TX-University of Texas/Texas Politics Project: Trump +8

[HillOfANight]

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/747443347896180736

Trump 41
Clinton 33
Other 19
Don't know 8

Trump 39
Clinton 32
Johnson 7
Other 14
Don't know 8

[Adam Griffin]

Second poll in a week to show TX within single digits? Hmm.

Too bad both of these pollsters can't figure out how to push people. Thirty percent undecided or third-party? Pshaw.

[Xing]

Obviously Texas is going to go for Trump, but if it's in the single digits, he's getting crushed nationally.

[RI]

Too bad both of these pollsters can't figure out how to push people.

I suspect people are a lot harder to push this time around compared to most general elections.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Explanation of how Clinton is up 5 points nationally, but the EC is close??

[pbrower2a]

Texas has had an anomaly of so many suburban voters going for Republicans. Maybe the suburbs around Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin are newer and have infrastructure that doesn't yet have the high costs of maintenance and management that one associates with older suburbs of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.   

See also Georgia and Arizona for a similar effect. Orange County in California fits the pattern.

[pbrower2a]

Explanation of how Clinton is up 5 points nationally, but the EC is close??

 

The states have been extremely polarized while Barack Obama has been President. He generally wins by big margins or loses by big margins. Not many states can take simple swings from favoring Republicans to going to the Democratic side.

The gains for Hillary Clinton from Obama 2012 so far are from states unlikely to vote for her -- states that went 60-40 for Republicans in 2012.  If she gains 7% in all states that Obama lost, then she picks up North Carolina.

[NOVA Green]

Texas has had an anomaly of so many suburban voters going for Republicans. Maybe the suburbs around Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin are newer and have infrastructure that doesn't yet have the high costs of maintenance and management that one associates with older suburbs of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.   

See also Georgia and Arizona for a similar effect. Orange County in California fits the pattern.

I think you might be right, if Texas is really within single digits at this point in the race that the suburbs of Houston (Woodlands, Sugarland, etc) and DFW (Plano, etc), as well as parts of the city/suburbs of San Antonio, Round Rock (Austin Exurb) are likely a big part of the reason.

Many of these suburbs are actually quite cosmopolitan, albeit high-income and highly-educated, and do tend to vote heavily Republican in Presidential elections.

Within Texas Republican politics there has always been a big divide between "country club Republicans" vs "country Republicans" from places like EastTex and Cotton Belt (Waco) and more populist type Republicans out in West Tex, more of natural Trump constituencies regardless of 2016 Rep Primary votes.

I think we can assume that a big chunk of the "country club Republican" types will come home in November, regardless of their issues with Trump's style and substance. I do think that there will be a significant dropoff of support among Asian-American Republicans in places like Sugarland and Fort Bend County, as well as Middle-Class Latino Republicans, that have been a key element to the success that Texas Republicans have had with Latino voters compared to many other states in both statewide and General Elections.

[pbrower2a]

Here's how I predict states (and three districts) going in the election -- state and the Clinton electoral vote after each win between 226 and 450 electoral votes, Wisconsin to Texas:

Wisconsin 226
Pennsylvania 246
New Hampshire 250
Iowa 256
Nevada 262
Colorado 271
ME-02  272
Virginia 285
Ohio 313
Florida 332
North Carolina 347
Arizona 359
NE-02 360
Missouri 370
Indiana 381
Georgia 396
Kansas 402
NE-01 403
South Carolina 412
Texas 450

...I did not miss New Mexico. It is Safe D.

[dspNY]

Now two polls showing Texas with a high single digit deficit for Clinton. If I were Hillary I'd try to pull off a huge Latino voter registration drive in the state to see if her baseline of 42% or so improves a little bit. Right now it's probably not close enough to start spending TV money there but I'd like to build a nice stealth ground operation to potentially steal it if it gets close

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Texas was +19.63% R over the national in 2012.  I'm going to give it a healthy 6% D trend due to demographics and Trump's horrible numbers with Hispanics.  That means it should be +13.63% R in an even election.

Texas +8 R would indicate (by my estimation) a Clinton lead of 5-6% nationally, which is not unreasonable.

[Clark Kent]

Only 8? In Texas? Wow, he's in trouble.

That's good. Let both of their campaigns suffer.

[pbrower2a]

Now two polls showing Texas with a high single digit deficit for Clinton. If I were Hillary I'd try to pull off a huge Latino voter registration drive in the state to see if her baseline of 42% or so improves a little bit. Right now it's probably not close enough to start spending TV money there but I'd like to build a nice stealth ground operation to potentially steal it if it gets close

Nah, if this kind of trend holds with Hispanics, she needs to lock up Florida and do a full court press in AZ with her extra funds.  That basically seals the deal even if the map gets really weird further NE.

