It’s been a long 48 hours for me here in the heart of Texas. Monday night I went to check out Barack Obama for myself at one of his stops in Houston. The crowd was about six thousand or so strong and was composed mostly of people of color (probably an 85-15 split) including quite a few South Asian Americans. I’d never been to a political rally and figured this would be my chance to witness one first hand. I would have loved to have gone to a Clinton rally as well but my schedule (and hers) didn’t permit it. My observations from the rally were many, but here are a few:
1) There are a lot of sheep who will bay at just about anything
2) People seem to go crazy when free stuff is being handed out. When free Obama placards were being handed out (to wave around at the rally) I felt like I was in the middle of a disbursement of flour in the Gaza strip, given the way people started acting
3) The vast majority of people want to believe in someone other than themselves
4) Gas prices seem to be the most important thing to the group of people I was with
I realized that a rally just doesn’t do anything for me. I am a policy wonk and find it more satisfying when I feel the candidate is talking directly to me rather than simply trying to inspire me.
I early voted in the primary but I also caucused after the polls closed at 7 p.m. CST tonight (Tuesday). This dual primary-caucus system is unique to Texas and is often described as the Texas Two-Step. At 7:15p.m. you sign in and declare which candidate you are caucusing for. You have to caucus for a candidate in the same party as the person who you voted for earlier in the primary. However, there is nothing preventing you from splitting your “two votes” among two candidates if you choose to.
The caucus — officially dubbed a “precinct convention” — begins at 7:15 p.m. or when the polls close, whichever is later.
Caucus-goers arrive and put their names and presidential preference on the “sign-in sheet.” Ideally, they should show proof of having voted in the Democratic primary, but it is not absolutely necessary, according to the Harris County Democratic Party.
The group first elects a chair and secretary. Those two then take a count, noting the total number of people and how many are for Obama or Clinton. Delegates then are distributed proportionally.
For example, say 100 people show up at a given precinct on Tuesday night. If 75 of them support Clinton, and 25 support Obama, then she gets 75 percent of the delegates and he gets 25 percent. If the precinct has 20 delegates to allot, Clinton gets 15, Obama 5. [Link]
<
p>I live in a heavily African American district so I expected that the caucus at my local precinct, an African American church directly adjacent to my apartment building, would be filled with Obama supporters. It was. I also expected there to be a heavy representation of health care professionals since the area of town I live in is called the Med Center area. There was. So many people showed up that just signing everyone in took an hour and a half. Since I was one of the first to sign in, and since I lived right next door, I left the caucus, made barbecue and lime salmon with steamed asparagus, ate my dinner, and then returned to the church just in time to begin the caucus.
<
p>At this point the Obama supporters were asked to go to one side of the room and the Clinton supporters to the other (no other candidate had enough supporters to meet the threshold). The caucus vote was roughly 370-80 in favor of Obama which meant that the delegate breakdown for my precinct was 29-7 in favor of Obama. Now we had to vote, from among the remaining caucus participants (half left after signing in and being counted), who would serve as elected delegates to the state convention. I think I had a pretty decent shot at being elected a delegate by my peers but I passed. I am instead thinking of making a power play to become captain of the entire precinct (the person coordinating a caucus). If Jindal can win in Louisiana why not I in Texas 
? Baby steps like these are a way in which desis can get more politically active on a small scale while keeping their day jobs. Plus…I’m power hungry.
<
p>In any case, I observed that most of the desis there (about a dozen or so) caucused for Hillary Clinton, and that all of those present until the end were under ~35. I also noticed that many of the African American participants questioned every detail, afraid that their vote might not be counted or that the middle-aged white Obama supporter who serves as the current precinct captain might change his vote or might not be sufficiently loyal enough to Obama. Not a single black man remained to caucus for Clinton, but a handful of black women did.
I left just after 10 p.m. CST feeling pretty satisfied. I excersied my vote to the fullest extent possible. Juding by the results, every vote counted.
