Skip to main content

Over the period of April 12 - July 1, 662 respondents to the Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP State of the Nation poll were reached at a Texas phone number.  Among these respondents, Obama and Romney were tied 47-47.  (Please note that this is an aggregation of interviews from the weekly poll, not a stand-alone poll.)

Seriously?? Yes, but it's highly unlikely to hold up until election day, for reasons discussed below, and it's more favorable to Obama than other polls.

The two stand-alone polls from the same time period also show a relatively tight margin among registered voters.  Texas is a Tossup at least by New York Times standards, based on this result and the two other polls with Romney +7 and Romney +8, for an average of Romney +5.  (New York Times lists CO, NV, and PA as Tossups, with a polling average of Obama +5 or more.)

Of course, this is a poll of registered voters.  Typically, the demographics shift towards Republican voters by a few points among actual voters in Texas.

How did this happen?  It's not a demographic shift compared to 2008, but rather Romney's lack of popularity among whites.  While Republicans have solidified behind him (even those who don't like him) Independents and Moderates have shifted towards Obama.

Similar numbers were seen in early 2008, but it didn't last.  By summer 2008, McCain had pulled solidly ahead.  So keep that in mind.  But it does seem reasonable to think of Texas as Lean Red instead of Solid Red for now.

Details below, including playing with numbers to see what it would take for Obama to win in November.  What is interesting is that support from whites doesn't need to be nearly as good as we see in this poll for Obama to outright win Texas, if the Texas Latino community voted at the same rate as Latino communities in Florida or California.

Reality Check.

Is this polling aggregation way out of bounds?  I looked at demographics, other polls, and neighboring states to see.

The demographics were about on target.  There were slightly too many Democrats compared to 2008 exit polls, which makes sense, as this is registered voters.  There were slightly too few Hispanics compared to the 2008 census numbers for registered voters, but they may have showed up in the category of 'Other' so that's not too bad either.  

There have been two polls of registered voters in the past few months.  One, from PPP, showed Romney ahead 50-43.  (These results are not significantly different.)  Another, from the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas Tribune, showed Romney ahead 46-38 among registered voters.  There are six more, older polls from these two pollsters testing Obama vs Romney, with margins among registered voters of Romney +1 (UT), +2 (UT), +6 (PPP), +7 (PPP), +7(PPP), and +8(PPP).  UT's 2008 polls showed McCain +11 among registered voters; final result: McCain +12.

What about other states near Texas -  OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, KY, TN - shouldn't they show something similar?  This gets tricky.  The number of respondents in neighboring states in the Daily Kos poll is small - about 100-300.  But, in every state, the margin between Obama and Romney is smaller than the margin between Obama and McCain.  The average margin shift is 14 points in Obama's favor.  Now, even if Obama were doing exactly as well as 2008, we should be seeing an average shift from election results of around 3-8 points in Obama's favor (see here for why), but 14 is a fair amount more than that.  So neighboring states are behaving in a similar fashion to Texas.

Conclusion:  This polling aggregation is likely too favorable for Obama, but it is not way off base.

So then, what's going on in the crosstabs to make Texas appear competitive?

Independents Don't Like Romney.

When I first saw the toplines, I thought it might be because Texas didn't have its primary until May 29th, midway through the polling period.  Maybe grumpy Santorum partisans were skewing the results.  But it turns out, not so much - those who hold Santorum dear to their hearts may not like Romney, but 90% of Texas Republicans say they'll vote for Romney in November even though only 69% voted for him in the primary.  

No, the 47-47 tie is not because of cranky Republicans, it's because of a shift in Independents.  More specifically, white Independents.

Only 32% of Independents have a favorable opinion of Romney.  Meanwhile, 43% have a favorable opinion of Obama.  Obama ties Romney among Independents, whereas in 2008, McCain won Texas Independents 62-36.  

But among white independents (about 20% of the voters), McCain beat Obama 72-27.  In this polling aggregation, Obama beats Romney 47-45.

I guess Romney isn't mavericky enough.

Other demographics with notable improvements for Obama are whites, men, moderates, and those with income >$100,000.

Republicans are not uniformly happy campers, with only 74% having a favorable opinion of Romney.  However, 91% have an unfavorable opinion of Obama, so 90% are voting for Romney.  Among Democrats, 81% have a favorable opinion of Obama, while 83% have an unfavorable opinion of Romney; 87% are voting for Obama.  This is an enthusiasm gap in favor of Democrats.  Click the following links for demographics and selected crosstabs for Obama versus Romney, Romney favorables, and Obama favorables.

Election Games.

I spent a little time looking at what the numbers would have to be for Obama to actually win Texas.  I constructed a few charts showing percent Obama as a function of Obama's support among whites and Latinos for four scenarios.  This assumes that support in other racial categories is the same as 2008.

1. Registration and turnout are the same as 2008, updated for 2012 demographics (esitmated from 2010 and 2011 census data).

2. Romney continues to act like the rich snot he is, and picks Boring Non-Evangelical White Guy From Up North for running mate.  Turnout among whites declines from 88% of registered voters to 75%, similar to 1996.  Turnout for other racial demographics remains the same as 2008.

3. The Hispanic population gets excited by Obama's immigration policy, and votes in proportions similar to those seen in other states.  Registration goes up to 65% of Citizen Voting Age Population, and 85% of those vote.  Turnout for other racial demographics remains the same as 2008.

4. Scenarios 2 and 3 combined.  (Dream on!)

There's one big practical take-home lesson from looking at these scenarios that has been pointed out many times before: The Hispanic community has great potential power in Texas.  If turnout were more like California, Texas would have a 6-point margin even without any change in vote share from 2008.  Is it even possible for voting behavior to change so quickly?  Probably not over one cycle, but California and New York did have large jumps in participation from 2004 to 2008, and Nevada has seen a huge change since 1996.  Texas, meanwhile, has been lagging:

Now, for the scenario simulations.  Below, you can see the results.  The ranges start with Obama's 2008 vote share and increase by ten points.  Decreasing Obama's vote share is not shown, because it's boring -  Romney always wins - that doesn't mean it can't happen, of course.  I assumed 2% of voters would vote for a third-party candidate, so 49% is a tie.  Pink spaces have a margin of Romney +3 or more; blue spaces are Obama +3 or more.

For reference, Obama was polling better this year nationwide than he did in 2008 in the Hispanic community, prior to his immigration announcement.  That announcement greatly increased enthusiasm in the community.  An increase from 63% support to 73% support actually is not out of the question.  Polling for Obama among Texas whites has ranged from 25%-36%.

