We liked him. We thought he was intelligent and thoughtful. And certainly the smartest guy on this stage. So much so that we voted for him for Texas Governor in 2006. And while he lost the election by about 10 points to incumbent Rick Perry (you know, this guy) it turns out that he might play a role in determining the next President of the United States.
Well, not so much him, but the people who voted for him.
While many are still understandably confused by the bizzare Texas prima-caucus, the Austinist is all over the delegate distribution for the caucus part of it:
"The way they ultimately calculate this involves a labyrinthine arrangement of (A) precinct-level delegate distributions based on the number of people who voted for Chris Bell in 2006 (remember that?), (B) county/senatorial district level conventions, and (C) various and sundry bureaucratic shenanigans -- all of which you really don't need to worry about" (emphansis mine).
So the delegates are apportioned in part by the number of Chris Bell votes in the area. Where do you think the most Chris Bell votes were? That's right: Dallas, Houston, and Austin. The rest of the state may have voted for Perry, Kinky Friedman, or "One Tough Grandma," but it means that those three "liberal meccas" will carry a disproportionate amount of weight in the up coming Texas caucus, even relative to their size (Austin is worth more than San Antonio for instance).