Not sure whether to say “wow,” or “ouch”! 😉
Small steps it is.. good luck! abhi for 2020!!
whew! Thanks texas and ohio. this is the best case scenario for republicans. the odds of clinton winning via pledged delegates are low, as j. alter explains, but this result gives clinton a chance to convince superdeligates to go for her, perhaps even try to steal some of obamas pledged delegates (as they have hinted). this, along with seating the Michigan and fl delegates, could give her the nod.
but she risks disenfranchising many democrats and killing her ability to bring out the base. i suspect she’s already lost blacks, who’ll choose to stay home if she’s the candidate just for the racism coming from her campaign alone. and the attacks are likely to get worse.
however, obama surviving the clinton assault will make him stronger, and considering mccain will most likely be playing a bad hand (presidential elections are about peace and prosperity) obama will be unstoppable.
great election though. high drama.
Who did the Caucasoids caucus for? (Sorry, couldn’t resist)
What’s the rationale for the two-step?
3 · Manju said
Not if she picks Obama as her running mate, which she may be compelled to do.
5 · Seahawks fan said
oh yeah. didn’t think of that. pretty sure obama won’t offer the vp slot to her, but she may conclude this is the only way to make ammends with black voters, who she needs.
its still obama’s to lose though.
6 · Manju said
True, but I don’t see why people are expecting her to (or calling for her to) bow out. She’s behind by only 100 or so delegates. Why should she throw in the towel? She needs to fight to the end, if only to give us a little excitement.
the math.
I am taking a screenshot, printing it out, and getting it notarized. When you start campaigning in 2020, I guess there would be some money to be made by blackmailing you 😀
“If Jindal can win in Louisiana why not I in Texas ? Baby steps like these are a way in which desis can get more politically active on a small scale while keeping their day jobs. Plus…I’m power hungry”.
Just stay away for ice sculptures. 🙂
White men–>Obama; White women–>Clinton
If she’s arm-twisted to bow out, she should pull a Lieberman stunt and run as an independant. With a strong VP candidate, she’ll hurt both Obama and McCain really bad – so much that she could even pull off a razor-thin victory.
That’ll be something!
M. Nam
The results for Obama in Ohio are pretty devastating. He lost all counties except for 5 and only won in and around Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati. He will also lose all counties in Pa outside Philly and Pittsburg and all counties in Indiana outside Indy and South Bend. He will also probably lose Kentucky and West Virginia. At best he will be able to split the remaining states with Hillary. This cant be good news for the Democrats.
Abhi wrote: >>The vast majority of people want to believe in someone other than themselves
Are you sure you’re not turning Libertarian?
M. Nam
The biggest loser of the night was actually the Zogby Poll who had Obama and Hillary tied in Ohio. SUSA of course nailed it again.
Stage may be setting up for a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton combined ticket.
I know this is very tempting, but if this continues until the convention the amount of vitriol that she pours on him will reach a critical level and make it all but impossible to put the ticket together. After all, given the math pointed out on this thread (and elsewhere on all the political sites), he would be the presumptive Pres. nominee, with Hillary playing the veep. How can she justify supporting a man who she has savaged as weak on national security (3am phone call ads) as the “Commander-in-Chief”?
As for Obama, what he needs to do is just keep plowing away. If this turns into a war of attrition, that’s fine… he wins barring a catastrophic turn of events for him which doesn’t seem likely at this point (any skeletons in the closet would have made their way out by now), and he goes into July with more popular vote, more elected delegates and more primaries won (by probably over a 2-1 margin).
John McCain must be getting some awfully good sleep these days…
I know this is very tempting, but if this continues until the convention the amount of vitriol that she pours on him will reach a critical level and make it all but impossible to put the ticket together.
Bush Sr. did team up with the vodoo economist Reagan.
I don’t think either is capable of having the other as a VP. Neither the passive-aggressive, and now peevish Obama, nor the insecure Clinton. But, politics makes strange bedfellows.
How can she justify supporting a man who she has savaged as weak on national security (3am phone call ads) as the “Commander-in-Chief”?
Clinton can do anything, she’s a Washington insider, very well versed in doublespeak. if she can one day say , “I’m honored to be here with Obama” and the very next say, “Shame on you Barack Obama”. She can easily spin the narrative, the deeper the wounds go, into May? into June? into July? the harder the spin, but she could do it none-the-less.
But, she might just as Obama, to lock the black vote.
Obama would never in a million years choose Hillary, there’s a myriad of other choices he could make that would serve the same purpose (get the older, white male vote) – for example, John Edwards is one choice.
Plus, Obama doesn’t want Bill hanging around the White house.
chanakya writes: >>it does not matter if obama, clinton or mcain win.