Update: Title and text changed to make clear this is an analysis of an aggregation of multiple polls, and text added to emphasize that this is not likely to reflect November results.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh HELL yeah. Now it's time for the Texas (17+ / 0-)

    Democratic Party as well as OFA to do some serious GOTV here.

    If these numbers still hold up in September, look for the campaign to spend money and time there.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:02:30 AM PDT

  •  Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, janmtairy, Texdude50, Supavash

    Where is bubbanomics when I need a HaHaHaHa?......:-)

    "May today be as great as yesterday, and tomorrow be greater than both!" Author, Sharon B.

    by secret38b on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:05:12 AM PDT

  •  Need to Factor Likely-and-Likely-to-be-Permitted (6+ / 0-)

    voters. With hundreds of thousands disappearing from voter rolls in some states, it's a factor that mustn't be ignored.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:06:08 AM PDT

  •  By 2020 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, mconvente, TofG, Losty

    TX will probably be a lean-D state if current trends continue.

    Farm boy who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -7.88, -4.26,

    by WisJohn on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:07:05 AM PDT

    •  Demographic trends can change. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisJohn, blueoasis, mconvente

      For instance, what if Hispanics in Texas start moving to other states following the hypothtetical adoption of Papers Please laws?  But current trends, yeah, TX will be lean-D soon enough.

    •  2020 is too optimistic, IMHO. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wisper, jncca, sacman701, James Allen

      Texas was R+9.5 in 2008. It's very hard to go from that to lean-Dem in 12 years when you're just relying on demographic change (as opposed to shifts in voter allegiance, like we've seen in places like West Virginia). I think a reasonable expectation is that Texas gets to an even PVI by 2028 or so.

      The only things that might really change that calculation are a) if the Democrats ran the sort of candidate that could pull a third or more of the white vote; or b) the long-heralded yet possibly mythic Great Hispanic Vote Drive, perhaps coupled with some Dem increase in performance among TX hispanics (who are less Dem-leaning than their counterparts in CA).

      •  and yet diarist thinks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        we can go from R+9.5 to even polling in 3 years.  

        Romney will take TX by double digits in November.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:34:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read dreaminonempty (0+ / 0-)

          as offering a set of conditional statements, not predictions: "IF Obama wins X% of the white vote and Y% of Hispanic vote, then..."

          •  yes, for the win (0+ / 0-)

            to counter what is posited as an inevitable drift to the right, but he is making an affirmative claim that Texas is now tied (or was tied across that untenable long polling span) 47-47.

            This is simply not true.  The sampling data is so small, the MoE on that result would be massive and not at all factoring the inherent bias of registered voters.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:45:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  not even (0+ / 0-)

          R+9.5 means that if Obama wins the country by 9.5 points, he'd be even in Texas.  So if Obama won the country by 5 points, but was even in Texas, then Texas would now be less Republican by PVI, it would be the average of 9.5 and 5, or about R+7.

          Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

          by James Allen on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:34:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            R+9.5 means Obama would have to win by 19 points to be even in Texas.

            19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at

            by jncca on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:02:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think that's right. (0+ / 0-)

              Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

              by James Allen on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 04:35:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                take it with a smaller number.

                A state with a PVI of D+5 would go red if the Democrat won by five (Oregon is about D+5)

                Age 19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
                Check out my blog at
                Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on almost everything else.
                Berkeley Class of 2015. -.5.38, -3.23

                by jncca on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 05:13:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  oops, ignore that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  James Allen, Inoljt

                  Let me try again.
                  North Carolina is about R+4.
                  Obama had to win by about 8 in order to take it in 2008; he'd have lost it if he won nationally by four.

                  Age 19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
                  Check out my blog at
                  Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on almost everything else.
                  Berkeley Class of 2015. -.5.38, -3.23

                  by jncca on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 05:14:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  no 2020 is not optimistic (0+ / 0-)

        if current trends hold the dem pres candidate  in 2020 should get 51% of the vote in texas compared to 48%

        Pencils aren't for eating. Trust me.

        by Hamtree on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:33:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Virginia swung pretty fast (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisJohn, dufffbeer

        It wasn't even on the map in 2004, went for Obama in 2008, and is arguably lean Dem now.

        You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting. -President Andrew Sheppard (D-Wisconsin)

        by Gpack3 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:35:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  false (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chachy, Inoljt

          2004: R+3

          Virginia was bluer in 2004 than North Carolina in 2008.  It was due to the red-ness of the year that nobody noticed.  They should've.  R+3 is a swing state.

          19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at

          by jncca on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:58:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "on the map"="generally regarded as a swing state" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Allen

            I don't know the numbers in 2000, but I'd be very surprised if it was R+3 then too. So in 2000 it was solidly Republican, in 2004 it was closer than expected, and in 2008 it went Democratic. That is a faster evolution than saying Texas will be Lean D or a swing state by 2020.

            You don't fight the fights you can win. You fight the fights that need fighting. -President Andrew Sheppard (D-Wisconsin)

            by Gpack3 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 03:10:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  right, but it was always lower (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              2000 was R+4.  Never R+8, 9, or 10 like Texas.

              If it trends like Virginia (Texas is about R+10)
              2012: R+10
              2016: R+9
              2020: R+6
              2024: R+5

              Subtract 12 from the year and you have Virginia's trend, with my estimation of D+1 for 2012

              19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at

              by jncca on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 03:21:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I guess that explains (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, Wreck Smurfy

    the recent barrage of Obama ads in the Austin market.  I thought it was a complete waste of money, but clearly OFA knew something I didn't.

    It is magnificent, but it is not war, it is madness. Pierre Bosquet on the charge of the Light Brigade

    by flhiii88 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:10:58 AM PDT

    •  timeline (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PDiddie, Wisper

      seems very odd to take a poll over a time of a couple months

      Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

      by mattinjersey on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:16:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Among other things.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        This is why polling is a joke.  You can find whatever you want.  Poll 662 people over two and a half months and you can get Obama and Romney tied in Texas.  

        •  You don't seem to understand (15+ / 0-)

          What dreaminonempty has done here, at all. He's taken weeks' worth of polling data and aggregated it. These are individual responses from the raw data we provide every week for our national poll. So should we stop doing national polling?

          Maybe next time you should educate yourself a bit before making pronouncements about a pollster's credibility.

