As Matt wrote, we've got a real chance to turn our state blue -- and with real progressive candidates. This election will help determine if progressives can get elected in Texas.

If we don't this year, then we run the risk of seeing a return to the moderate Democrats that sell out on all the issues as being the standard bearers of the party.

We want to eliminate the climate that gave the country the worst President in our history. Chip in and help turn Texas blue!

I'm stating the rules of the TX primary, which have to be followed. I'm not saying it's fair, it's better, or whatever -- I'm saying that's the reality of what's going on.

Disagree with it all you want, but it's not going to change the reality of what it is. And unless you live in TX, there's really nothing you can do about it.

Superdelegates get to vote twice too, you know.

And I'm sorry I said that all my comments were facts. I was trying to "legitimize" my analysis of the post by showing that, hey, I may know what I'm talking about, considering I called what would happen back when most in the media didn't know how TX worked at all. Thought that would make folks take my post more seriously.

Clearly, I need to be more careful with future posts I write for MyDD.

That was a comment I made 6 weeks ago, and it's shown to be true.

But you're right, that is a comment -- as I acknowledge when I said, "my only comment."

Because I support seating FL & MI, and I'm an Obama supporter. So who are you talking to?

Also, I've never said I support caucuses. I've:

1) reported results from the caucuses
2) talked about the happy consequences of the caucuses

I think you're talking to someone who isn't the author of this diary, which makes me wonder -- why comment in this space?

This is where you're trusting the media, who like to report conflict.

We got around 250+ comments on BOR following the primary conventions, and having read them all, there were just as many (if not more) precinct conventions that went smoothly. Even more went well this weekend (though some went late into the night).

For example, the Dallas Morning News blog almost exclusively whined about the length of the process, and "reported" lots of people shouting and yelling. But reports from Democrats who were actually there suggests that just as many, if not more, had a splendid time.

Sorry, I didn't realize you needed your question answered, since you seemed to know the answer.

Yes, areas of the state that had higher turnout in the general election in '04 and '06 had more delegates assigned to them. This is a model that's been in the rules for quite some time. Ironically, some folks in the party wanted to get rid of this a while ago, but numerous Hispanic legislators wanted to keep it in place. And no, I don't have documentation for that -- you'll just have to trust the anecdote.

I really don't mean to get into a war over anything, so I'll step out. All of your points are great arguments, and you make them well.

I'm not...

I'm saying in TX, it is a happy consequence to have this many Democrats getting active at the convention level. They got to meet neighbors, feel like a part of a community, etc. Those are benefits that are real in TX (I have no idea if it's true elsewhere), and they're good for our Party in the long-term.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth about opinions and arguments. I'm just here to report what is actually happening in TX..."da truth" if you will. :)

For more about TX, check out www.burntorangereport.com

The rules were followed. You can argue about fair -- plenty of folks are constructively talking about that in TX, irrespective of which campaign they support -- but it doesn't take away from the reality of the current state of the race:

Obama is leading Clinton by 3 in pledged delegates. That's a fact. Everything else is arguments/opinions...which are fine, but it's interesting how quickly so many (including Jerome) respond so negatively to facts.

This presumes every Republican who voted in the caucuses (which isn't more than 2-3% if you actually look at the numbers, and not just estimate like everyone else has) did so b/c of Limbaugh. Plenty of moderate Republicans, who are really independents (TX labels are way different than national labels) voluntarily voted for Obama.

Either way, Republicans are only voting for Democrats....something like .01% of voters in the Republican primary were Democrats. It's a one way street, and they're fleeing the other side.

Is that the newspapers in TX this weekend are reporting that, "hey, maybe Obama won TX." For whatever that's worth.

We've got a two-part process, and yes, even our State Party Chair has acknowledged that we need to change this -- though he's embracing the grassroots and trying to get solutions made through the process in place.

If folks want to dump on the Obama campaign, or the TX caucus system, they can. I'd hope they realize, though, the tremendous value in having the caucuses -- it helps our Party identify stronger Democrats. We'll take that, considering how much work we have to turn TX blue.

For us in TX, we have real work to do after the Presidential circuses leave town...

We're just reporting what's going on. Obama is leading Clinton by 3-pledged delegates.

We've also received enormous praise from both the Clinton campaign and Obama campaign for our coverage of the county conventions, and we worked with both campaigns to make it happen. I understand the pull to shoot each campaign down, but that's happening less and less in TX as it happens more and more nationally...

There really wasn't a lot of movement at all from the precinct conventions to the county conventions. A few "rounding" as the numbers narrowed and we worked our way up the caucus pyramid.

The fun part is that we have "state Superdelegates" to our state convention that get to cast a vote in the state caucus-level convention (same as the national model). Though, they only make about 4% of the total delegate population going to the convention, so unless they unanimously back one candidate, their votes are unlikely to shift the 37-30 shift.

We're doing our best to track the state Superdelegates at BOR...

We have a two-part process, so we've got to look at both parts. The legitimacy of the two-step process aside, we have both, and delegates are allocated for both. Obama's currently leading in the pledged delegates.

As an aside, we never had the hard numbers from the precinct conventions, but considering Obama had a 55%-45% lead, and the estimates are that 1 million people voted in the caucuses, that would mean Obama had 550,000 to Clinton's 450,000 votes in the caucuses...

For all those curious, I've done an exhausting Texas Primary FAQ post at Burnt Orange Report that answers any and all questions you may have (how the delegate process works, who's ahead in the polls, where/when to vote, etc) on the Texas primary:

Texas Primary FAQ

Hope it helps. I'll keep reading MyDD. I do agree with this author that polls/numbers are going to be hard to make anything out of anything --- there are so many splits (generational, ethnic, geographic) among voters that I can't imagine how anyone can accurately predict much of anything, beyond the fact that the primary is going to be very, very well attended!