You should post more…
That’s not true. Obama has given no indication that he doesn’t trust his wife.
M. Nam
I found the county breakdown interesting, the cities went to Obama by a lot, except for San Antonio (Hispanic majority), but most of the “square counties” (generally rural and small town areas) were with Clinton, by a lot. Ron Paul also managed to get 17% of the Rep. vote in Travis county (Austin), which if you’ve been there shouldn’t be surprising.
That’s not true. Obama has given no indication that he doesn’t trust his wife.
His wife appears to have standards though.
Good to see your caucusing experience in TX went far better then those I observed in Vegas. All the same, I think caucusing sucks butt. 🙂
Taz: What happens in Vegas?
Taz: What happens in Vegas?
Stays in Vegas.
“The exit polls prove that Rush tilted Texas for the Clintons.”
I understand that Latinos and older White women (and O.W men?) generally lean towards the Clintons, enabling HRC to win the primaries in Texas and Ohio respectively, but surely her record on NAFTA would have disillusioned the the more conservative Texans or the primarily blue-collar Ohio-ans? Can anyone explain?
obama blew his nafta advantage with the canada fiasco. serves him right as he was demagoging the issue not unlike the outsourcing/d-punjab flap. truth is both clinton and obama are free-traders but know protectionism sells in tough economic times. pat buchanan, however, belives his own rhetoric.
WHAT? Obama? Doublespeak? NOOO!!!! First, the shocking demise of the Huckabee candidacy shatters my hope that my miracle major will get me jobs, and now this? Is there nothing sacred in this world anymore?
Can we please stop with this uninformed nonsense? He was not “demagoging” the outsourcing/D-Punjab issue; if that was his intention he wouldn’t have apologized and said that the memo was a mistake and did not reflect his views. Leave the misinformation about Obama to the McCain/Clinton tag team, please.
Can we please stop with this uninformed nonsense?
I dunno. tough call, remember who you’re asking.
I caucused for Obama last night and worked a voting precinct during the day. The caucus I attended broke similarly as Abhi’s – 28 for Obama and 8 for HRC. The attendees were 95% minority – black (probably 60% of the total), Asians and some Latinos. The suburb of Houston where I live, the whites are overwhelmingly Republicans. The 5% liberal white caucus goers were all for Obama, most of them older men. The Asians and Latinos went overwhelmingly for Hillary. The few Asian supporters of Obama (including me and my husband) were all South Asians – not a single East Asian on our side. One African American couple was on the Hillary side. We were able to convince the wife to cross over. The husband stood his ground sullenly. At the voting precinct where I worked the election desk, several white Republicans voted Democrat. Don’t know if they were doing so on their own volition or answering Rush Limbaugh’s call.
I have a suspicion that Obama is more afraid of the Clintons than he is of the Republicans. Unless he has the gumption to go negative, he is going to get wiped out even if he keeps his lead in popular votes and delegates. The Clintons are already sharpening their rhetoric and their knives to convince party elders that Hillary’s wins though fewer, are the ones that matter. The Obama campaign has to go after Hillary regarding the Clintons’ joint tax returns, the source and method of their wealth accumulation since they left the White House nearly indigent and in debt and Hillary’s White House papers which implausibly, she is now blaming George Bush of holding up. If Obama thinks that he can take the “high ground” with the Clintons and succced, he may as well commit political suicide right now by throwing himself under McCain’s Straight Talk Express.
If the Democratic nomination process goes on for long, as now looks likely and barring something utterly unexpected, we are going to have to say hello to Prez McCain. I just don’t see the party coming together after the blood letting that will occur. The Kitchen Sink doesn’t even scratch it. It will be the whole toxic dump that will be splattered over this campaign. Supporters of neither candidate will have much motivation to vote for the other.
Interestingly enough, one of my neighbors, an older liberal white gentleman who attended the Obama caucus with me last night, said that he will vote for McCain if Hillary ended up as the Dem nominee. I initially thought that it was the typical sexist reluctance to vote for a woman until he added :”I would vote for her if she was divorced or widowed! I don’t want Bill back in the White House.” So his reason for not supporting Hillary Clinton is no different from mine.
