I don’t think you know as much about that as maybe you should.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/08/death-match-ii-hideous-horror-of-biden.html

From what I understand, that’s what happened in Ohio and Texas as well, and in the latter case, aggravated by the totally absurd simultaneous combination of primaries and caucuses, held the same evening of the caucuses which, of course, keeps out and dilutes the votes especially of the elderly, those with a so-so health, and mothers with kids – you know, all those groups where Hillary Clinton scored extraordinarily well with her fight for a universal health care system; you know, that issue which Zero frontally attacked after obtaining all that lovely money he received from the health care industry, and which was so conveniently bundled to make it hard to trace.

But getting back to Texas, and speaking of disenfranchising voter segments that are absolutely critical for any Dem come next November: there’s one more demographically significant support group for Hillary Clinton. And yes, the Latino/Hispanic vote was also targeted by those dark forces behind the shenanigans in the Dem party in Texas. Just ask LULAC how – they initiated a lawsuit over it. Another of those things that got lost and shouted down amidst reflexive, hypocritical accusations of “racism!” by the tone-deaf Zero-cult.

Texas, Ohio, Nevada – plus of course Florida and Michigan: all cases of states that in a fine-tuned and carefully crafted plan of tactical maneuvers were designed to kill off Hillary Clinton’s path to victory but has one built-in and fatal flaw: come November, Zero will be reminded by what he did, finally getting the electoral invoice for his betrayal to democracy, but sadly leaving the rest of the country with another term without hope for progress.

Then again, that may ultimately have been the bigger strategic masterplan he pursues after all, along the theme of plus ça change, to make sure that the top-flight corporate interests are well looked after. Change you can bleed in.

Senator Clinton won the primary in Texas. When a subsection of the whole (1 million of the 2.8 million who voted in the Democratic Pimary can overrule the choice of the greater number of voters, the system is sadly flawed.)

Polls consistently show that African Americans are more likely to vote for or have voted for Barack Obama than other candidates. In Texas, senatorial districts with the highest percentage of minority voters voted for the Democratic candidate for governor in the previous governor’s election than did voters in more racial diverse districts in the 2006 General Election. (That was a race between incumbent Gov. “Good Hair” also referred to as “Gov. 38%” because he won with only 38% of the general election vote, and Kinky Friedman and Scott McClellan’s mother, Carole Keaton Strayhorn and Democratic Nominee Chris Bells (who is at the best rather bland).

Districts where Chris Bell got the largest number of votes in 2006 received more delegates for the 2008 Presidential Race in than those districts where votes were split between the two independent candidates, Rick Perry and Chris Bell. Minority districts voted straight tickets and that gave them an advantage going into the 2008 precinct, senatorial and state conventions in delegate count.

I want to be very clear here: Because of the demographics in Texas, and voting patterns in the 2006 General Election, districts with more voters who voted for Obama or were likely to vote for Obama were granted more delegates per voter based on an apportionment of delegates per senatorial district by the Texas Democratic Party prior to the March 4th Texas Democratic Primary.

We knew before any votes were cast this year that voters in Senator Royce West’s district (23), a district where there were more votes cast for Chris Bell in the 2006 General Election (and which has a high percentage of minority voters) would be apportioned more delegates than districts which had fewer votes cast for Chris Bell in 2006 (and probably are more racially diverse than Senator West’s district).

The process we use to determine the delegates to nominate the President in Texas are not Race Neutral. I believe that people have the right to vote their race if they choose. We also have the right to vote for persons of other races if we choose. However, the process we use should be LEVEL and all candidates should have an equal chance of gaining the favor of voters and having each voter count equally when it comes to electing delegates to nominate the president.

This is not the case in Texas.
I have been called racist for pointing this out. I am not attacking African Americans. I am SPEAKING ABOUT PROCESS. This year, because race is a reality with human beings and people utilize it in various ways in relating to one another, the process for apportioning delegates between Senatorial Districts in Texas favored Senator Obama, because he represents the race of the Districts which already had been assigned the greatest number of delegates based on 2006 voting patterns in the General Election.

In the next election cycle, it is possible that race may favor a Latino candidate (or slate) over an African American candidate if something energizes the Latino community and we continue to see high voter registration and political participation in that minority community. I don’t think that the Barack Obama supporters who have been attempting to shut me up by calling me racist when I point out that the process this year did not give all candidates a level playing field realize that in four years what benefits their candidate this year may work against their candidate.

I think that the distribution of delegates should be based on the vote of the people and that each person’s vote, no matter what race, gender, social economic group, or where in the county, state or nation they reside, should count equally in determining the delegates who nominate our party’s presidential nominee. Anything less than that is not Democratic.