The Texas Inferno -- Why It Helps Obama

by publius

Although I reject the whole “nothing counts until March 4” argument, I have been looking ahead to the Texas Democratic primary. Quite understandably, Clinton wants to make Texas the firewall. It is, after all, the most Clinton-friendly of the remaining big states – on paper anyway.

The problem for Clinton, though, is that Texas has an extremely arcane delegate allocation system that is structured in a way that will help Obama. The system won’t necessarily help him win, but it will help him avoid the type of blowout that Clinton so desperately needs. In short, Texas may not be much of a firewall at all.

Below, I’ve attempted to provide a basic summary of how the Texas primary will work. Be warned though – it’s extremely dense. Some who’ve sought its truths have never returned. But I, dear reader, risked it -- for you. Like Virgil before me, I will guide you through the Inferno that is the Texas Democratic primary. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here . . .

The Texas Democratic system quite literally resembles Wile E. Coyote’s Rube Goldberg machines. But after reading this incredibly helpful summary from Burnt Orange Report, I think I have the basic gist of how it all works. (The Chronicle has further, but less helpful, background here).

The big picture is that winning Texas delegates is a two-part process – one part election, and one part caucus. The election awards 126 delegates, while the caucuses (ultimately) award 67 (I’m ignoring the 35 superdelegates).

On Election Day, two things happen. First, you go vote in your precinct just like in any regular election. Immediately after the polls close, however, there are precinct-level caucuses (i.e., at 7:15 that night). Only people who voted in the election can participate in the caucus.

Let’s break each of these two steps down.

The Election

The primary election itself accounts for 126 delegates. These delegates are awarded proportionally by state senate district (and there are 31 of those). Thus, it is not winner-takes-all. Nothing crazy yet – this is similar to how other states work.

Here’s the catch though. The number of delegates assigned to a given district is based on the level of Democratic turnout in the 2004 and 2006 presidential and gubernatorial races. In other words, districts with strong turnout are “rewarded” with more delegates, relatively speaking.

This dynamic will help Obama. As the Chronicle article explains, turnout in recent elections has been high in important heavily-African-American districts. In important heavily-Latino districts, by contrast, turnout was relatively low. As a result, the former will have more delegates than they might otherwise have.

Confused yet? I hope not, because that was the easy part. The caucus is where things get hairy.

The Caucus

Another 67 delegates are ultimately awarded via the caucuses (this is where Rube Goldberg enters the picture). These 67 delegates are not officially awarded until the state Democratic convention in June. So, technically speaking, only 126 delegates are in play on March 4 proper.

But in reality, the election-night caucuses pretty much determine the allocation of the 67 delegates. The process goes something like this: (1) the election-night “precinct” caucuses select delegates for the county convention; (2) these “county” delegates caucus and select delegates for the state convention; (3) the “state” delegates caucus and select delegates for the national convention. In short, it goes from precinct to county to state to national.

The key, though, is winning the first step – i.e., the precinct level. If Obama wins these caucuses by say 70%, then his delegates will dominate the county convention. Their delegates, in turn, will dominate the state convention. And on down the chain it goes. But the ultimate outcome is determined at Step #1.

The caucus system is probably Clinton’s biggest concern. Regardless of why (and Kevin Drum has lots of good theories), Obama is doing much better in caucus states. Those same dynamics should help Obama in the post-election precinct caucuses as well – and thus will help him win delegates that will ultimately trickle “up” to the national convention.

* * *

I’ve simplified this process – for instance, the 67 delegates are elected in different ways (go here for an explanation, if you dare). But still, the big picture is that the arcane system helps Obama in a lot of non-obvious ways.

And of course, the bigger point is that Obama doesn’t need to win Texas outright. He just needs to avoid a blowout. So when the Texas results come in on March 4, it will be critical to look at whether they include these post-election caucus numbers.

[UPDATE: More in-the-weeds details here and here (via Sullivan).]

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"The caucus is where things get hairy."

It's actually just bog-standard caucus rules, familiar to anyone who has ever attended a caucus in any state with caucuses.

[KCinDC]

If this is true, then I'll have to readjust my Gary-based positive view of caucuses.

[wonkie]

You are describing something roughy similar ( I think) to what republicans do in Washington. They choose by a mixture of caucus and primary. Washington Democrats choose through a three tier system of caucuses. Your very own wonkie is a delegate! I gave a knockout speech at my caucus and won popular aclaim. Seriouusly. i am a vdery good public speaker. A lousy typist, but a good speaker.

And gary your response to my quacker typo ws hilariouus! Thank you for being so patient with me.

I hope that Obama does resonably well in Texas. I hope he does well in Wisconsinn too which is by no means a certainty. Hillary is up by ten points there which means she is probably really up by five or six. By the media covers the races as win/lose and it's the "wins" inn the media that build momentum.