          Political Director, Daily Kos

          by David Nir on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:23:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you want to defend cherrypicking data... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buff2011, GradyDem

            to support some outrageous claim that Pres Obama is polling even in Texas that be my guest.  

            If you want to tie the PPP name in with such an article here that's your decision.  I wonder if PPP would be thrilled with that idea.  

            •  Please explain (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Texdude50, Wreck Smurfy, itskevin

              How this is "cherrypicking"?

              Political Director, Daily Kos

              by David Nir on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:52:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And to be clear (10+ / 0-)

                "Cherrypicking" means, "selectively choosing data favorable to you while ignoring data unfavorable to you." The OP used every Texas respondent in our national polling and didn't pick and choose between them.

                This is simply what the data says. There's no cherrypicking going on here. And I just can't understand why it's making you so angry.

                Political Director, Daily Kos

                by David Nir on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:54:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's over two and a half months... (4+ / 0-)

                  and a whole 662 respondents.  It's meaningless.  If Rasmussen ran a story saying "Fox/Rasmussen find Obama and Romney tied in California" and then proceeded to use a two and a half month time frame and 662 respondents it would be excoriated here.  

                  If a single Texas poll was ran over two and a half months and only polled 662 people in that time frame - What would be said about it?

                  No PPP polling found this, it's digging into the guts of many polls to find something you like.  Hinky results in the crosstabs of polling is called out all the time here, this is is like selling one of those hinky cross tabs as legit.  

                  I would be interested to see if PPP/Jensen likes the title of this diary.  Because you can bet rightwing corners of the internet will pick up this story and run with "PPP/Daily Kos is saying Texas is tied, that pollster is shit" and then then next time PPP comes out with a solid poll it will be treated as shit as well.  When I argue with folks and use PPP polling I already get it thrown back that it's a Kos poll and thus biased, but can push back asking what poll they specifically disagree with that shows they are not trustworthy.  Well now they have this one, and it's not even a PPP poll but using PPP polling data in a way it wasn't meant to be used and being packaged and sold as a big deal.

                  I'm not angry, just gobsmacked that DKE is selling the idea that Pres Obama and Mitt Romney are tied in Texas.

                  •  I have to agree. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wisper, GradyDem

                    My biggest problem is that this is under the DKE banner. If you want to twist polling results on the front page sure, but DKE has earned some real respect out there in the MSM. To suggest that Texas is tied and competitive is very disheartening.

                  •  DKE? I thought the diarist was dreaminonempty (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Can you tell me (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zakandsantos, R30A

                    At what university did you acquire your masters in mind reading?

                    No PPP polling found this, it's digging into the guts of many polls to find something you like.

                    Without any evidence, you accuse the OP of trying to find something he "likes." That's a bogus charge—just as bogus as your claim the other day that that North Carolina legislator was merely pretending to have mis-cast her vote on fracking.

                    Dreamin took a deep dive into the data and this is what he found. He'd have posted this if the results were bad or good for Obama. You need to take back your accusation that this was done with the intent of trying to gin up some good results for Obama, because you have zero evidence for that attack.

                    And feel free to go tell on us to Tom Jensen—the guy who willingly agreed to provide us with raw data every week as part of our business arrangement with him.

                    Political Director, Daily Kos

                    by David Nir on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:55:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sounds like you might be ready (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      David Nir, sawolf, Whitty

                      ... for an early happy hour today, David :)

                      •  I think you're right (0+ / 0-)


                        Political Director, Daily Kos

                        by David Nir on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:17:30 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  My recommendation: (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          David Nir

                          Myers dark rum with a little cola and a few limes squeezed in. Bicardi and cola is always good, but as Ron Swanson said, clear liquors are for wealthy women on diets. And while I'd always recommend a real man's drink, like a scotch, like Ron Swanson would, it's summer time.

                          Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

                          by bjssp on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:45:26 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Regarding clear liquors (0+ / 0-)

                            the Slavic half of me (Polish and Ukrainian on my mother's side) would beg to differ regarding vodka.  So, I'm sure, would some of my ancestors.

                            And I usually drink my vodka and rum straight, at least at home.

                            36, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

                            by Mike in MD on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:18:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmmmm .... its 103 degress in Indianapolis, so (0+ / 0-)

                            ... I think I'll go with a mojito or something refreshing that I can suck down several of!

                          •  Just saw there's a forest fire (0+ / 0-)

                            at McCormick's Creek state park. This shouldn't be happening!

                            20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

                            by ndrwmls10 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:43:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No it shouldn't (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't remember the state ever being this hot or dry for this long.

                          •  I love mojitos. (0+ / 0-)

                            The only reason I started drinking them is because I liked that Bicardi commercial where everyone was dancing to the guy crushing the mint, but once I started, I've never gone back. They're just delicious, although (a) you need a good liquor, not some cheap crap and (b) people who tell me they've been to a place with heavy Cuban influences tell me there's NOTHING like a really, really good mojito and that anything you can get in a restaurant up here doesn't compare. Maybe one day I can find out, but for now, I am satisfied.

                            Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

                            by bjssp on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 07:22:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, of course. I don't like scotch (0+ / 0-)

                            all that much because I guess I haven't developed a taste for it and much of the food I eat wouldn't go well with it. The same goes for vodka.

                            I just think it's a funny line.

                            Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

                            by bjssp on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 07:19:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  So out of all the weekly polling... (0+ / 0-)

                      over the two and a half months any other state in any other time period could have been looked at but some how the one chosen to be written about was the 662 people that made Texas seem to be tied?  And if Texas and the time period was chosen before even glancing at the numbers at all you think if Romney was up 70-30 with these 663 voters that the diary would have been written?

                      As for Jensen, I asked if he would like the title of the diary - that's not putting words in his mouth or saying he didn't release all polling data to you or others.  The question I asked was would Mr. Jensen be happy with a title that says "PPP Polling finds Pres Obama and Mitt Romney tied in Texas" which I believe is valid

                      As for questioning the motives of that NC state legislator - I find it interesting that motives can only be questioned for blue dogs and conservadems (and republicans of course).  But maybe I'm just confusing the main site with this subsite - I will be looking to see if somebody calling Pryor or Landrieu a sellout or "bought and paid for" is challenged in the same way or if Manchin is call attacked as "in the pocket of coal" and simply saying check his donors wouldn't be enough because that really doesn't show what's in his head and heart when he casts votes.  But maybe accusations like that haven't happened here and I am like I said confusing the main site with this subsite.  

