A very useful AP story on how Texas may actually play to Obama's strengths:
Howie P.S.: This was posted 15 minutes ago and the first commenter makes a good point:
The number of delegates available in each district is not equal: Delegates are allocated based on the votes cast in districts in the 2004 and 2006 presidential and gubernatorial elections.
In the heavily urban, black districts of state Sens. Rodney Ellis of Houston and Royce West of Dallas, a good voter turnout in the past two elections means a combined total of 13 delegates at stake in the two districts on Election Day.
Obama has been winning eight out of 10 back voters nationally, according to network exit polls.
But in the heavily Hispanic districts of state Sens. Juan Hinojosa of McAllen and Eddie Lucio Jr. of Brownsville, election turnout was low, and only seven delegates are at stake.
Clinton has been taking six of 10 Hispanic votes nationally. So a big South Texas win might not mean as much for Clinton as a big win for Obama in the two black districts.
In 1988, Dukakis won the statewide primary with 33 percent of the vote, followed by Jackson at 25 percent. Al Gore had 20 percent, and Richard Gephardt had 14 percent.
But despite Dukakis' clear plurality victory, he split the state's delegates almost evenly. Dukakis took 72 delegates, Jackson 67. Forty-four were uncommitted.
"In '88, Jesse Jackson paid attention to the caucus process and had grassroots organizers," said Garry Mauro, a former state land commissioner and Clinton supporter. "Dukakis did not pay attention to the caucus process."
You forgot to mention that 1/3 of the delegates are assigned by a caucus. This will be a big ground game.
Labels: barack obama, texas primary