Hillary won the popular vote in TX, but it looks less and less meaningful. Texas has what is euphemistically called "the Texas two step," where you vote once in the primary on March 4, and then later again that night, starting at 7:30 PM, at your precinct headquarters, you can vote AGAIN. This second vote tends to attract more fanaticized folks, political junkies, and guess who the more fanaticized voters tend to be? Hint: People who don't vote HRC. Precinct HQs are also harder to find that regular polling stations. The TX Hillary and TX Obama sites tell you where they are depending on your ZIP code.
In other words, for the Democratic Party, it is not "one person, one vote." It is "one person, one vote, and then, later that night, if you feel like it or can make it, another, possibly more important, vote." It is a huge pain in the ass and is a very anti-democratic filter or check on the peoples' will. Hillary won the popular vote in TX. But because of the fucked up "Texas two step," Obamaniacs could compensate for that by using their insane zeal to have them go out yet again to vote at precinct HQs, which are combative, zealot-filled places.
The DNC should just say it wants people to continue voting over and over again until they vote for the candidate that the DNC likes.
A lot of working class people do not have the time or inclination to go vote one place one time, and then another place at a second, later time, to *really* make an impassioned vote. My feeling is, Christ, isn't one time in the voting booth enough?
-B.
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."
shag wrote:
"I vaguely recall hearing (not reading! :) that this was b/c of the way TX doles out delegates, with cities where Teflobama is strong having more delegates than suburban/rural/exurban areas. Does anyone know of an article on this?"
> Doug