TX-PPP: Obama tied with Palin/Perry, all other Republicans ahead

[Invisible Obama]

Palin is a non-starter. Being tied in Texas at this stage is not. 2012 is not going to be good for Republicans if she's the nominee (and she will be).

[America™]

Texas is clearly a Democratic state in 2012. [/pbrower2a]

Oh, right.

What are you trying to say?

i think that the democrats should at least attempt in winning Texas. First, it is an electoral goldmine. Second, the state has a democratic history. I believe that since the formation of the two party system in 1856, the state has voted Democratic 24 times, Republican 12 times, and Third Party once (1860).

Obama can campaign here as many times as he want, it still isn't going to swing the state his way.

If Obama makes an effort to win Texas, either
A) Texas is for Obama what Pennsylvania was for Mccain
or
B) Obama has so much campaign money that he has nowhere else to spend it.
or
C) Sarah Palin is running

This. Choice A is the most possible scenario. Palin as the nominee would be the GOP waving the white flag until 2016.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Obama can campaign here as many times as he want, it still isn't going to swing the state his way.

What does Obama have that Jimmy Carter, Lyndon  Johnson, Jack Kennedy, Harry Truman, FDR, John Davis, James Cox, Woodrow Wilson, William Jennings Bryant, Alton Parker, Grover Cleveland, Winfield Hancock, Samuel Tilden, Horace Greeley and James Buchanan didn't?

A hard right-wing electorate that has dominated Texas politics for years?

     Indeed, Texas has swung dramatically from its Democratic days. If we are to assume that Obama would be competitive there today due to the state's history of voting for Democrats, then by the same logic Vermont must also be competitive for the Republicans.

[freepcrusher]

Indeed, Texas has swung dramatically from its Democratic days. If we are to assume that Obama would be competitive there today due to the state's history of voting for Democrats, then by the same logic Vermont must also be competitive for the Republicans.
[/quote]

The reason why Vermont doesn't vote republican anymore is because the national party has written them off. If the party made it an effort to reason with them, Vermont could vote republican.

Remember that old man Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dewey, Wilkie, Landon, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Hughes, Taft, T. Roosevelt, McKinley, Harrison, Blaine, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln and Fremont all won Vermont.

[pbrower2a]

Texas is clearly a Democratic state in 2012. [/pbrower2a]

Oh, right.

I never said so. I said that it might be significantly closer in 2012, and it might show that Sarah Palin has no real chance to be President.  The PPP poll also shows that Rick Perry has no meaningful support for any Presidential campaign in his own state, whihc is an added bonus of the poll shown.

Face it -- Texas is a difficult state to poll.  It is arguably the most diverse state in a combination of religion, ethnicity, and economic activity. It has several giant cities and perhaps the largest rural population of any state. It can't be considered a region in itself despite its size; indeed it straddles clear regions of America. It is clearly Southwestern (El Paso seems to fit more into Arizona than into any other part of Texas) in parts; East Texas is decidedly Southern (I used to live in Greater Dallas and heard the saying "Shreveport is the capital of East Texas); about everything to the north and west of Fort Worth seems to be Midwestern (the state college in Wichita Falls calls itself "Midwestern State University"); areas  along and to the south of I-10 (including San Antonio and to some extent Houston) seem like a transition zone into another country. Now try to figure where Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and Houston fit in.

The state is tough to poll. It's possible to poll California, Florida, or New York with smaller sample sizes and smaller margins of error. I really don't trust any poll of Texas for accuracy, and that's not a question of bias. Get too many people from Dallas and too few from San Antonio or vice-versa, and things get distorted.

   
Texas may be no microcosm of America, but it will deliver 38 electoral votes to almost any Republican nominee for President. That is, anyone but Sarah Palin, who seems unable to hold her own against a liberal d@mnyankee politician with more than average melanin content. That may be more relevant than anything else about Texas.

Texas is clearly a Democratic state in 2012. [/pbrower2a]

Oh, right.

What are you trying to say?

i think that the democrats should at least attempt in winning Texas. First, it is an electoral goldmine. Second, the state has a democratic history. I believe that since the formation of the two party system in 1856, the state has voted Democratic 24 times, Republican 12 times, and Third Party once (1860).

