Feb. 9th primaries & caucuses--Dem. results thread

[Torie]

Texas is like California in the Dem primary for Obama but maybe worse. Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California, and the Texas Dem primary is largely sans upper middle class Anglos, and probably has more rednecks still voting in it. Unless Hillary collapses, it's all hers.

Ohio is New Hampshire, but with a 14% black electorate, rather than maybe 3%, and also much lighter on middle to upper middle class Anglos, so clear edge to Clinton, but maybe more in play than Texas.

[J. J.]

Can you lose the white vote as badly as Obama has and carry enough states to win?  Not rhetorical.

[Torie]

Can you lose the white vote as badly as Obama has and carry enough states to win?  Not rhetorical.

Obama split the white vote in California. If he does almost as well in Ohio (unlikely), it's his.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I get your point - the answer is (almost likely) no.  Especially since most of east Texas outside Beaumont/Port Arthur resembles those areas and not the rest of Louisiana.

Though I'd be curious to know your thoughts when you're done.

And here's the map:

[Sam Spade]

Texas is like California in the Dem primary for Obama but maybe worse. Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California, and the Texas Dem primary is largely sans upper middle class Anglos, and probably has more rednecks still voting in it. Unless Hillary collapses, it's all hers.

I'll bump up my (still incomplete) analysis on the Texas Senate Districts for your perusal sometime later today. 

I'll also fill in my anecdotal reports from largely Hispanic (with redneck whites) east Houston that I get second-hand from a strong familial source.  In other words, when my father tells me of a Hispanic/redneck white he's met who is supporting Obama, I'll let you know. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So far, the working class white areas that resemble Ohio have not looked very pretty for Obama, even in Illinois (she beat him there).

Also, I seem to remember Cleveland having a large ethnic white population that is probably not inclined to vote for blacks.

[Sam Spade]

I get your point - the answer is (almost likely) no.  Especially since most of east Texas outside Beaumont/Port Arthur resembles those areas and not the rest of Louisiana.

Though I'd be curious to know your thoughts when you're done.

And here's the map:

Oh, geez.  Ugly.  But fascinating.

[Torie]

Texas is like California in the Dem primary for Obama but maybe worse. Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California, and the Texas Dem primary is largely sans upper middle class Anglos, and probably has more rednecks still voting in it. Unless Hillary collapses, it's all hers.

I'll bump up my (still incomplete) analysis on the Texas Senate Districts for your perusal sometime later today. 

I'll also fill in my anecdotal reports from largely Hispanic (with redneck whites) east Houston that I get second-hand from a strong familial source.  In other words, when my father tells me of a Hispanic/redneck white he's met who is supporting Obama, I'll let you know. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So far, the working class white areas that resemble Ohio have not looked very pretty for Obama, even in Illinois (she beat him there).

Also, I seem to remember Cleveland having a large ethnic white population that is probably not inclined to vote for blacks.

Here is an article to throw into your pile for contemplation with my comment appended. In Texas you have rural and urban Hispanics, and some rubbing shoulders with blacks, and some not. You have the Rio Grande (rural no blacks), San Antonio (urban very few blacks), and Houston (urban with blacks). Will Obama run the worst with Hispanics in Houston, and the best in San Antonio?

[MarkWarner08]

Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California

How is that possible? Most of the racial tensions between Latinos and Blacks have been centered in SoCal. There are also fewer blacks in power in majority Hispanic areas of Texas. Polls also show that TX blacks are more supportive of comprehensive immigration than their CA counterparts.

The less acrimonious relationship between these two groups in TX may aid Obama's inroad efforts in the Valley. With support from Pete Gallego and other TX Latinos, Obama could break the 35% threshold in heavily Latino areas.

[Sam Spade]

Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California

How is that possible? Most of the racial tensions between Latinos and Blacks have been centered in SoCal. There are also fewer blacks in power in majority Hispanic areas of Texas. Polls also show that TX blacks are more supportive of comprehensive immigration than their CA counterparts.