                      •  Jeez dude stop digging (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

                        by okiedem on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:18:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Time period (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        We only started asking Obama vs. Romney on a weekly basis starting with the April 12-15 poll. So that explains the starting date. I believe we asked Obama vs. Romney as a one-off question a few times before that, but not on a consistent basis. But anyhow, the OP is using every poll from April 12 forward.

                        As for which other states, we have 11 polls from that time onward. That's 11,000 respondents—not a bad number! But on a state-by-state basis, we're really limited to only the largest states (so far) when doing this kind of aggregation. As the OP says below, the only others where this kind of analysis is possible at present are CA, NY, and FL. Those analyses will be forthcoming, though I'd expect the first two to be fairly predictable. (Though who knows? That's why you run the numbers, right?) Florida should be more interesting, but of course, that state gets polled a lot more regularly than TX.

                        Political Director, Daily Kos

                        by David Nir on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:46:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  it's cherrypicking (0+ / 0-)

                  It's cherrypicking in the sense that if he had come up with different results he might not have made the post at all.  Part of this is how long did it take him?  The longer it took him the more likely he would make a post regardless[I could see it taking him as little as 15 minutes if he already had the data on his computer].  What were his motivations?  Perhaps he was always going to post this regardless.  How did he choose the date range?  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he chose the date range before looking at any data.  Did he do the same analysis for other states and decide it wasn't interesting enough?  This would be rather damning.

                  •  I probably wouldn't be so quick ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    ... to really question motivations or claim things "would be rather damning."  Whether it's your intention or not, it skirts the line of questioning someone's integrity.  I don't know how much time you've spent reading DKE, but people here are not at all hesitant to report polling data that is bad news for our side.

                  •  The date range (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    David Nir, bumiputera

                    The date range is all the polls testing Romney vs Obama - none were excluded.  

                    The other states that have enough data are NY, CA, and FL, and I will post those results as well when I have them analyzed.  You have a point that if I didn't that would be cherrypicking.

          •  Ad hominem attacks by a Front Pager? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buff2011, Deep Texan

            Dont see that often, though I suppose it could serve as a nostalgic reminder of the days Armando was here.

            If you want to classify that 47-47 mirage as a true poll, then you as Political Director, should help Mr/s. Onempty calculate his or her new found Margin of Error.

            A sampling size of 667 for a state 25, 674,681 where voter registration favors the GOP 45-21?  

            Considering the last poll PPP released on their own showed Romney at +9, I think a proper MoE would help put this new found bit o' data in proper perspective.  

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:58:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Two other polls found a virtual tie. (9+ / 0-)

          Earlier in the year, two other polls found a virtual tie as well (Romney +1 and Romney +2).  The rest of the polls have Romney + 6 to Romney +8.  Texas isn't all that hot about Romney right now.  That doesn't mean it won't change like it did in 2008.

      •  It's all the weekly polls. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        R30A, Wreck Smurfy

        The Texas voters have been culled from the weekly polling data.

  •  I have been saying for years (8+ / 0-)

    that we can turn Texas blue. Please, please, please -- come down here & help us, because this can be done. A good voter registration in the Valley, then serious GOTV there, & Houston, San Antonio, Austin & Dallas and y'all will see a big blue Texas on election night in November. For reals.

  •  I hope this is a joke (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GradyDem, Wisper, Deep Texan

    because there is no way we are winning Texas in 2012. I do not even believe it is possible for registered voters to be tied on Romeny-Obama.

  •  Explains why Obama leading in the South 49-45 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, Deep Texan

    ...and where the number came from anyway, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find a single person who believes it to be true.

  •  o_O (0+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:23:01 AM PDT

  •  Everyday... (5+ / 0-)

    ..I read 20 diaries here (like this one) describing how Romney has cast over the Republican party one of its worst enthusiasm gaps in a hundred years.

    Yet literally nobody is claiming the Republican party is suffering from an enthusiasm gap.

    When it comes to describing what is taking place in the Republican party currently, can somebody explain to me why the term "enthusiasm gap" is off limits?

     Concerning the Democratic party, not that long ago, Daily Kos was shoving the term "enthusiasm gap" up my arse so early & often, I thought it was an enema.

    Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. ~ Proverbs 22:22

    by wyvern on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:32:26 AM PDT

    •  Fair point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      74% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Romney, while 81% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of Obama.  I'd say it's fair to call that a small enthusiasm gap.  I've updated the diary to hopefully make your day a little brighter.

      •  Please... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        ...74% of Republicans do not have a favorable opinion of Romney.  Wherever you got that figure, they are bullshitting you.

        This diary in and of itself proves Republicans don't have a favorable opinion of Romney.  Tied in Texas?  Romney should be leading by 15 in Texas.  But he can't, because Texas Republicans hate his guts.

        Rupert Murdock is using tweeter to mock Romney.

        The Wall Street journal is lambasting Romney.

        If I took time to Google it, I could easliy link you 20 examples of Republicans expressing open disdain for Romney.

        Republicans hate Romney.  

        There is no "small enthusiasm gap."

        The  enthusiasm gap is enormous.

        And I want to know why Democrats & liberals are too chickenshit to use the term "enthusiasm gap" to describe a Republican enthusiasm gap when they fall over themselves using the term "enthusiasm gap" to describe a Democratic enthusiasm gap.

        Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. ~ Proverbs 22:22

        by wyvern on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:00:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the number. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wreck Smurfy, bumiputera

          Of the Texans who claimed to be Republicans, 74% claimed to have a favorable opinion of Romney.

          They may be bullshitting, indeed.  I have no doubt some of them are.  But the poll can't tell us how many.

          What the poll does tell us is, like him or not, Texas Republicans also claim that they will vote for him just as much as they voted for McCain in 2008.

          The lousy topline numbers are because of Independents who don't like Romney.  Now, in reality, many, if not most, of these Independents have been behaving like Republicans for years.  So you have a point there, but this poll does not ask Independents if they 'lean' or not so we can't quantify it.

          You provide plenty of evidence in your comment showing Republicans eating their own in public discourse.  I agree with you that it represents an enthusiasm gap.   I think you should write a diary to that effect; I would love to read it.  

          •  If... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            ...74% of Texas Republicans have a favorable opinion of Romney, then Romney would not be tied with Obama in Texas.

            The Texas Republican party, throughout Texas,  boasts dozens of right wing operative boot camps that exist under the guise of "Bible colleges."