Funny – this is exactly how it has played out in India! Married women have rarely made it in politics (or business). It’s the single, widowed or divorced woman who’s come out on top (no pun intended!). Indira Gandhi picked up big after Feroze’s death. Mamata Banerjee and Mayawati never married. Jayalalitha rose to the top after MGR’s death (I know – she was not his wife but people saw her as “his” woman). Maneka Gandhi prospered only after Sanjay’s death. Sadhvi Ritambara is unmarried.
The exception is Sushma Swaraj, who’s really never made it that big.
Is there a sub-conscious hesitation on part of men that keeps them away from a woman who “belongs” to another man? They don’t want anything to do with her until she becomes available (through divorce, widowhood etc) – and that includes voting for her? Is there a millennia-old tribal instinct at play here?
M. Nam
Funny – this is exactly how it has played out in India! Married women have rarely made it in politics (or business). It’s the single, widowed or divorced woman who’s come out on top (no pun intended!). Indira Gandhi picked up big after Feroze’s death. Mamata Banerjee and Mayawati never married. Jayalalitha rose to the top after MGR’s death (I know – she was not his wife but people saw her as “his” woman). Maneka Gandhi prospered only after Sanjay’s death. Sadhvi Ritambara is unmarried.
Yes, and No.
You are playing it out with a skewed prism.
a) Indira Gandhi rose after Feroze Gandhi, and Nehru were dead, and she was a “compromise” candidate when she became PM, and before that she was “gungi guriya” (silent doll) Information and Broadcasting Minister, and before that a very laconic, uneventful Congress President. She used Feroze Gandhi’s (an independent MP) constituency to become Lok Sabha (from Rae Barielly, in 1970s-80s, briefly also elected from TN), and was always seen as Bahu (wife) of Feroze Gandhi in Rae Barielly.
b) Jayalalitha rose because of MGR, and was his heir.
c) Jaya Prada, an MP, and once an actress (in Satyajit Ray’s word the most beautiful face in India during peak acting career, but not a big player in politics) is married.
Kush,
Be that as it may, the fact remains that only after losing their husbands did they really start their meteoric rise. Maybe sympathy was also a factor.
Another example: Didn’t Bhindranwale’s widow also get elected soon after Operation Bluestar?
M.Nam
Maybe the question that should be asked is whether they had started a political (or any) career at all when their husbands were alive?
Moornam:
My neighbor’s (age 77)reply was nothing so deeply psychological as you suspect. He just doesn’t want to see Bill Clinton back at (or close to) the seat of power calling shots and ruining the Democratic Party with his self centered antics.
34 · MoorNam said
Sushma Swaraj did not make it big? Chief Minister of Delhi. Twice member of the Union Cabinet. The BJP considered her the only person who could stand up to Sonia Gandhi in Bellary (where she lost by a margin of 7% which is pretty freaking good if you’re running against a Gandhi). While I’m not SS’s fangirl, she was a major player in the BJP at least in the late 90s (spokesperson until Pramod Mahajan’s rise, pet of Vajpayee), when I was more into desi politics. Shiela Dixit is married, and also a Congress bigwig. Nandini Satpathy. Vijayaraje Scindia. Ambika Soni is quite powerful too, don’t know about her marital situation. In general, nepotism, wealth and proximity to powerful people allows people to move forward in Indian politics (politics anywhere I’d venture) – be they men or women.
missed renuka chodhary on that list.
He just doesn’t want to see Bill Clinton back at (or close to) the seat of power calling shots and ruining the Democratic Party with his self centered antics.
again, who cares who sucks his thing.
This is one desi who is in favor of Obama. As a biracial canidate with one parent and several relatives (including half siblings) either from or with roots in other countries, I feel that he is more representative of me than any other canidate. He seems to be the only truly global canidate. As american desis, we all hold in our hearts a culture and a country that is elsewhere. We are global people. And I feel that a global canidate is a very good idea.
I believe this is known as the Kitchen Hope platform.
Point taken, as I’ve conceded to many a friend over the last few days when discussing this issue, but it’s one thing to attack an individual’s economic strategy/ health care plan/ foreign policy plan. What Hillary is doing is attacking the actual character of Obama, suggesting not only that he is wrong on the issues but that he has character flaws that are potentially disastrous for the country. I understand that in politics all is fair game, but usually that’s saved for the general election, not a primary where one of these candidates is going to (like it or not) have to support the other one who wins when all is said and done.
