Obama Actual Winner in Texas

By Anastacia Mott Ausin

Obama actually won in Texas. Betcha didn’t know that. That’s because every media source has focused on Clinton’s narrow victory in the Texas primary, ignoring the second step of the strange "Texas Two-Step" primary process. The complicated – and some say convoluted – Texas primary system involves a primary followed by a caucus later that evening.

And while Clinton eked out a narrow victory over Obama in the initial primary, which she won by 51-48 percentage points, and claimed a margin of four delegates (65-61), the caucus was a different story.

With about 40% of precincts reporting, a number that has stuck since early Wednesday, Obama has a clear lead over Clinton, about 55-45 percentage points. The caucus is responsible for awarding 67 of the state’s 193 delegates.

Complicating the counting process is the fact that both the primaries and the caucus in Texas were completely overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of eager Texas voters, wanting their voices to be heard for the first time since 1960, when Texas last had a real say in the primary process.

What it means in plain English is that when all of the votes are completely counted – which some say could take weeks – Obama will come out ahead by about 3-5 delegates. It’s close, but I wouldn’t call that a "stunning victory" by either candidate.

So why is the media reporting Hill’s "stunning victories" in this week’s primaries? Everywhere you look, headlines are screaming about "Clinton’s big wins," or her amazing comeback. Picking up 5-8 delegates in a contest where you’re trailing by 150, I don’t call that stunning.

Perhaps what stuns is that she was able to win at all, or that the head of steam building under an Obama candidacy didn’t roll over her again. Or that she was at least temporarily able to halt the exodus of superdelegates who had begun lining up behind Obama.

Yep, she’s plucky. Even Obama gave her a compliment, saying his opponent "keeps on ticking." Maybe that was gritted teeth, and not a smile, when he said that.

With Tuesday’s results, all it means is a long slog until probably late summer, and neither candidate will be able to win the nomination without the input of the superdelegates.

We know all this. The new questions we should be asking are: can Clinton convince superdelegates to back her even if she has lost the primary delegate race? Would superdelegates be keen to go against what they may see as the will of the people?

A new question to ask is whether the media, lampooned on television’s "Saturday Night Live," has overcompensated and chosen to all but ignore the fact that Obama was the actual winner in Texas. I found only two headlines out of about 7,000 that proclaimed this fact. If this is actually the case, that Obama and not Clinton is the victor in Texas, that makes this Tuesday’s vote a virtual tie, not a "stunning" victory or huge comeback for Hillary Clinton.

So why is the public not being told?