            There are scores of fundamentalist Bible colleges in Texas, & they all serve as manufacturing outlets for Texas Republican party political machinery.

            And said Bible colleges do not condone Mormonism.

            Therefore it is virtually impossible for 74% of Texas Republicans to have a favorable opinion of Romney.  

            Ergo your Texas enthusiasm gap.  Which, of course, nobody is willing to call an enthusiasm gap.

            Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. ~ Proverbs 22:22

            by wyvern on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:21:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I can't WAIT until Georgia is a swing state! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, TofG

    It's coming, slowly but surely.  

    •  Slower than I thought. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Polls this year look worse than I expected, sad to say.  But soon enough, soon enough...

      •  Obama lost the under 30 vote (0+ / 0-)

        in Georgia.  I'm not so confident anything's changing soon.

        19, D, new CA-18 (home) new CA-13 (college). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. -.5.38, -3.23 Check out my blog at

        by jncca on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:37:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am confident... (6+ / 0-)

          between 2000 and 2010 the black population of the state grew by 25% and the white population by only 6% (while both the hispanic and asian population roughly doubled, albeit from a much lower base).

          In 2009 only 43% of the children born in Georgia were white (indicative of the very large migration of younger hispanics and African-Americans into the state).

          Unless Republicans can start taking a substantial share of the African-American vote in Georgia there is not way they can continue to stay competitive in the state in the long run (or even in the intermediate run).

          26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

          by okiedem on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:05:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is what I was talking about (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The demographic shift in this part of the country is dramatic.  Blacks are returning to the South and the non-white population in general continues to grow at a much faster rate than that of whites.

            And, sadly, part of the opposition to Obama down here is based on things other than his policies, iykwim.  A "different" democrat could do quite well here, especially if the right keeps its anti-woman, anti-poor and anti-teacher rhetoric up.

  •  Don't get sucked in (6+ / 0-)

    Nail down Michigan and Iowa and Virginia.  Talk about fool's gold. It's Texas.

  •  people need to stop saying let Texas secede (4+ / 0-)

    It will be a blue state someday, I have no doubt. Texas also has a lot of transplanted Californians now that it has become a hub for tech jobs. Oklahoma on the other hand can go ahead and secede.... (j/k all you progressive Sooners).

    We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

    by CatM on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:53:27 AM PDT

    •  Well, I think the idea isn't so much... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      R30A, Losty

      ...for Texas as it stands now to secede.

      The wishful thinking is that every teabagger, wingnut and religious extremist would pack up and move to Texas, while at the same time, every progressive and other rational moderates would move out of Texas.

      Then let 'em secede and see how they fare in their FOX News utopia.

      Should be fascinating to watch.

  •  I agree that this seems like fool's gold... (10+ / 0-)

    ...but there's two additional factors to consider:

    1. Old People Die. There's no way to sugarcoat this: A big chunk of racist old Republicans are dying off; every day, there's fewer and few of them to vote against the black dude, in Texas as well as elsewhere.

    2. The Hispanic population is growing. How much has it increased in Texas since 2008? Beats me, but that's 4 years' worth of increasing numbers Hispanics turning 18 in that time period.

    Is Obama winning Texas conceivable? Yes.

    Is it realistic enough to divert even one dime from another state? No.

    But numbers like these sure as hell make it tempting.

    •  You are right. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brainwrap, Wreck Smurfy

      Virginia could have been called fool's gold not too long ago. The former capitol of the Confederacy voting for a black man?

      California could have been called fool's gold back in the day. Nixon. Reagan. Wilson. Now look at it. Are Dems not looking at getting 2/3 of the legislature in Nov.?

      Farm boy who hit the city to go to college, WI-03 (home, voting), WI-02 (college), -7.88, -4.26,

      by WisJohn on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:09:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Texas hasn't elected a Democrat statewide (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, bumiputera

        since at least 1998. To move 1 point is to sway 100,000s of votes. There are multiple, expensive media markets when the Democrats don't really have the statewide aparatus to drive our voters. Virginia routinely elected Democrats statewide with governors and Senators and lower offices. Texas is not there. No money is going there and this story  hurts DKE's credibility.

    •  Your point 1 is something that everyone should (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisJohn, wilderness voice, Brainwrap

      keep in mind. Roughly speaking, there are 4 million people who were eligible to vote in 2008 who are not eligible to vote in 2012. Why? Because they're dead.

      -8.38, -7.74 My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. - Jack Layton

      by Wreck Smurfy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:31:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  caveat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wreck Smurfy
        Why? Because they're dead.
        and therefore eligible to vote only in Cook County, IL, not Texas.

        A Republican is a person who says we need to rebuild Iraq but not New Orleans. - Temple Stark

        by Christopher Walker on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:02:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, having said that... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wilderness voice, Wreck Smurfy

        ...obviously not all 4 million of those folks were gonna vote for Romney. There's plenty of elderly liberals/progressives as well, and I presume that minorities and poor people tend to have a shorter life expectancy than rich white folks.

        However, I'd be willing to bet that if around 4 million registered voters have died in the past 4 years, probably 53% of them leaned GOP vs. 47% leaning Dem, so that's a net "gain" (or "loss" depending on POV) of around 200,000 voters.

        These are, of course, made up for by the 4 million+ youngins' who've turned 18+ in that same timeframe, and I'd be equally willing to bet that they skew towards Obama by an even greater amount. Of course they also vote in fewer numbers, but still, figure another 200,000 or so progressives.

        That's a potential net gain of 400,000 votes nationwide.

  •  Ahem... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, WisJohn

    I've been beating this drum for a while. I'm more optimistic than most, but even I am not sure it is possible in 2012. There have been some hints that the campaign was or even still is laying the groundwork to pounce if and when it looks like we have a shot, yet if I had to bet, I'd say it's not going to receive that much attention this year.

    That said, here are a few things to keep in mind about the state:

    1. It has very, very low voter turnout for those who are registered to vote. It's not clear that these people are necessarily open to voting for us, but it's also not clear that they aren't.

    2. It has a lot of people, particularly non-whites, that aren't registered to vote (Table 4b). The most important demographic in the state isn't as friendly to us as it is in other states, if only because the politically smart Republicans realized what was happening a while ago and decided to take action, but it's still friendlier to us than the group of white voters is. I should also say that those who are currently waiting to be brought into the process are probably friendlier than those who are currently voting, at least as far as non-whites go.

    3. Similar to how we need to manage the margins with white voters in other southern states, we need to win about 30-35 percent of white voters in Texas to be competitive. That is, until demographic trends are reflected in the electorate.