If she wins Arizona she is also winning Colorado and Nevada.

This is beginning to look like a three-way race (as those go).  I expect Gary Johnson to do at least as well as John Anderson in 1980, if not Ross Perot in the 1990s.

[ElectionsGuy]

Hillary Clinton is really dumb is she thinks she can win here.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Hillary Clinton is really dumb is she thinks she can win here.

Clinton will not spend a dime here unless a win is a foregone conclusion and she goes full-on "50 state."

I have TX flipping at a 15-point national victory.  Something like 52-37-10-2.  I would put the probability of that kind of baroque result at about 1%, but the map would look like this:

Clinton 461
Trump 77

[IceSpear]

Hillary should not spend a cent here regardless of what the polls say.

[Badger]

19 or 14% "other"? wtf?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Back in 2012 there were at least a couple polls showing Romney only beating Obama by about eight points in March, only for Romney to win the state by 16% points in November.  I'm not holding my breath. 

[pbrower2a]

Texas is a tough state in which to poll. No other state is like it in its regional diversity, so getting valid samples is tough.

Texas could go D in the Presidential election if two things happen:

1. the Hispanic vote becomes more partisan and larger, and

2. the suburban vote becomes less rigid in its pattern of voting R. The suburban vote around Dallas and Houston has demographics much the same as those of suburbanites around Chicago and San Francisco, but votes like ranch owners. 

Yes, Trump has insulted Hispanics badly and has offended just about everyone with an IQ above the dull-normal range. But if he loses Texas he gives Hillary Clinton a share of the electoral vote much those that Eisenhower got in the 1950s.     

[President Johnson]

Hillary Clinton is really dumb is she thinks she can win here.

Clinton will not spend a dime here unless a win is a foregone conclusion and she goes full-on "50 state."

I have TX flipping at a 15-point national victory.  Something like 52-37-10-2.  I would put the probability of that kind of baroque result at about 1%, but the map would look like this:

Clinton 461
Trump 77

Dream on

[TomC]

Here's how I predict states (and three districts) going in the election -- state and the Clinton electoral vote after each win between 226 and 450 electoral votes, Wisconsin to Texas:

Wisconsin 226
Pennsylvania 246
New Hampshire 250
Iowa 256
Nevada 262
Colorado 271
ME-02  272
Virginia 285
Ohio 313
Florida 332
North Carolina 347
Arizona 359
NE-02 360
Missouri 370
Indiana 381
Georgia 396
Kansas 402
NE-01 403
South Carolina 412
Texas 450

...I did not miss New Mexico. It is Safe D.

You counted Fla as 19 electors.

[Anna Komnene]

Hillary Clinton is really dumb is she thinks she can win here.

Clinton will not spend a dime here unless a win is a foregone conclusion and she goes full-on "50 state."

I have TX flipping at a 15-point national victory.  Something like 52-37-10-2.  I would put the probability of that kind of baroque result at about 1%, but the map would look like this:

Clinton 461
Trump 77

I could see most of those happening in Hillary's dream landslide, but South Carolina and Mississippi?  There's no way the abysmal D organization in those states could ever beat Trump.

[Devout Centrist]

Hillary Clinton is really dumb is she thinks she can win here.

Clinton will not spend a dime here unless a win is a foregone conclusion and she goes full-on "50 state."

I have TX flipping at a 15-point national victory.  Something like 52-37-10-2.  I would put the probability of that kind of baroque result at about 1%, but the map would look like this:

Clinton 461
Trump 77

I could see most of those happening in Hillary's dream landslide, but South Carolina and Mississippi?  There's no way the abysmal D organization in those states could ever beat Trump.

Those states are more liable to flip than Texas because they were closer in 2012 than Texas and Mississippi is closer than Texas.

[RINO Tom]

Texas has had an anomaly of so many suburban voters going for Republicans. Maybe the suburbs around Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin are newer and have infrastructure that doesn't yet have the high costs of maintenance and management that one associates with older suburbs of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.   

See also Georgia and Arizona for a similar effect. Orange County in California fits the pattern.

Suburban voters going Republican is an anomaly?  News to me.  Republicans won the suburban vote in 2010, 2012 and 2014, you are aware, yes?

[pbrower2a]

Texas has had an anomaly of so many suburban voters going for Republicans. Maybe the suburbs around Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin are newer and have infrastructure that doesn't yet have the high costs of maintenance and management that one associates with older suburbs of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.   

See also Georgia and Arizona for a similar effect. Orange County in California fits the pattern.

Suburban voters going Republican is an anomaly?  News to me.  Republicans won the suburban vote in 2010, 2012 and 2014, you are aware, yes?

Going so strongly. It's relative -- greater San Francisco (Marin and San Mateo, which are undeniably suburban, went D) vs. some suburbs of greater Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and Atlanta.