Hillary’s use of the now infamous “turban picture” along with her hedging on the “what religion is Obama” question just follows up on previous emails alleging that O is a Muslim (which she was “shocked” to find out came from her camp). It’s character assassination by a thousand cuts. Obama ought to start using Vince Foster in his campaign spots 🙂
Kyrial:
You are absolutely right. It is possible to team up with an opponent when the differences are on issues. When aspersions are cast on one’s character and background, that is a whole different ball game. In all polls, it is Clinton who scores low in the category of “trustworthiness.” So it is not a surprise that she is trying to level the playing field in that area. I for one, do not wish to see a Clinton – Obama ticket (or the reverse).
Hillary is not just planting suspicions about Obama with words, innuendos and pictures. When the picture does not lend itself to slander and blatant manipulation, she is photo shopping!
No depth is too low to plumb if it helps realize one’s life long lust for power.
I’ve been reading about this laughable story for the past few days. I think this allegation says more about the perceived persecution and paranoia of the accusers than the accused.
Given that he hasn’t a record and that he has not done anything, for example, on Afghanistan in the senate – an issue he pretends to care about – even when he had the opportunity because he was too busy trying to realize his lifelong
lust for powerdesire to serve the people, all he is running on is character and inspiration as tools to get the job done. Attacking his readiness and credentials is fair game.No depth is too low to plumb if it helps realize one’s life long lust for power.
Lets not diss life long lust for power. You need fire in the belly to fight the GOP machine. You think Hillary is too tough on Obama? Wait till the GOP takes on Obama if Obama is the nominee.
I actually do believe that Hillary should have dropped out after losing 11 straight because of the delegate math. However, Obama is wilting under standard attacks by the Hillary campaign. I am concerned (along with countless others) that Obama might not be up to the challenge of running for President against the GOP.
No, he cant.
Again, I won’t deny that attacking the person rather than the issues is indeed fair game. My general point was simply that a) this sort of an attack (personal rather than issue-oriented) bodes terribly for a potential Obama-Clinton ticket (which was why I posted on this topic in the first place) and b) it is something that should be saved for the general election, not a primary where you run the risk of tearing one candidate down considerably before he or she faces the opposing party in the fall.
Hillary, IMO, is playing a very Solomon-esque game here only instead of the usual reading of the story she’s saying: we can do this two ways, either you stop this and give me the nomination and I’ll take Obama as my second, or we can split this party right down the middle because I’m going to campaign until the convention and if you think I’ve gone negative now, you aint seen nothing yet.
Statistically, the race for elected delegates is all but over. If this was any other candidate but a Clinton, the DNC would have stepped in already and stopped this in the best interests of the party there’s too much clout from her end for the DNC to do anything.
Its lovely to see Clinton apologists on SM out in full form. Quick to deride Obama as Hoprah but nary a word is said about Hatery. She has borrowed some pages directly out of Rove’s playbook, be afraid be very afraid, she tell us. Why run on hope when you can run on fear and hatred.
The truth of the matter is there is no way she can win without tearing the party apart. Then McCain wins, and she can run again in 4 years.
But angelic Clintons won’t do it right, they won’t hold the country and the party hostage to their selfish ambitions. Oh no wait, they have already done that..
Rahul sez:
You’ve long demonstrated a penchant for recycling talking points without bothering to delve further into them, but as was discussed on MSNBC’s fact check segment and as people who know about these subcommittees know, it would be highly unusual for a Subcommittee on European Affairs to hold a hearing on oversight of the NATO role in Afghanistan. Such a prominent issue would ordinarily be dealt with at the full committee level, by the foreign affairs committee chaired by Sen. Biden.
And really, this “no record” nonsense should stop. Obama has a record — he’s been a Senator since Jan. 2005, has been in elected office for 12 years (4 longer than HRC), and was involved in public service before that as a civil rights lawyer, community organizer, and Constitutional Law professor (the last may or may not fit one’s definition of public service, but it is certainly closer to the mark than, say, partner at a private law firm or board of WalMart). If you want to know about Obama’s record as a Senator, start here. Assuming, of course, that you’re interested in intellectually honest discourse. I can understand that someone who doesn’t follow politics too closely would think Obama has no record since he hasn’t been around in Washington for too long, but if one is going to post like one knows what one is talking about, some background research would be nice.