Obama can campaign here as many times as he want, it still isn't going to swing the state his way.

If Obama makes an effort to win Texas, either
A) Texas is for Obama what Pennsylvania was for Mccain
or
B) Obama has so much campaign money that he has nowhere else to spend it.
or
C) Sarah Palin is running

Another possibility: with the nationwide election in the bag, President Obama might seek to help some Democrat replace Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Senate.   

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Texas is clearly a Democratic state in 2012. [/pbrower2a]

Oh, right.

I never said so. I said that it might be significantly closer in 2012, and it might show that Sarah Palin has no real chance to be President.  The PPP poll also shows that Rick Perry has no meaningful support for any Presidential campaign in his own state, whihc is an added bonus of the poll shown.

Again, I was clearly mistaken, I stand corrected now.

[Mjh]

Remember that old man Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dewey, Wilkie, Landon, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Hughes, Taft, T. Roosevelt, McKinley, Harrison, Blaine, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln and Fremont all won Vermont.

What you are forgetting is that the political preferences of the population in a state can change over time. The electorate of Texas in 2011 is not the same as the electorate in 1976. The same can be said about Vermont and every other state.
Vermont and Maine wont swing towards the GOP in 2012 just because Mike Huckabee spends alot of time there, and reminds the voters that the people who lived there in 1936 voted for Alf Landon.

[Mehmentum]

Remember that old man Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dewey, Wilkie, Landon, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Hughes, Taft, T. Roosevelt, McKinley, Harrison, Blaine, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln and Fremont all won Vermont.

What you are forgetting is that the political preferences of the population in a state can change over time. The electorate of Texas in 2011 is not the same as the electorate in 1976. The same can be said about Vermont and every other state.
Vermont and Maine wont swing towards the GOP in 2012 just because Mike Huckabee spends alot of time there, and reminds the voters that the people who lived there in 1936 voted for Alf Landon.

I would like to add that both the Democratic and Republican parties have changed since then as well.

[Senator Sbane]

The Democratic party in Texas (and basically the entire south) used to be right-wing. That might explain a few things.

[Sibboleth]

The Democratic party in Texas (and basically the entire south) used to be right-wing. That might explain a few things.

It always had a wing that certainly wasn't though (actually more than one).

[Senator Sbane]

The Democratic party in Texas (and basically the entire south) used to be right-wing. That might explain a few things.

It always had a wing that certainly wasn't though (actually more than one).

To be expected when a party is that big.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Indeed, Texas has swung dramatically from its Democratic days. If we are to assume that Obama would be competitive there today due to the state's history of voting for Democrats, then by the same logic Vermont must also be competitive for the Republicans.

The reason why Vermont doesn't vote republican anymore is because the national party has written them off. If the party made it an effort to reason with them, Vermont could vote republican.

Remember that old man Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dewey, Wilkie, Landon, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Hughes, Taft, T. Roosevelt, McKinley, Harrison, Blaine, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln and Fremont all won Vermont.

     They wrote off Vermont because they can't win it on the Presidential level anymore. The kind of Republican that could win Vermont would have no shot at the nomination today. The very existence of electoral trends more or less refutes the notion that Republicans could win a state today just because they won it regularly 50 years ago.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Texas is a lock for Republicans in 2012, so this poll is microscopic compared to the other polls.

[albaleman]

Texas is a lock for Republicans in 2012, so this poll is microscopic compared to the other polls.

How is it a lock? Huckabee is the only Republican who is over 50%. Yes, it will most likely go Republican, but it certainly isn't a lock.

[pbrower2a]

It appears now that President Obama has about as much chance of winning Texas as he has of losing Pennsylvania. Either way, that's not much.

So how can he win Texas? About everything has to go right.

1. Not many states are in the tier that he must win before winning Texas. After North Carolina that tier includes Missouri, perhaps Indiana, Arizona, and Georgia... maybe the Dakotas and South Carolina. President Obama would need at least 55% of the popular vote with his gains largely in states that he lost in 2008; maybe he has maxed out in some of the states that he won by monster margins.   


2. He has to have good reasons to do campaigning in Texas -- such as making a difference in the Senate race. Texas will have an open seat, and if the Democrats have a strong candidate for the US Senate, then guess who makes some appearances? Where he campaigns, he wins. But that means that the Democrats need a strong candidate. 

