On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Heavily Democratic areas, like Austin, get more delegates than others.
> And since places like Austin are hotbeds of Obama-ism, he gets extra
> delegates. I learned this from Michael Barone on, of course, Fox News.
That is interesting, both points. But I'm still puzzled on the hybrid primary/caucus aspect of the Texas vote, which seems to have played a major role here (Obama won the caucuses and lost the primary). Has anyone turned up a good short explanation of that?
And just out of curiosity on the Fox point, do you remember them mentioning the fact that he'd won the caucus part of it with greater profit than she got by winning the primary part? Most commentators just said she won Texas, which actually doesn't seem be true by the scorecard of delegates.
Michael