How Obama will win Texas

Wow - I've now seen this three times in the space of one morning, most recently alluded to in this astute comment by Steven R that was attached to a great rec-listed diary by wmtriallawyer, so I decided to draw it all together in one (hopefully easy-to-understand) diary for you.

Here's the short version:  Hillary MAY win the Latino vote here in Texas - it's not a foregone conclusion, but for argument's sake, let's stipulate that.

Obama will do well with African American voters - let's stipulate that, as well.

She may even edge him out in the popular vote overall... but he'll win the Delegate race, almost assuredly.   How?   Follow me over the fold.

I was just reading the local paper, when  this column by Rick Casey jumped out at me:  Clinton may win Texas and lose it.

In it, he (from a rather pro-Clinton slant) tells us that the way the districts are gerrymandered from previous races (he blames Kinky, Kerry, and W), most Hispanic voters are concentrated in State Senate districts that will award relatively few delegates, while the African American voters have been concentrated in districts that will award many more delegates.

Casey says:

In what can only be considered a historical irony, the state's two heavily African-American districts get at least 50 percent more delegates than the average senatorial district.

These are people who were counted as three-fifths of a person in the nation's original representational scheme.

The Houston senatorial district represented by state Sen. Rodney Ellis will send seven delegates to Denver.

By contrast, the district represented by Houston Sen. Mario Gallegos will send three. The same is true for Brownsville Sen. Eddie Lucio.

Why the disparity? While senatorial districts are required to be drawn to have roughly the same populations, most don't have even close to the same numbers of Democrats and Republicans.

Catch the irony?   The political machinations that were intended to disenfranchise black voters may actually be what helps Obama win the nomination in the end.

Casey goes on to explain it a bit more:

When it comes time to draw the lines at least once a decade, the last thing the party in control wants is districts that are evenly divided. So they try to pack as many members of the opposing party into as few districts as possible.

Should a senatorial district that is three-quarters Democrat get the same number of delegates as a district that is only one-quarter Democrat? Party rules quite reasonably say no. That would make each primary vote in the heavily Democratic district worth only a third as much as a vote in a heavily Republican district.

So, the number of delegates awarded to each district is determined by the number of votes cast in that district for governor in 2006 and president in 2004.

Simply put, Hispanics, who historically vote in smaller percentages than African-Americans, did not turn out for either John Kerry in 2004 or Chris Bell in 2006.

Basically, W (who was relatively Latino-friendly during elections) didn't need to disenfranchise them so much.  So, they didn't come out to help Kerry in 04, and didn't vote much at all in the last big race that put Rick Perry back in the Governer's mansion.  

The Weird Primary/Caucus Hybrid in Texas

Yeah, it's weird.    In some places, the popular vote in the primary will select delegates - we'll know about those on election day.  In others, the delegates will be selected by caucuses.   THIS MAKES MY BRAIN HURT!

OK, smaller bites.  We can sort this out.

According to the wonderful Burnt Orange Report  (the color of which is an homage to UT, not to dKos), current polls have HRC up by 8% of the popular vote statewide, but their amazing analysis of the regions indicate that due to the way the districts are laid out, Obama will capture more delegates in the primary areas.  

Then, add in the caucus areas (and remember how well Obama does in caucuses!), and you've got Obama up by a projected six delegates.    

Region (net delegate gain)

South (57% Clinton, +1 net Clinton)

West (61% Clinton, +3 net Clinton)

Eastern (46% Clinton-40% Obama, +/- 0 net)

Central (53% Obama - 32% Clinton, +6 Obama)

Houston (49% Obama - 44% Clinton, +2 Obama)

Dallas/Ft. Worth (42% Clinton - 41% Obama, +2 Obama )

Total (49% Clinton - 41% Obama, +6 net Obama delegates!)

I really recommend you click through to read the breakdown (it's too much to quote here).  Suffice it to say, I'm finding it convincing.

However, it's WAY too close for my comfort, so I'm getting my ass out and putting up signs, making calls, handing out bumper stickers and buttons, and generally making my friends and loved ones crazy.  What can I say?  That darn Obamamania is pretty powerful stuff!