This is a digression but here goes: my brother who lives in a red part of Wisconsin says that Hillary-hate is viral there. it really is a mistake for Democrats to underestimate the power of hillary-hate to energize the R base. Hillary-hating is really the ony unifying theme left for thhe R party. Besides Republicans HAVE to keep on hating her for their own self-esteem. Bullies always blame their target--that's how they justify themselves. To sit home and let her get elected is to repudiate their own behavior for thelast decade or more. And all of the Repubicans are complicit inthe hating. They eitherr were actively involvrd in the demonizing or they aquiesed in the deomizing because itt was useful. i am thinking of people like Charles or James Joyner who like to thinnk of themselves as being so moderate and civil but who made excuses ffor thhe excesses of the likes of Rush annd Coulter. The only thing the R party has left is "At least our guy isn't as bad as her." Obama doesn't carry that baggage. It isn't Hillary's fault that hating her is so importannt to thhe righhtwing. But it is a significant factor in the dynamics of this election.

[wonkie]

Yes,KC in DC, that is true. That's why caucuses are harder than just voting and why caucuses favor the party structure. Caucus training is vey important. Otherwise one is at the mercy of the local party to play fair.

[eric jung]

Hey, what can you say? Sometimes you gotta abandon all hope.

[Gary Farber]

"If this is true, then I'll have to readjust my Gary-based positive view of caucuses."

They have their pros and cons, of course, but I do like the pros. As for the cited description, well, politics requires some seriousness, and in caucuses that requires bothering to stay for more than five minutes if you care to do more than the absolute minimum. It's a shame that the Obama supporters in this case were so uninterested in doing anything beyond that.

But I don't think a system that rewards involvement is a bad one. Opinions can legitimately vary on this, but that's mine.

As for "As one goes up the ladder party functionaries play an increasingly prominent role," there's nothing whatever given about anything of the sort; it's simply a matter of continuing to make the same kind of effort at each level of successive voting. Again, if Obama supporters care to see it through, they'll win. If they don't, they'll lose. I'm fine with that. It's entirely democratic. Complaints about systems that devolve to the complaint that, essentially, the complainer is lazy and doesn't want to bother so much leave me less sympathetic than I am capable of being, I'm afraid.

I posted about Texas around 5:40 p.m. yesterday, incidentally.

[trilobite]

Hey, wonkie, fellow delegate! I gave a speech at my caucus too -- and brought over every single undecided to Obama on the second ballot.

I learned last week that CaseyL is also a Washingtonian -- Casey, did you get to be a delegate too? All the cool people are being delegates this year, you know.

:)

Wonkie, if you're in King or Snohomish, wanna meet up before the district caucus? CaseyL, I know your caucus location was just a few miles from my house. Same question.

[Gary Farber]

"This is a digression but here goes: my brother who lives in a red part of Wisconsin says that Hillary-hate is viral there."

It's worth remembering where Joe McCarthy was elected from.

"Caucus training is vey important. Otherwise one is at the mercy of the local party to play fair."

I guess. I never had any, though, and I never had a problem. Anyone who has the faintest experience with any sort of Roberts Rules of Order (of which none whatever was seen at my Super-Duper Tuesday caucus, I regret to say) meeting should find it a pretty simple experience, although it's certainly true that that leaves plenty of people out.

And, sure, it's more confusing and complicated than voting in a primary. But it's far more rewarding to those, and for the cause of those, who make the effort. I'll make that trade-off any day, myself.

[wonkie]

Idon't thinkit is a matter of the Obama (or other neophyte) being lacking in comitment. At the county level thedelegates will bewinnowed down. people who are wellknown party activista have the advantage in getting eledcged to the next level. That means the caucus delegates who go to the county evel have to make sure that whoever goes to the next level up actually represents their preferred candidate. By the time it gets to state the ordinary off the street folks will be pretty well weeded out and replaced by people who have a history of party activism. It takes a cerrtain amount of political savvy to make sure that weeding out process doesn't weed out all the insurgent supporters. One has to assertively monitor the people who put themselves forward to be delegates at the next level up. A great deal of integrity is required for the process to be democratic. Sometimes people don't have that integrity.

I likethe talkinng and discussing aspect of caucuses. it is fun to get together with other people and engage in politics. However it is a system that is easily gamed bythe unscrupulous.

[wonkie]

Hi fellow Washington delegates! Maybe we will make to stae and meet there. I live in mason county so I'm kind of far from you but if you are ever over by Shelton, by all means let me know.

[hilzoy]

Go ObWi delegates! We are proud. :)

[wonkie]

BTW I don't have any worries about the Washington party. My memories of the party gaming the system date back to Iowa a long time ago. My guess is that the degree of integrity depends on the players and varies from place to place.

[Gary Farber]

"My guess is that the degree of integrity depends on the players and varies from place to place."

I don't think there's any other possibility, actually.

[liberal japonicus]

If there's a brokered convention, ObWi gets a seat at the table! Kewl.

[Tsam]

Hi trilobite & Wonkie. I'm a veteran of 7 WA presidential caucuses but only once was a delegate.

The caucus system here is what the party wants because it helps them get contributions & volunteers. Also it prevents an insurgent candidate from winning by flooding a small fraction of precincts. The 147 who attended my precinct didn't get any more delegates for their historic numbers. If 14 had attended the results would have been the same. (Here are photos from my caucus site, with the crowd from about 8 precincts.)