The less acrimonious relationship between these two groups in TX may aid Obama's inroad efforts in the Valley. With support from Pete Gallego and other TX Latinos, Obama could break the 35% threshold in heavily Latino areas.

Does Obama have the support of any other politicians in the border area (much less the rest of Texas) other than Gallego?  I don't know of one, off the top of my head.  That can often make a difference in that "machine-politic" area of the world.

I do agree that the acrimoniousness (word?) will be strongest in Houston/Dallas (yes there are Hispanics in Dallas) and less in other areas.

[Flying Dog]

Well, he just got the support of the Texas Mexican-American Association so...maybe that'll help.

[MarkWarner08]

Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California

How is that possible? Most of the racial tensions between Latinos and Blacks have been centered in SoCal. There are also fewer blacks in power in majority Hispanic areas of Texas. Polls also show that TX blacks are more supportive of comprehensive immigration than their CA counterparts.

The less acrimonious relationship between these two groups in TX may aid Obama's inroad efforts in the Valley. With support from Pete Gallego and other TX Latinos, Obama could break the 35% threshold in heavily Latino areas.

Does Obama have the support of any other politicians in the border area (much less the rest of Texas) other than Gallego?  I don't know of one, off the top of my head.  That can often make a difference in that "machine-politic" area of the world.

I do agree that the acrimoniousness (word?) will be strongest in Houston/Dallas (yes there are Hispanics in Dallas) and less in other areas.

Maybe Ciro will endorse Obama?

Clinton has  Reps. Solomon Ortiz, Silvestre Reyes of El Paso, Henry Cuellar of Laredo,  and Rubén Hinojosa of Mercedes.

Garry Mauro is also backing Hillary.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Texas is like California in the Dem primary for Obama but maybe worse. Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California, and the Texas Dem primary is largely sans upper middle class Anglos, and probably has more rednecks still voting in it. Unless Hillary collapses, it's all hers.

I'll bump up my (still incomplete) analysis on the Texas Senate Districts for your perusal sometime later today. 

I'll also fill in my anecdotal reports from largely Hispanic (with redneck whites) east Houston that I get second-hand from a strong familial source.  In other words, when my father tells me of a Hispanic/redneck white he's met who is supporting Obama, I'll let you know. 

I doubt enough redneck whites are still democrats to have a significant effect on the Dem primary. Well, except maybe a few of the women. Remember also that in Texas, lower-middle class white doesn't necessarily equate to redneck. Lower class white however, probably does. However most rednecks would never vote for Obama (obvious reasons) OR Hillary (they think she's an atheist lesbian communist). Rather they'll turn out in droves to vote for Huckabee.  

[Sam Spade]

Texas is like California in the Dem primary for Obama but maybe worse. Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California, and the Texas Dem primary is largely sans upper middle class Anglos, and probably has more rednecks still voting in it. Unless Hillary collapses, it's all hers.

I'll bump up my (still incomplete) analysis on the Texas Senate Districts for your perusal sometime later today. 

I'll also fill in my anecdotal reports from largely Hispanic (with redneck whites) east Houston that I get second-hand from a strong familial source.  In other words, when my father tells me of a Hispanic/redneck white he's met who is supporting Obama, I'll let you know. 

I doubt enough redneck whites are still democrats to have a significant effect on the Dem primary. Well, except maybe a few of the women. Remember also that in Texas, lower-middle class white doesn't necessarily equate to redneck. Lower class white however, probably does. However most rednecks would never vote for Obama (obvious reasons) OR Hillary (they think she's an atheist lesbian communist). Rather they'll turn out in droves to vote for Huckabee.  

lol

[Sam Spade]

Texas has more blacks, but the Hispanics are probably more conservative/suspicious of blacks than  in California

How is that possible? Most of the racial tensions between Latinos and Blacks have been centered in SoCal. There are also fewer blacks in power in majority Hispanic areas of Texas. Polls also show that TX blacks are more supportive of comprehensive immigration than their CA counterparts.

