Well, not if "winning" is defined by the number of delegates that a candidate can put into his or her column. Turns out that after the caucuses, Obama has more Texas delegates than Clinton does.
What a mess this Democratic primary system is. The convoluted and difficult system is a good reason to think very, very carefully before ever supporting any Dem efforts to achieve election "reform."
As with so many of the Dems' good intentions, the law of unforeseen consequences has intervened. Now, a proportional system that was designed to make sure that no one "felt" excluded may end up having the diametrically opposite effect, with the closeness of the race (and the delegate count, as figured proportionately) almost guaranteeing hard feelings. As this story about a poll of Mississippi voters points out:
Democratic voters do have strong opinions about who should be at the top of the ticket, according to the exit poll. More than half of Obama voters said they would not be satisfied if Clinton was the nominee. And more than seven in ten Clinton voters said they would not be satisfied if Obama was the nominee.
How ironic it would be if a GOP candidate who started off on very rocky terms with much of his own party ended up with greater consensus intra-party support than one of the two "dream candidates" that had Dems so giddy so recently.
Did Clinton "Win" Texas?
