Gallup Poll Indicates Texas is a Swing State

12
0 Flares Filament.io 0 Flares ×

That leaves a total of eight states that are competitive in terms of party identification, with none showing a party advantage of greater than two points. These include Mississippi (+1 Republican), North Dakota and Nebraska (even), and Kansas, Arizona, Texas, South Carolina, and Montana (all +2 Democratic).

According to analysis of Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from the first six months of 2009, Texas is a competitive state based on party identification.

The poll found that 42% of respondents identified as either a Democrat or lean Democrat with 40% indicating they were Republican or lean Republican. 9,149 surveys were conducted over the first 6 months of the year.

The margin appears to be +/- 3 points so the number is basically a push. These numbers seem to represent what we are seeing on the ground.  In 2006, Rick Perry only received 39% of the vote.  It has been speculated this was the baseline or raw voter count of the Republican Party in Texas.  With this Gallup poll showing 40% Republican/Lean Republican in Texas, we see a long term trend that shows the Republican ceiling.

If Democrats put together a solid slate and continue to appeal to suburban and exurban independents (like we have for 2 cycles), Democrats could win big November 2010.

Regardless of what the Republican noise machine will say in Texas, Democrats are on the brink in the lone star state.

The full story can be found on the Gallup website.

Share.

About Author

12 Comments

  1. Well good for Gallup
    But until the 18% of people in the middle not identifying with a party actually start splitting evenly (at best), this poll doesn't make us a swing state. Our problem in Texas as Democrats is not about getting that 42%. Out problem is convincing more than a quarter of the leftovers who haven't figured out the Republican Party is a dead end game for the future of Texas.

    If Party ID equaled votes in the bank, I'd be thrilled.  

    • amen, brother
      we've got to get at that creamy center of the electorate.

      number one we have to have a platform that makes sense.

      number two, we gotta get the $ to communicate the platform.

      number three, we MUST run a modern, professional, statewide coordinated campaign.

      the voters are waiting.

      • All those things are fine, but
        It's really about the candidates.  What are needed are candidates who connect with voters.  People who hate Sarah Palin do not understand her popularity.  Yes, she's dumb, but that's not the point:  she connects with voters.  Texas Democrats need some candidates who are equally adroit, but not as dumb.  That's pretty hard to find.  Look at our Senate candidates – White is smart, but an a$$hole.  Sharp is neither smart (OK, maybe he's just really good at hiding it) nor adroit.  Tom what's-his-name, the guy running for governor, has yet to leave any impression at all, so I'm guessing he's not a connecter either.

        It's all about people, people.  Technical issues only matter if we have a candidate that people might like.  That's our challenge today.

        • White is what?
          Dale, you formula doesn't make sense. If Bill White is the most popular mayor in the history of Houston, he has connected with the voters and can statewide. His connection is understated competence. Your pejorative description of him is wrong. Is he a harda$$? Yes. Is he a warm fuzzy? No. But that doesn't make him what you suggest.

    • Swing State or Battleground State?
      Well, gee, 42% is what Democratic statewide candidates have been getting and losing by for over a decade. Given that the GOP number is a “base” of (1) identified, (2) motivated, (3) mobilized, and, uh, (4) registered, individual voters, and the Democratic number is …

      … Just a number, a not very reliable statistic. I fail to see how this is such great news.

      (1) IDENTIFIED

      TDP consultants identify demographic, mostly racial, groups, not individuals.

      We do not authenticate convention delegates or track individual primary voters. The party is largely an extension of government itself or of incumbent candidates. We wring our hands over non-voters but are indifferent to or hostile towards individual voters.

      (2) MOTIVATED

      The consultants run empty-suits who tell voters one thing but assure large donors of something else altogether.

      By and large, Democratic office-squatters, hence, the party establishment , are indifferent towards or hostile to the President's economic, health care, and energy agenda.

      (3) MOBILIZED

      The consultants use the term “swing” for “likely voter” campaigns that leave the political participation rate low and biased against statewide or countwide Democrats.

      They are protective of self-perpetuating Democratic incumbents in GOP-gerrymandered “safe seats”.

      (4) REGISTERED

      The consultants do not make money from voter registration.

      So, voter registration in Texas is low and biased in favor of “white home-owners” by design and default since the 1920's. That is the system Democrats protected up through 2002 and the GOP has since tweaked. There are actually no Democratic legislative, judicial, or executive challenges to that system — a few complaints from losers but no action by Democrats who win elections or, more likely, who have safe seats and do not run at all.

      As long as we have a cornpone, Jim Crow party that is not self-governing or self-sustaining, we will not be a battleground state. Indeed, as the LSP ramps-up a replay of the 2002 campaign, the TDP will likely drive these polls back to … 2002 or worse, given ongoing subversion of the President's popular agenda by Democrats' largest donors.

      We cannot capture the imagination of the center or hold the trust of the left by just demonizing the far-right. We have to show, where we actually hold power, that we are doing something other than just tending bi-partisan tax and bond concessions — the source of most large campaign donations.  

  2. Texas = Independents
    I would venture a guess that the true affiliation of most Texas voters would be independent.  Affiliation is nice however most Texans vote self reliance.  The current administration is all about government reliance.  Don't think even the 42% dems are very reliable  

  3. politicsforjim on

    Excellent point Karl Thomas
    …it has always been the so called “Independents” that have killed us.  While identifying themselves as “Independent,” they were reliably voting Republican up and down the ballot.  That's where much of the battle lies and when a poll comes out showing that the I's now lean D, it's game on.

  4. Good news
    Glad to see not only Texas trending blue, but also North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. Folks in the great plains states are waking up to the damage caused over the last eight years, and it'll be interesting to see which way these states break over the next few election cycles.  

  5. Identification is not enough
    What really counts is actually turning out to vote.  The Republicans do so, and they vote a straight ticket.  The Dems turnout is lower, and they cherry pick the races they vote in.

Leave a Reply

2015 © Skytop Publishing All Rights Reserved. Do not republish without express written permission.

Site designed and developed by well + done DESIGN

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Filament.io 0 Flares ×