08:32 pm at 8:32 pm |
  11. Dave from NY

    Both Clinton and Obama knew (or should have known) going in to Texas that there is both a primary AND a caucus, This is nothing new: it has been that way in Texas for decades.

    Although it is true that Clinton did win the Texas primary, the fact is that the Texas election consists of the caucus as well as the primary.

    So, in effect, her winning the primary was like going into the locker room at halftime up by a field goal. Her losing the caucus is like giving up the winning touchdown in the fourth quarter. You don't get to whine that you were cheated or that the game was unfair if you agree to play the game and know the rules going in. You don't get the victory at the end of the second quarter, you get it at the end of the fourth quarter.

    Since the name of the game in Texas is to get the most delegates under the rules established by the state of Texas, and Obama is likely to have the most delegates from Texas at the end of the caucus, Obama did in fact win Texas despite losing the popular vote. This stuff does happen (see Presidential Elections, 2000)

    March 11, 2008 08:33 pm at 8:33 pm |
  12. maya

    So? I didn't even read the article- just looked at the headline. I didn't read it because beyond the fact that it gives him a handful more delegates, it is NOT SIGNIFICANT. Why?

    THE GENERAL ELECTION IS NOT A CAUCUS. Hillary won the popular vote in Texas.

    THE KEY WILL BE THE SWING states like NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, TEXAS, FLORIDA, etc-OBAMA HAS NOT SHOWN THAT he can secure a single one of these key states. HILLARY WON THESE. Period. This is why the superdelegates have not gone to Obama. It is that simple.

    March 11, 2008 08:33 pm at 8:33 pm |
  13. rrr

    Finally give it as much coverage as you have in making a case that Hillary "Won" Texas..........In my view neither won the state of Texas

    March 11, 2008 08:33 pm at 8:33 pm |
  14. AJ

    Caucuses reward the candidate who has the better organizational structure. That seems like a quality that's going to be important when running against the Republicans.

    Vote Obama

    March 11, 2008 08:33 pm at 8:33 pm |
  15. IP

    So... will Hillary Clintopn please step down now. Well if she doesnt then we all know she will do enough to ensure that Obama wont win and instead McCain will take the presidency.


    March 11, 2008 08:34 pm at 8:34 pm |
  16. Annamica, OH

    Hey guys, why don't we hold caucuses instead of a general election in the fall, if Obama wins the nomination? That will surely give him the win...and caucuses represent all of America, right?

    March 11, 2008 08:35 pm at 8:35 pm |
  17. Hillary Supporter

    She Still Won The Primary And Got One Less Delegate. So Really Obama Still Lost. She'll Win Pennsylvania And Win The Nomination. Go Hillary!

    March 11, 2008 08:35 pm at 8:35 pm |
  18. Ron


    March 11, 2008 08:37 pm at 8:37 pm |
  19. Annamica, OH

    So if Hillary had lost the primary, but won the caucus, you would all be saying, Hillary won? Well we all know things don't work both ways for Obama supporters. You guys would have raised hell and high water that if she lost the primary, she should drop out. Why is there a double-standard for Obama?

    Why don't we hold caucuses instead of a general election in the fall, if Obama wins the nomination? That will surely give him the win…and caucuses represent all of America, right?

    March 11, 2008 08:38 pm at 8:38 pm |
  20. bob east

    it shows the caucus system is a farce. In states with only caucuses the turnout was tiny. In texeas with both the ballot vote was nearly 10 times the caucus.
    If you look at the person voting in a caucus, its party loyalist, people with a lot fo free time and those not afraid to ffend their neighbor by their opinion.

    March 11, 2008 08:39 pm at 8:39 pm |
  21. Obama Supporters.....

    James E. F. Riley, Sr. – I take it your county voted for Senator Obama?

    I too was around for the NAFTA discussions and I believe that there were discussions with numerous companies regarding the impact of NAFTA.......oh, and wasn't that done by Clinton predecessor? Think so.