    4. It's more likely than not than we can concentrate our efforts in about one-fifth of the state's counties and almost ignore the rest. Perhaps more in Texas than in other states, the population is clustered in a few very, very big counties, and there's a fairly steep drop off after that.

    5. I've been said to have an awe-inspiring belief in voter registration in the state, but just to be clear, winning with a slightly higher percentage would also take care of a lot of the problem. Take Harris County, for instance, which has about 4,100,000 people.  In 2008, Obama won the county with 50.45 percent, or 590,982 votes out of a total voter pool of 1,171,472. Had he received 55 percent, he would have had a total of 644,310 votes, an improvement of 53,328 votes. Add that total to his other statewide numbers and his percentage increases from 43.63 to 44.29. That's pretty damn decent, I think.

    I don't think it will be easy, and I certainly don't think Republicans will set back and let us scoop up the state without fighting for it. I just think the pieces are there so that we can be competitive starting sooner rather than later.

    Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

    by bjssp on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:07:56 AM PDT

    •  Small math error here, as (0+ / 0-)

      he won with 50.4 percent, not 50.45 percent. Still, the gist remains the same.

      Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

      by bjssp on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:46:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry... you cant stretch a poll that long (5+ / 0-)

    Every single actual poll PPP has done shows Romney up WELL over the MoE.

    Nate Silver at has Texas' adjusted polling average at Romney +15.

    This is a good example of "Fun with Crosstabs" but not a legitimate polling result.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:25:12 AM PDT

    •  No, actually (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bumiputera, CF of Aus

      It is what it is.  Don't pretend it is something different.

      It's not a poll.  It is an aggregate.  That's all.  Don't call it what it isn't claiming to be.

      And you and some other here need to read about the law of large numbers.

      This diary merely is pointing out what the data was in fact, in reality, here on Earth.  It doesn't prove anything, and it isn't the same as doing a poll.  (PPP has polled Texas twice this year, and it is +7 both times.)

      Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

      by tommypaine on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:22:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  By 2020 this is believable, but now? However, (0+ / 0-)

    could Willard's (un)popularity help with Congressional and state races?

  •  For the 1000th time, polling is not the way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper, Deep Texan

    to decide whether a state is competitive. That's all I'll say about this post.

    •  This ^ (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GradyDem, Deep Texan

      polling helps track swing states.. it doesn't help to distort heavily partisan states to make them look otherwise.

      I look forward to DailyKos Elections next Front Page splash showing Obama up by 2 in Nebraska or that we have a shot at South Dakota through some arcane cross-tab deep-diving.

      This reminds me to go read Nate Silver.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:18:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then what is the best way? (0+ / 0-)

      Jack Donaghy: "We're nipping this in the bud. Jenna's going to issue a formal apology tomorrow on "Hardball" do know what that is, don't you?" Jenna Maroney: "Yes. Should I prepare a song?"

      by bjssp on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:22:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where are campaigns investing? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        Particularly in a ground game and tv ads.

        Obama and superpacs have not spent a dime in Texas. Nor has Mitt.

        •  how do they decide where to invest? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          David Nir, Gpack3

          I'm guessing polling.

          Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

          by James Allen on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:39:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Totally false (0+ / 0-)

          GradyDem you are way off in your thinking here.

          Money is being spent in tipping states that are not close to tossups now.

          Far less money is being spent, now, in tossup states because the race will not be decided by AZ, MO, NC, etc.

          Polling is what tells is where races are competitive.  Money alone tells us nothing, literally nothing, about indivdual competiveness of states... only when you consider the context of the whole race does money help us identify anything.

          Put another way, in 1984 Mondale didn't spend 100% of his money in MN and MA.

          Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

          by tommypaine on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:27:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm confused with what you are saying here (0+ / 0-)

            Money is being spent in tipping states that are not tossups? Like Florida? Like North Carolina? Like Ohio? All those states are tossups (and potential tipping states), and they are getting the brunt of the money. Obama is investing money in those states, suggesting that they are competitive (not that we didn't know it already from polling). Obama is not investing money in Michigan and Wisconsin, suggesting that they think those races are pretty safe for them right now (contrary to public polling). In other words, financial indicators are pointing to OFA's strategy in this election.

            •  FL and NC are not tipping states (0+ / 0-)

              There are two primary tipping states, Virginia and Colorado.  OH could be a tipping state, maybe, but it is certainly not in VA and CO league.  (Obama won CO by 9, and VA by 7.  He only won OH by 4.)

              Obama isn't winning NC or FL if he doesn't win Virginia.  

              Again, just think of 1984 to see the wrongness of your idea.  Only a small number of states were competitive, but both campaigns spent money in other states too, all the way up to the tipping point.

              Now look at 2008.  In your view, Obama should have been focusing spending on IN, MO, NC, because they were the most compettive states.  But the reality is all those states were low priority.  More money was spent on states that were less competitive.  (McCain blew a fortune on PA, but it wasn't close there.)

              Obama needs none of the states you named to win.  He's spending there too, but he is not spending there because they are "competitive".  

              Put another way, "competitive" is not the key metric.  "Win the race" is the key money metric.  If Obama was ahead in CO and VA by 10+ points, he'd still spend money there if he was ahead in the Gore/Kerry states and Nevada by +15.  

              Tipping gets the money first.
              Competitive gets the money next.
              Longshot competitive (TX, SC, SD...) gets the money next.
              Token effort gets the money last.

              Mr. Gorbachev, establish an Electoral College!

              by tommypaine on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 02:21:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Texas for the most part is fool's gold (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice, WisJohn

    You don't see republican talking about how to win New York (a comparable blue equivalent). My advice is not to try actually winning the state but rather to chip away at the GOP. One area I'm interested is Fort Bend County. It has a similar identity to a place like Collin County in that there is a lot of sprawl, mcmansions and what have you.

    But it is also the least republican of many of the exurban counties. Obama managed to get a respectable 47-48 percent of the vote. To make it even better, its % of the statewide population is growing. So if they could win such a county, it could elevate the democrats from "powerless minority" to "irritating minority" within the state.  

    also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

    by demographicarmageddon on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:13:56 AM PDT

  •  what a strange comments thread (15+ / 0-)

    Although I understand and share the skepticism of many here that Texas really is tied right now, I can't begin to understand why the comments in this thread have been so shrill and laced with very personal ad hominems questioning the integrity of the author. Since I'm not too familiar with the author I would like to assure him/her, that this tone is not normal (at least for DKE posts) and that many in the community appreciate his/her work and look forward to reading more of it in the future.

