Roy Maynard: Early Returns

I have just a couple of observations in this all-important week for the Democratic presidential candidates, as the March 4 Texas primaries approach.

Some political pundits are looking at the record-high turnout in early voting for the Democrats and speculating on "Republican crossovers" lining up to vote against Hillary Clinton (because they hate her or admire Barack Obama) or for Sen. Clinton (because they think John McCain can beat her more easily than he can Obama). Those aren't real Democrats, they reason, and those aren't real numbers.

But that's a logical fallacy. Here's why.

In Texas, there's no such thing as a registered Republican or a registered Democrat.

When you sign the forms to register in some states, you check a box marked R, D or I (for Independent). And that letter stays on your voter registration card until you change it.

Of course, no one is watching when you vote in a general election, so you're free to vote for whichever candidate you choose.

But in those other states you are restricted in which primary you can participate. Republicans can vote in only Republican primaries; Democrats can vote in only Democratic primaries.

Those aren't the rules in Texas, where we have "open primaries." Any registered voter can walk into the voting booth and cast a ballot in either primary.

In fact, the only restriction is that if you vote in one party's primary, you can't vote in the other party's primary runoff for that specific election. But if you don't vote in either primary, you can vote in either runoff.

Now, I have heard anecdotal evidence of crossovers. I've talked to one person who regularly votes Republican, who said he voted Tuesday for Obama. And he says he has friends who have already cast ballots for Sen. Clinton.

But that doesn't mean the Democratic turnout numbers are wrong.

In Texas we don't register to vote by party, so the only workable definition of a "Republican" is someone who votes in the Republican primary.

And the definition of a Republican who crosses over to vote in the Democratic primary is a "Democrat." Just look at their voter registration card; it's now stamped with a D. That's as official as it gets.

Never bet against a streak. That's as true in politics as it is in gambling.

At the risk of continuing my streak of being absolutely, fully, 100 percent wrong in political predictions this year, I predict that Obama will beat Sen. Clinton in Texas, despite what the experts say about her appeal to Hispanics and her historical ties to the state.

Why? Because Obama is on a winning streak, and you never bet against a streak.

In gambling, the principle is mathematically sound. If you bet with a streak - say a boxer's string of uninterrupted wins - you will only lose once (when the streak ends).

If you bet against a streak, you stand to lose on every match in which the streak continues, as streaks tend to do.

(Author's note: This passage should not be read as an endorsement of gambling, boxing, and sure as heck not politics.)

But it's also sound for other reasons. The principle is "winners win, and losers lose." Momentum is real, almost bankable. For one thing, consciously or subconsciously, people like to be on the winning side. If they see a trend toward a certain candidate, they're more likely to support him or her.

This is even more pronounced after an election; although my parents and all their friends were staunch Democrats, I couldn't find a single person in their circle who would admit to voting for Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Obama has the momentum. He's coming off 11 straight primary wins.

And that's a streak I won't bet against.



Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.

Roy Maynard
()