The less acrimonious relationship between these two groups in TX may aid Obama's inroad efforts in the Valley. With support from Pete Gallego and other TX Latinos, Obama could break the 35% threshold in heavily Latino areas.

Does Obama have the support of any other politicians in the border area (much less the rest of Texas) other than Gallego?  I don't know of one, off the top of my head.  That can often make a difference in that "machine-politic" area of the world.

I do agree that the acrimoniousness (word?) will be strongest in Houston/Dallas (yes there are Hispanics in Dallas) and less in other areas.

Maybe Ciro will endorse Obama?

Clinton has  Reps. Solomon Ortiz, Silvestre Reyes of El Paso, Henry Cuellar of Laredo,  and Rubén Hinojosa of Mercedes.

Garry Mauro is also backing Hillary.

Then she should win Delta County (she will anyways). 

So, the two Hispanic Reps still outstanding are Ciro and Charlie Gonzales.  I think Tony Sanchez also endorsed Hillary, as memory serves me.

[jimrtex]

Here is an article to throw into your pile for contemplation with my comment appended. In Texas you have rural and urban Hispanics, and some rubbing shoulders with blacks, and some not. You have the Rio Grande (rural no blacks), San Antonio (urban very few blacks), and Houston (urban with blacks). Will Obama run the worst with Hispanics in Houston, and the best in San Antonio?

Hidalgo, Cameron, and Webb counties are not rural populations, except by sentiment (in the same sense that many Omaha, Des Moines, or Wichita residents continue to retain contact with agricultural interests, through relatives, etc.).  Rural South Texas is losing population just like rural areas elsewhere.

[jimrtex]

Maybe Ciro will endorse Obama?

Clinton has  Reps. Solomon Ortiz, Silvestre Reyes of El Paso, Henry Cuellar of Laredo,  and Rubén Hinojosa of Mercedes.

Garry Mauro is also backing Hillary.

After Clinton's husband did a campaign rally on the eve or Rodriguez's election?

Do you think anyone in Texas knows who Garry Mauro is (maybe if he is married or has children or his parents are still living)?  He ran 17% behind the Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor, 13% AG, 17% Controller, 8% Land Commissioner, 11% Ag Commissioner, or 9% RR Commissioner.  There is no straight ticket voting in primaries.

[Alcon]

I am very happy to report that the Douglas County results have been corrected, and Obama actually carried the county with 64% of the delegates.  In other words, 39/39 county statewide sweep.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004177136_webcount11m.html

[Gabu]

I am very happy to report that the Douglas County results have been corrected, and Obama actually carried the county with 64% of the delegates.  In other words, 39/39 county statewide weep.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004177136_webcount11m.html

WASHINGTON WINS AGAIN

[Lief 🗽]

WASHINGTON IS OFFICIALLY THE MOST PRO-OBAMA STATE IN THE NATION

[Verily]

WASHINGTON IS OFFICIALLY THE MOST PRO-OBAMA STATE IN THE NATION

Kansas probably had no counties for Clinton, too.

[Lief 🗽]

Maybe Alaska and/or North Dakota as well.

But Washington has more people, so they break the tie.

[Mr. Morden]

Hilarious Clinton spin on her losses this past weekend:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lief 🗽]

Pretty good diary from Markos on the subject.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/11/121758/950/294/454307

[Gabu]

Hilarious Clinton spin on her losses this past weekend:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, well isn't that convenient, every single state that the Democrats will never win is also a state that Obama won, and every single state that the Democrats must focus in is also a state that Clinton won.

EDIT: Oh, besides Missouri.  Is Clinton still clinging to the belief that she won Missouri?

[M]

Maybe Alaska and/or North Dakota as well.

But Washington has more people, so they break the tie.

Alaska does not have counties.