    26, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

    by okiedem on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:25:28 AM PDT

  •  My god (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisJohn, Texdude50

    I am probably hours away from releasing my July ratings for President and Senate, and I had Texas at Safe R.  Not anymore!  

    Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention to the goings on there, and maybe this poll is an outlier because it totally blindsided me, but clearly either demographics are having an impact or Romney is uniquely weak in the Lone Star State.

  •  After looking at this poll... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I'm wondering at what point will the GOP (even with its megabucks advantage) feel forced to spend tons of money just to keep the state in Mitt Romney's fold. That could mean tons of money in advertising being spent in some places no one could ever foresaw that Republicans would have to spend money. And that includes places like expensive media markets in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Gandhi

    by alaprst on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:27:02 PM PDT

  •  It would be well worth a few million (0+ / 0-)

    for some sort of ads in the Dallas market. Its suburbs and exurbs are the Republican barricade for the state. Sort of like Atlanta's northern suburbs are literally all that are keeping the state anything worse than tossup.

    Hmmm...that gives me an idea for a diary :)

    -8.88, -4.21 Why does the most beautiful place in the world (Idaho Panhandle) have to get dumped with thousands of Cali GOP doofuses?

    by Whitty on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:09:25 PM PDT

  •  Good job on this one (0+ / 0-)

    While I doubt the state will be close next year this diary does a great job showing under what conditions Texas can be winnable.  Looking forward to seeing more.

    22, male, new CA-18 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)

    by Jeff Singer on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:21:20 PM PDT

  •  Just read a great article by Ralph Nader- (0+ / 0-)

    His opinions on how the Democrats can achieve are a few excerpts----as well as the link--

    The Democrats should be landsliding the worst Republican Party in history. Talk about extremists. There are virtually no moderate or liberal Republicans left in Congress after being driven out by their own party hard-liners. So this Republican Party, united over their extremism, should be very easy to challenge.

    There are plenty of bright-line issues for the Democrats. Get tough on Wall Street and corporate crime, protect pensions, end the wars, tax the corporate and wealthy tax-escapees, launch community-based public works programs, provide full Medicare for all, expand health and safety programs, to name a few.

    Jolting the Democratic Party from Its Stupor | Common Dreams

    Perhaps one story is most telling: President Obama has been more reticent in his nomination of federal judges than his predecessors. In meetings between outside support groups and White House-Justice Department staff, the nominees hailing from the ranks of labor and public interest lawyers, as well as law professors, are received coolly. The Obama staff want what they call “stealth candidates,” – that is corporate lawyers with some enlightened pro bono tendencies. Why directly take on the Republicans for the future of the federal judiciary when you can settle for the corporate status quo?

    Who’s fooling whom? The coming days await a new and open jolting push by prominent outside Democrats who fervently want to wrench their party back from the abyss, from its own self-imposed sense of dread before a devastating, self-inflicted November defeat.

    "It's tough to take republicans seriously when their entire ideology can be explained perfectly by a 13 yr. old and a 14 yr. old."---Bill Maher

    by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:50:40 PM PDT

  •  If Texas goes for team blue while I am living here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I might just stay a Texan, well maybe.....

    Reach for the sky, Touch the sky, Revive a hope, For Mankind!

    by Greatwyrm on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:55:24 PM PDT

  •  Wow - Good to see we rolled out the welcome mat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Welcome to A-Grade kid !

    Looking forward to more diaries from you.

    Town Planner, 30 years Old, Election Junkie, Thinks John Boehner is starting to be worried about holding the House...

    by CF of Aus on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 04:23:51 PM PDT

  •  Texas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CF of Aus

    Texas was R+9.5 in 2008. Let's take the Nate Silver forecasts for both the nationwide vote and Texas at face value. Texas is forecasted to be approximately R+8.5. This doesn't portend as fast a pace of electoral change as some of the commenters above have posited, and certainly is counter to dreamin's diary.

    I, for one, think that the trend will be a bit faster than the Silver projection and that Texas will be about R+8 this time around, and, going forward, that it will be R+6 in 2016 and R+3 in 2020.

    I.E. the jump in performance between elections getting slightly larger each time from 1.5, to 2, to 3. The simple fact is that demographic trends accelerate as time goes on. Demographic changes start out as simply new people moving into a given area, they then move to the expansion stage where those individuals copulate, but they don't fully manifest themselves until the inflection point, this being the phase that Texas is going to enter in the next five to ten years: the elderly class of the old demographic majority quickly are replaced in the voting pool with the new younger demographic majority. Whereas the former phases simply add one vote in favor of the Democrats, this phase adds one in favor and subtracts one from the Republicans.

    If any Democrat is winning the national vote modestly in 2020 then they can possibly win Texas narrowly. It may seem batshit crazy now, but it really isn't. I guarantee you that Julian Castro (pronounced Who-lee-ahn, not Jew-lian, for any who didn't know), if he runs for governor in 2014, will speed that process up. He's an amazingly talented candidate and an amazingly gifted speaker. The kindof candidate that Democrats have often thought it would take to increase Hispanic participation in Texas to a level that would make the state competitive.

    I've waited until now, when the debate upthread has largely died down, to respond directly to dreamin: as much as I love your other work, this is not up to your standards and I strongly disapprove of coming to the conclusions that have come to using the data that you have used:

    Of course, this is a poll of registered voters.  Typically, the demographics shift towards Republican voters by a few points among actual voters in Texas.
    Yes, but you're lowballing this effect. It is typical of any poll for Republicans to do better among likely voters than they do with registered voters and certainly all citizens. But this effect is magnified in Texas because of the different demographic groups that the two parties draw from. Whereas you'd typical expect to see the numbers move by 2 or 3 points in favor of Republicans when adjusting to likely voters, you'd expect to see more movement - perhaps even up to 5 points - in any minority heavy state.
    There were slightly too few Hispanics compared to the 2008 census numbers for registered voters, but they may have showed up in the category of 'Other' so that's not too bad either.
    No. Hispanics as registered voters are probably actually high in this data based on your language. Hispanics as registered voters are extremely low relative to their census portion. By your language (I.E. "slightly too few") you seem to suggest that Hispanics are only slightly below their total in the census. In fact, they shouldn't just be slightly low, but should be much lower. This is due to two things: most of them are kids and a substantial portion of them are politically unmotivated even despite being citizens.
    This polling aggregation is likely too favorable for Obama, but it is not way off base.
    This polling aggregation has no generalizability whatsoever. It is simply not statistically sound. These Texas voters are a cross tab in every single poll and you are combining cross tabs from separate polls into a supposedly cohesive poll with what you’ve assumed is a small margin of error because it has a larger n. This is actually false. Because the original data is subject to a large margin of error because of small n - each of those separate datasets is subject to that large margin of error - the new margin of error when the data is combined is not calculated from the new total number, but rather is extrapolated from the original margins of error from every single standalone dataset. I.E. the data you’ve given us has a margin of error of around +-8 or 9.
    But among white independents (about 20% of the voters), McCain beat Obama 72-27.  In this polling aggregation, Obama beats Romney 47-45.
    Yeah, this is subject to the same problems above. The only problem here is that now you’ve got an even larger margin of error because you’re now taking a cross tab of a crosstab. This is the exact same problem that Jensen of PPP has. He generalizes from unreliable data points from his crosstabs where you really shouldn’t be doing that.

    Furthermore, I’m sure you know that the political science research on what an independent is is very thorough. Most people who call themselves independents are actually closet partisans. There’s actually some evidence that people who call themselves independent actually vote for the same party at a higher rate than their actual partisan counterparts. I.E. “Independent” Republicans vote for Republican candidates more consistently than do actual Republicans and the same on the Democratic side. What does this mean? This means that independents in Texas, no matter what your dataset says, will be voting a hell of alot closer to the McCain 72-27, especially white independents who are southern and have highly racially polarized voting patterns, than to a statistical tie. 

    My thoughts? Although you have some riveting points about what it would to win Texas, we simply aren’t there yet and won’t be for at least another 8 years. Obama will not win Texas. Obama will not even come close to winning Texas unless something drastic changes between now and election day to blow him up to a double digit victory, and even then it will be a tough tough hall because of the resources that it would take to win in the very expensive Dallas and Houston media markets and the moderately priced Austin and San Antonio markets. There are other places where the Obama campaign can get their cherry on top that would cost significantly less in the case of a double digit victory that would all get priority over Texas’s electoral votes: Montana, the Dakotas, South Carolina, Arizona, Indiana, and Georgia all spring to mind. All of those add up to the more electoral votes than Texas and would be cheaper in total to advertise in than Texas and would make for, together, a much more impressive victory. 

    22, Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM2 (Raised), TX20 (B.A. and Pol. Sci.), TX17 (Live); Taste my skittles? Intern w/ Pete Gallego for Congress.

    by wwmiv on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:52:16 PM PDT

    •  Furthermore (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CF of Aus

      These are two ancillary, but important, points that I think are instructive:

      1. Your top-lines have not gone through the process of raking (or a similar technique). This is a very complex methodological procedure which many polling institutions employ to bring their data into close demographic approximation of reality. The fact that you haven't done this alone skews the results in favor of the president because your pure data is Hispanic heavy.

      2. The fact that the data is extremely Hispanic heavy probably has to do with PPPs methods to contact Hispanic voters. Hispanics are predominantly located in Texas, California, Florida, and New York. In order to get a good sample, a huge share of these are bound to come from each of these states, including Texas. On the flip side, it is not necessary for PPP to get a good number of whites - and for that number to be representative - for PPP to specifically target Texas. Yes, there will always be some whites from Texas in their polls, but that is simply a byproduct of the polling itself. The simple nature of the polling itself leads to a better result in Texas than expected or is reasonable and completely explains the discrepancy between PPP's Texas subsample and their state specific polls.

      Both of which, I might add, have had a substantial Democratic leaning house effect so far this cycle. I would have been the first person arguing for PPPs quality last cycle ('10) and the cycle before ('08), but they've definitely had a discernable Democratic lean thus far. Add to that that these polls were commissioned by the admittedly venerable Daily Kos/Daily Kos Elections and you may even have a bigger house effect.

      22, Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat; NM2 (Raised), TX20 (B.A. and Pol. Sci.), TX17 (Live); Taste my skittles? Intern w/ Pete Gallego for Congress.

      by wwmiv on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 01:04:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CF of Aus

      I enjoyed reading your take on Texas.  I appreciate the time you took to thoroughly and substantively comment on this post.  And I appreciate your criticism as well.

      One thing I can reassure you on is the demographic distribution.  Here's the census data for % Hispanic among population 18+.

      Total population: 30%
      Registered voters: 24%
      Actual voters: 20%

      Total population: 28%
      Registered voters: 25%
      Actual voters: 18%

      In this polling aggregate, the percent Hispanic was 18%.  I hope this clears up your concerns that Hispanics were overrepresented.  I can see how the way I wrote could be misleading.

      For the shift from registered voters to likely voters, I was concerned that the polls do not include Spanish-only voters, and so some - some - of the expected demographic bias might be offset.  The UT/YouGov polls in particular have had a margin closer to the actual vote than I would have thought for registered voter polls, and that gave me pause before stating the vote share should shift 4-5 points.

      As far as aggregating data, I don't understand why different statistics would be used for aggregating (for example), 100 interviews on April 1 with 100 interviews on April 2 (a typical poll) and aggregating 100 interviews on April 1 with 100 interviews on May 1 (akin to what was done in this aggregation).   Can you explain further what you mean?  You say this method is not statistically sound but it is the same general idea as what Gallup does when they release Obama's approval by state for the year 2011, for example.  Gallup is not perfect of course, so if you could expand on your point I would appreciate it.

      Your points on Independents is well taken, and indeed that was exactly why I thought it was so interesting that these Independents said they would vote for Obama.  I certainly would guess that in the end they vote for Romney, but if Romney is unlikeable enough maybe some won't vote.  Something similar happened early in the cycle in 2008, with SUSA polls showing Independents fairly split, but favoring McCain, and we see the final exit poll numbers were a wipeout.

      Again, thanks.

  •  Obama should come here! (0+ / 0-)

    Nothing gets people fired up about him like seeing him in person.  

    Coming out to brave the Texas heat would give Texas Democrats a lot of hope (I know it's the same heat as in other states, but you see, Texas is special, so its heat counts double or something)

    Not to mention the coattails

    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

    by nominalize on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:56:18 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the analysis (0+ / 0-)

    GOTV squared is needed to turn Texas blue, along with a lot of hard work party-, institution- , and frame- building.  All in a decade's work.

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:43:38 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site