    So I can figure however that you are pro amnesty, pro nuclear weapons, and pro Senator Obama's view. Guess that too means that you support someone voted #1 in the Senate for having voted consistently for funding the war and regretting voting regarding the gal in Florida – even though he knew it was the wrong vote given your background as a Constitutional Law Professor.

    Well, if that is all your Mine are alot higher.

    March 11, 2008 08:39 pm at 8:39 pm |
  22. Good Moms For Hillary

    Hey Obama supporters- they don't serve cocktails at a caucus! No need to get there so fast! 🙂
    Seriously though, presidents do not get elected via a caucus- they get elected by popular vote. Having a good chunk of Hillary's base- seniors- be asked to go vote twice in one day or even twice in seperate days is not fair to them. Another important base for Hillary, women, probably couldn't make the caucus as the day after was a big standardized testing day for many children. That's why I didn't caucus but voted in the popular vote. Think about it, when you were a child, would your mother go sit at a caucus until 11pm the day before you had statewide testing or would she stay in and ensure you got to bed early? I know what every good mother would do!
    The caucus does not represent the will of the general population as Texas has shown.

    March 11, 2008 08:39 pm at 8:39 pm |
  23. C Kopcho

    Actually the Texas votes are not finalized until June 6 at the State level convention.

    March 29 is the county/senate district convention date and will determine which delegates go to the June 6 convention.

    Since none of you apparently know what you're talking about, I thought I'd help you out. The amount of ignorance spread across these boards is quite disheartening.

    March 11, 2008 08:40 pm at 8:40 pm |
  24. Ind

    I find it curious that the same Hillary supporters who tout her 51-47 Texas "win" and rail against the idea that caucus delegates would "overturn" that "democratic" result are perfectly fine with superdelegates overturning Obama's similar 51-47 lead nationally to select her as the nominee.

    We need to face facts. Obama has more votes, more pledged delegates, more total delegates and more states, and the none of that will change between now and June unless Hillary starts winning 80-20, which ain't gonna happen. I find it amazing that the media does not report that, and I think the primary reason for it is that the media, like the Clinton campaign, wants to cultivate the perception that this is still somehow a horse race. It's not, and it hasn't been since way before Texas and Ohio.

    For all you ardent Hillary supporters, consider this. After the debacle of Florida in 2000, do you really want to get your nominee in there through more undemocratic shenanigans? Do you really think superdelegates should overturn the results of the popular vote? Is that the Democratic party you signed up to support? Is that the ideal you want to put out there to the nation and to our children watching this race – that any tactic is acceptable so long as your team wins? I thought that's what we hated the most about the Bush/Cheney/Rove menatlity these past 8 years. I have no problem with Hillary playing out the string and seeing what happens, but if you think a vicious contest filled with more personal/race/gender attacks every day (which will be increasingly necessary given how lilttle these two differ on actual policies) is somehow "good" for the party, you're kidding yourself. The groups on the receiving end of those attacks will not just forget them come general election time, and it WILL have an impact on support for the eventual nominee.

    No matter who you support, please try to remember that the goal is to put someone in the nominee spot and, hopefully, the White House who embodies all the best principles we believe in as members of the party. So it's not just the result that matters, but the means we use to get there.

    March 11, 2008 08:43 pm at 8:43 pm |
  25. Johnny Birchfield

    So what. No matter how you crunch the numbers Clinton still wins Texas because even if Obama wins all 1/3 caucus delegate (which he won't) he still loses Texas overall because 2/3 is a bigger number than 1/3 and I can't believe how far CNN will go to throw positive spin Obama's way misrepresenting results to make it look like he is an "Equal" winner and their was some sort of split decision in Texas when the Texas voters indicated very clearly which candidate they prefered...C L I N T O N ! ! !

    March 11, 2008 08:45 pm at 8:45 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6