I wonder if the resistance of caucuses to the Clinton campaign reflects that they are getting many supporters, but not reaching all of the precincts like Obama. (He won every single county in Washington. The one reported as going for Clinton had accidentally switched the numbers in their initial report.)

Another concern with caucuses is that the higher-level selections can be influenced by the party leadership to change the result. Choosing delegates who will remain committed to their candidate can minimize this.)

[[My favorite place to look for primary process details in the Green Pages, such as the Texas process description here. I like the CQ compilation that Gary pointed to,but Green Papers has the most detail I have seen, presented clearly.]]

[Gary Farber]

"If there's a brokered convention, ObWi gets a seat at the table! Kewl."

LJ, all any of us are so far are precinct delegates (or alternates) to county conventions. Which then elect delegates to State conventions. Which then elect delegates to the national convention in Denver.

The odds of anyone here who has already commented about being a delegate being elected as a national delegate are very low.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks gary, but I meant it more as a humorous aside, though it's obviously a bad joke if you have to explain it.

[Adam]

I encourage everyone to read this analysis of the Texas primary that John posted yesterday. I guarantee that after about two pages you'll just throw up your hands in frustration and say "whatever, I'll just wait for the votes," because it's pretty much the most apocryphal election process you could possibly imagine, and it's likely not worth the effort. Just go with publius' Rube Goldberg metaphor and be done with it.

[J. Michael Neal]

They have their pros and cons, of course, but I do like the pros. As for the cited description, well, politics requires some seriousness, and in caucuses that requires bothering to stay for more than five minutes if you care to do more than the absolute minimum. It's a shame that the Obama supporters in this case were so uninterested in doing anything beyond that.

This may be true. However, at my Minnesota caucus site, the people in charge were encouraging people to fill out their presidential preference ballot and leave. I even asked one of them if that was the important step, and he said, "Yes."

In part, this happened because our precinct caucus drew about three times as many people as could possibly have fit into the room where it was held. The type of caucus you advocate simply could not have occurred.

[KCinDC]

But I don't think a system that rewards involvement is a bad one.

I don't have a problem with rewarding involvement (though it does penalize people who are unable to be involved because of jobs, disability, or other reason), but I don't see how a system that sends Clinton delegates to the next level when the turnout is overwhelmingly for Obama can be described as democratic. I guess we won't know how common such shenanigans are until the caucus states choose their convention delegates and we see how they vote. It certainly adds a new level of anxiety.

[John Thullen]

"Like Virgil before me, I will guide you through the Inferno that is the Texas Democratic primary."

I've got my own dark wood to deal with, but if you guys stumble upon the soul of Bob McManus, tell him that if he can stand even more torment to come back here and comment again.

Was that him howling?

[Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic]

@wonkie,

You are describing something roughy similar ( I think) to what republicans do in Washington.

Perhaps. But I missed the part where the Texas Democrats stop the caucus before all the votes are counted and award it to whomever state party officials wanted to win in the first place.

[bob mcmanus]

"Was that him howling?" ...JT

Of course I'm howling, as a Texan I am apparently going to have to wrestle with Rube Goldberg.

[Slartibartfast]

I guarantee that after about two pages you'll just throw up your hands in frustration

I haven't had lunch yet, and I usually prefer the tenderer viscera to the gristly appendages.

[fostert]

This has to be the strangest electoral process ever. No surprise it's in Texas. I don't really miss living in Texas, but I do miss the bizarre politics. Especially the Cloak Room in Austin, which is the only bar in which I've done tequila shots with my state representative. There's really nothing quite like Texas politics.

[Adam]

This has to be the strangest electoral process ever. No surprise it's in Texas. I don't really miss living in Texas, but I do miss the bizarre politics. Especially the Cloak Room in Austin, which is the only bar in which I've done tequila shots with my state representative. There's really nothing quite like Texas politics.

My little sister, who's never been excited about a campaign before, sent an email out to the family saying, "This is going to be great! The one year my vote matters, and I get caucuses and primaries!" Which was kind of heartwarming.

Maybe we'll dress up as British Parliamentarians and boo and hiss and cheer while people speak.

[Jeff]

Thanks gary, but I meant it more as a humorous aside, though it's obviously a bad joke if you have to explain it.

1] I got it.

2] Just because the odds are high, that doesn't mean they're insurmountable.

3] I would think that if a precinct delegate was willing to put in the time and effort, it would increase their odds of making it to The Show.

=========================

I like the idea of caucuses, but I think that for the vast majority of people, they work like standard elections, because most of us can take time to vote, but can't take the couple of hours (or more) that it sounds like a caucus takes.

Do caucuses tend to favor certain demographics -- those who can take more time, such the retired, or college students, or the like?

[gwangung]

Slightly OT...but I'm surprised at the number of Washingtonians here at ObWi....

(And I was in rehearsal all Saturday....but all of theatre friends who weren't, went to caucuses and pretty much went Obama...)

[KCinDC]

Trilobite, I thought you lived in Virginia. Did you move, or am I misremembering?