3. That of course implies that the Democrats don't have an easier chance to win a Senate seat, whether some incumbent like Corker, Wicker, Brown, (MA) or Kyl (should the opportunity arise) or someone who wins by tea-bagging an incumbent Republican who "isn't conservative enough" and aren't struggling to hold onto the Senate with someone like Brown (OH), Nelson (either one), McCaskill, Stabenow, Tester, or Warner.   

4. He would have to perform well in the suburbs of Dallas and Houston. Obama did badly in those suburbs, much in contrast to suburbs of cities like Detroit and Philadelphia.  Sure, he would have to campaign in places like Arlington, Denton, and Mesquite -- but he would show that he cares about Texas.

4. The war in Afghanistan would have to come to a graceful end. Texas has a large military presence. That is less significant in Texas than in Georgia, an easier target. Such would probably push his approval into the high 50s with a similar vote total. That is good for about an Eisenhower-scale landslide.

5. The Governor could not be on the ballot as a VP candidate. Well, that is unlikely. If the Republicans have enough doubt about carrying Texas  that they would have to nominate Perry for VP, then they are in deep trouble and have all but conceded the Presidency. Texans could conceivably vote for him as VP so that they could get rid of him as Governor.

Much must go right for President Obama to win Texas.     

 

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

4. He would have to perform well in the suburbs of Dallas and Houston. Obama did badly in those suburbs, much in contrast to suburbs of cities like Detroit and Philadelphia.  Sure, he would have to campaign in places like Arlington, Denton, and Mesquite -- but he would show that he cares about Texas.

 

That would be entertaining to see.

[freepcrusher]

4. He would have to perform well in the suburbs of Dallas and Houston. Obama did badly in those suburbs, much in contrast to suburbs of cities like Detroit and Philadelphia.  Sure, he would have to campaign in places like Arlington, Denton, and Mesquite -- but he would show that he cares about Texas.

All those places he mentioned Obama did OK in. Denton and Mesquite actually went for Obama something like 51-49 and Arlington is pretty swing territory with the exception of the wealthy areas like Pantego or Dalworthington Gardens. The strong republican suburbs you're talking about would be places like Coppell or Spring Branch.

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

He lost Denton County and Fort Worth, and Collin County as well.

[pbrower2a]

Add Plano, Richardson, Lewisville, and Carrollton.

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

Add Plano, Richardson, Lewisville, and Carrollton.

To what? Places he should campaign? Seems a bit gratuitous to me. 

[Vasall des Midas]

This basically confirms my theory.

I don't see why this poll isn't reasonable. If Obama trails Romney by 7 and Gingrich by just 5, I could definitely see Palin being tied.

Palin's still doing no worse than Perry after all the nonstop olympic sharkjumping she's engaged in... I know Perry's always been pretty damn weak incumbent for someone who's been in office this long and never even had a seriously close election, but... there's definitely still room between her current polling and rock bottom.


I'm not sure of the location of the city boundaries of Denton and Fort Worth, but they would have to be dramatically elsewhere from where you'd logically put them for Obama to have lost Fort Worth or polled just 51% in Denton town.
The rest of the Denton County is exurbia (suburbia to the far southeast) and largely dreadful for Democrats, of course.

[Badger]

This basically confirms my theory.

I don't see why this poll isn't reasonable. If Obama trails Romney by 7 and Gingrich by just 5, I could definitely see Palin being tied.

Palin's still doing no worse than Perry after all the nonstop olympic sharkjumping she's engaged in... I know Perry's always been pretty damn weak incumbent for someone who's been in office this long and never even had a seriously close election, but... there's definitely still room between her current polling and rock bottom.


I'm not sure of the location of the city boundaries of Denton and Fort Worth, but they would have to be dramatically elsewhere from where you'd logically put them for Obama to have lost Fort Worth or polled just 51% in Denton town.
The rest of the Denton County is exurbia (suburbia to the far southeast) and largely dreadful for Democrats, of course.

Obama only won Ft. Worth city with about 53% IIRC. No surprise he lost the county (by almost exactly the same margin as statewide interestingly--bellweather county?) considering the political makeup of Texas suburbs.