The Texas Two Step measures two qualities of the candidates.

First it measures the breadth of support with the primary.

Then it measures the depth of support with a caucus.

Both are important measures of support.

Hilzoy if just marvelous here:

Note to self: If I ever run for office and base my campaign on the idea that I am ready to lead from day one, I must remember to actually run an effective campaign.

Is there are article out there saying the Obama camp was taken by surprise? I heard they were out and about in Texas explaining the rules to everyone. Seems like they were prepared...

Oh...cry me a river!

She knew all along that Obama had become a political superstar.  When Obama raised more money then her in the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2007, that should have been an even LOUDER clue that she was going to have tough competition.  If her campaign was so arrogant to believe that it would be over and they would have the nomination in the bag after February 5 and spent all their money and made no alternative plans for after Super Tuesday, then that's their problem.

Also...her campaign had plenty of notice about the Texas rules and had plenty time to strategize.  They obviously didn't.

It has become a cliche that if you want to see what kind of president a candidate will, then look at how they run their campaign.  For Hillary it is VERY telling.

Oh...cry me a river!

She knew all along that Obama had become a political superstar.  When Obama raised more money then her in the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2007, that should have been an even LOUDER clue that she was going to have tough competition.  If her campaign was so arrogant to believe that it would be over and they would have the nomination in the bag after February 5 and spent all their money and made no alternative plans for after Super Tuesday, then that's their problem.

Also...her campaign had plenty of notice about the Texas rules and had plenty time to strategize.  They obviously didn't.

It has become a cliche that if you want to see what kind of president a candidate will, then look at how they run their campaign.  For Hillary it is VERY telling.

It goes to the judgement issue once again.

Poor judgement put poor "yes men"in charge of her failing campaign.

Just remember that the President also appoints people such as the "National Security Adviser" another person who sought to evade blame for a screwing up due to a "failure to anticipate"

This episode simply does represent a failure of her campaign which absolutely reflects on her managerial and executive competence. Same with the caucus rules.

Obama did his homework on the caucus system and on Texas and Clinton did not. It really is very simple.

This is exactly why Obama supporters are called cultists.

The only thing running a national campaign has in common with running a national executive is the word national.

In fact running a primary campaign and running a general campaign aren't even the samething.

And considering that Clinton has raised more money and gotten more votes than anyone not named Obama, you can hardly call her campaign poor.

Clinton and an ex-president can't campaign better than an empty suit. That says a lot about their preparedness.

And that very fact makes Hillary Clinton unfit for the role of Commander in Chief.

Look at what failure to plan for more contingencies than the most favorable outcome did for us in Iraq.

I knew that one was coming.

Looks like Texas will not matter in March, too.

Nearly all states allocate delegates based upon turnout in prior elections. The problem is, the Latino districts Hillary does well in failed to turn out in 2004 and 2006 when the turnout would have altered the delegates allocated tot hose districts.

So should we change the texas rules now?

Sheesh!

Except of course the problem is late realization. They shouldn't be surprised about anything that they could have known beforehand.

Fascinating. And how exactly is Clinton proposing superdelegates respond to the will of the people?  I so love consistency.

Them's the Texas rules- live with 'em.

You don't think that a national campaign is gonna have to deal with ballot and voter disenfranchisement issues (FL and OH anyone)???

Then the time to start changing the primary system for 2008 would have been 2004.

It's too late to change things now. If you planned to run in 2008, you should have known how primaries are run.

These two systems measure two different aspects of support for a potential nominee.

Primaries measure the breadth of support for a potential nominee, and do it quite well. By allocating delegates based upon past turnout in elections, it becomes an even more accurate indication of the breadth of support a candidate should get in the general election.

Caucuses measure the depth of support. This is important because highly motivated supporteres are necessary to get out the vote in the general election.

Any candidate needs both a wide breadth of support and a vast depth of support in order to win the general election.

So if you don't like the current system, the time is now to start changing it for 2012.

We may all not like the system (Caucus, etc) but THOSE ARE THE RULES and both campaigns were aware of  them.  Hillary chose, arrogantly, to ignore the caucus states.

Right now Obama is up about 134 delegates. After tomorrow - supposing he wins a tight race in Wisconsin and comfortably in Hawaii - he'll be up around 145. With Texas unable to close the gap, a 20 point victory for Hillary in Ohio would only pull him down to about a 115-120 vote lead. Even a major PA win would bring him down to 85-90. In the meantime you have Mississippi and Wyoming to recover any OH losses. He'll be up 100 after April 22 heading into May.  That leaves NC, OR, SD, MT and probably IN on his side for the taking and KY, WV and Guam for her. PR caucuses will probably go to Obama, with the governor supporting him (and, yes, Jesse Jackson really did win PR). At the end of it he'll be up 100 at least. If you throw in FL for good measure that makes him up 70. No way do the superdelegates throw the race to Hillary facing that kind of margin unless she polls much better against McCain at that point.