Official March 4th Results Discussion Topic

[jimrtex]

So do they just throw in all the early votes to one precinct or something? Because at the current rate there'd be somewhere in the range of 70-80 million voters in the Texas Democratic primary, which I find fairly unlikely

Early votes are attributed to their precinct.  I think there are provisions to begin counting during election day, and different counties may do it differently.  It looks like Dallas County dumped all their early votes at once, while I think Harris County does them as part of each precinct.

[jimrtex]

Roberts, Hansford and Armstrong Counties report no votes in the Democratic primary. Some things don't change.

You can't have a primary in a county if you don't have a county chairman.  It's the law.

[jimrtex]

"Hi, I'm Texas. I take FOREVER to count results"

Your state took 4 days for a caucus.

No no - my state Republican party took 4 days. My Secretary of State was very prompt

That's because he is a Republican.  Last I checked, King County was still county votes











.









From 2000.

[jimrtex]

McMullen county is interesting...

You've never been to Tilden.

[jimrtex]

McMullen county is interesting...

You've never been to Tilden.

I'm curious about that too - mind expanding?

Nothing there.

BTW, McMullen is the only county in South Texas without a Hispanic super-majority.

[jimrtex]

Chuck Todd on MSNBC is saying that even if Clinton's 2 point lead in TX holds up, his best guess (because of the particular districts where each candidate won) is that Obama nets about 3-4 delegates just from the *primary* contest in TX....this doesn't count what happens in the TX caucus, which we don't know about yet.

The SoS is showing Clinton up 64-62 on the primary delegates.  She is also up 55%:44% in election day voting.  You have people who voted early two weeks ago, who you're going to try to get to come back on a cold night to a different place than where they voted the first time.  Those who voted late on election day can just stick around for the caucus.

[jimrtex]

Anyone (Sam especially), have a link to a map/list/something to help me out?

Click to Texasize

[jimrtex]

i am unbelievably hyped up about loving county, texas

Here's who they're loving:

Obama 7
Clinton 5
Edwards 5
Richardson 4
Dodd1
Biden 0

And 0 loving votes for the Republicans.

Loving doesn't hold a Republican primary since they elect the county officials in the primary.

[jimrtex]

Chuck Todd on MSNBC is saying that even if Clinton's 2 point lead in TX holds up, his best guess (because of the particular districts where each candidate won) is that Obama nets about 3-4 delegates just from the *primary* contest in TX....this doesn't count what happens in the TX caucus, which we don't know about yet.

The SoS is showing Clinton up 64-62 on the primary delegates.  She is also up 55%:44% in election day voting.  You have people who voted early two weeks ago, who you're going to try to get to come back on a cold night to a different place than where they voted the first time.  Those who voted late on election day can just stick around for the caucus.

Not actually true, as the caucuses were in different locations from the primaries. And I was under the impression (haven't checked myself) that it was Obama who led 64-62 in delegates.

It is now Clinton 65:61 on delegates.

The caucuses were at the same location as the polling places (which is not necessarily the same for both parties).  Early voting was at centralized locations.  For example, Harris County had 36 early voting locations, and you can vote at any one.  On election day, you have to vote in your election precinct's polling place.  There are 874 precincts, though there were only about 400 polling places for each party.

[jimrtex]

Obama potentially could come out with a delegate lead based on primary results alone in Texas.  There are 5 delegates that appear to be in play.

Current: Clinton 64 : Obama 62

In 4 delegate districts, a candidate needs 62.5% of the two-candidate total to get a 3:1 split.

SD 3 (East Texas) Clinton at 62.78% with 84% reported.

SD 15 (Northish Houston) Obama at 63.23% with 99.4%

SD 19 (S, W, and N SA and points west to El Paso) Clinton at 62.51% with 73% reported.

SD 26 (C San Antonio) Clinton at 62.26% with 75% reported (SoS just flipped this to a 2:2 split)

And then there is a 6-delegate district in S Dallas, where 75% will give the leader 5 delegates:

SD 23 (S Dallas) Obama at 73.98% with 47% reported.

[jimrtex]

It might be a situation where, in July, Obama is told, "You have a majority of the elected delegates, but to keep that you'll have to disenfranchise FL and MI, if full view of the television cameras, in August."  Even if he wins, he loses.

Obama needs to get a 110 to 165 lead of elected delegates.  He can still do it, but it will be a long fight.

1-The DNC doesn't agree with you.
2-Arguing that Hillary's lead in Michigan is legitimate is hackery of the worst type. For Florida there might be a point, but not Michigan.

Are you going to keep Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, Dingell, Bonior, Conyers, Kilpatrick, Hoffa, and a bunch of UAW members out?  That ought to make good theater.

[jimrtex]

Click to Texasize

[jimrtex]

My extrapolation from the repored Senate districts results in:

Obama 53,605 (55%)
Clinton 44,089 (45%)
Uncommitted 103
Other 9

How did you extrapolate?

Each election precinct was entitled to 1 county delegate for each 15 votes for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2006 (Chris Bell).  So that the sum of the delegates in the left column is the total number of county delegates (88,074).

To get the projected number of county delegates for each candidate for each senate district, you should take the current known delegate totals in the district, and project those over the total number of county delegates for each senate district. 

The percentage of precincts reporting is meaningless, expect perhaps as an indication of distributional bias - if you have relative more small precincts reporting, then the percentage of small precincts reporting will be higher than the percentage of delegates selected.

For example, SD 1 has 2665 county delegates.  Currently there are 474 Obamaniacs and 324 Clintonians, and 1 uncommitted (799 total).  So the projected number of Obamaniacs for SD 1 is (2665*474/799) or 1580, and 1080 Clintonians.

Based on that method, I get a 59-41% statewide split, assuming that the distribution of county delegates within each SD does not change.

At the county conventions, state delegates will be chosen - but they will be chosen by election precinct or groups of election precincts, with one state delegate for each 180 Bell votes fractions truncated.  The allocation of state delegates will be based on the sign-in vote at the precinct conventions.  So the state delegates should be roughly proportional to the county delegates - subject to some pretty severe truncation errors.  If I understand the allocation of delegates for precincts, then in Harris County, 1 precinct will have 6 state delegates, 1 will hav 5, 5 will have 4, 34 will have 3, 125 will have 2, 202 will have 1, and the remaining precincts will share 391 delegates.

Delegates to the national convention will be based on shares of delegates at the state convention.

[jimrtex]

I just extrapolated the given SD counts based on the % reporting.  That is, I divided the current SD count by the percent reporting.  My intent was way more simplistic than you think, I'm afraid. 

You should have divided the current SD counts by the percentage actually allocated.

Anyhow, I miscalculated the percentages.

Updated results: 

Obama 48,718 delegates, 55.3%, 37 national delegates.
Clinton 39,261 delegates, 44.6%, 30 national delegates.

Results are coming in very slow, maybe 0-5 precincts per SD over 3 hours.  And in a few cases there were decreases in the number of precincts reported.