BOR June Presidential Primary Tracking Poll

Bisits (0.00 / 0)

Note that Edwards will be in Austin next Week...and, Obama will be holding a large rally in San Antonio at the end of the month - looks for their numbers to go up.  Obama got a lot of coverage for the Austin Rally, and S.A. could be larger.

---

by: gb1437a @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 13:09:03 PM CDT

Edwards is in Austin tomorrow 6/12 (0.00 / 0)

Edwards: Small Change for Big Change

Obama is in S.A. on June 24th
Obama returns to Texas
WHAT:  San Antonio Kick-Off & Grassoots Fundraiser
WHEN:  Sunday, June 24 - 12:45 PM
WHERE:  Lonestar Pavillion, Sunset Station, 1174 East Commerce St.
(parking available at the Alamodome)

---

by: sonia @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 13:38:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oops (0.00 / 0)

Forgot it was monday - anyway, it exciting Texas is getting some attention from D's.

---

by: gb1437a @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 13:55:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes they can still suck money out of Texas (0.00 / 0)

With the primary moving earlier in other states, we'll have very little impact any other way.

:(

---

by: sonia @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 14:14:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And always remember...it ain't winner take all. (5.00 / 1)

We don't have a statewide primary.  In reality we have 31 seperate primaries.  And each one awards from 3 to 6 delegates depending on how "Democratic" the district is historically.

And when you add the fact that everyone who gets at least 15% gets one delegate, I bet we see lots of areas where the vote could break out 50%, 15% 15% 15%, etc.  and end up one delegate for Clinton, one for Obama and one for Edwards... and in some of the big districts, maybe even one for a second teir guy.

And then there's the folks who go to causes and make it to the state convention.  That could also be all whacked.  Different breed of Demo who goes to three stages of convention.

Anybodies game by my account.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 15:34:52 PM CDT

1/4 of our delegates... (0.00 / 0)

allocated by who shows up at the State Convention, totally unconnected to those 31 pres. primaries.

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 15:35:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point (5.00 / 1)

Richardson was way ahead in West Texas and Clinton dominates in the Valley, but Obama does well in the metros, though down a bit from earlier polls. Edwards does best in east Texas. Lots of candidates will pick up some delegates.

Texas Economics

---

by: IVR Polls @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 18:34:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If Richardson's name was Rodriguez (0.00 / 0)

Clinton's wife would be running second.

---

by: Wanderer @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 15:46:54 PM CDT

You're only saying that because of all the Hispanic surnamed (5.00 / 1)

presidents we've elected in the past.

No ... wait ... that can't be it ... I'm thinking of The West Wing ...

Why are you saying that?

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 15:49:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

History (0.00 / 0)

Texas voting history makes it clear that Hispanic voters favor a Spanish-surnamed candidate over a non-Spanish-surnamed candidate, regardless of what other factors come into play.  In Houston, we saw a well-known, respected Hispanic activist repeatedly defeated for City Council in a Hispanic district, against unknown opponents, because his surname (like Richardson's) was not Spanish like his opponents.  Those voters are voting based solely on name.  It is a sad commentary on democracy -- validating Jefferson's concern that a democracy cannot survive without good education -- but we see it happen time and time again.  You can think of your own statewide examples without me point them out ... there are many, starting probably with Victor Morales' first campaign. 

---

by: Wanderer @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 15:55:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This explains (5.00 / 1)

Gene Kelly's perennial strength in the Valley.

---

by: George @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 18:36:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards dropped the most (5.00 / 2)

Why wasn't in newsworthy to report that not only has Edwards dropped for the second straight polling period, but he even dropped more than Obama?

Edwards went from 17.9% to 12.9%, a full 5 point drop, while Obama only lost 2.6 points.  In your email update and in your post you don't mention this, but you do mention Obama's drop, though it was not as bad as Edwards's.

Also, does anyone know the margin of error?

---

by: Dukakis_in_a_tank @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 18:34:45 PM CDT

MoE 4.3%, 513 Democratic primary voters surveyed (0.00 / 0)

nt

Texas Economics

---

by: IVR Polls @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 18:38:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great Catch (0.00 / 0)

Def missed that doing the number crunching.  Thanks for commenting!

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 20:07:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

heresy (0.00 / 0)

I almost hope Hilary wins the nomination so I can vote against her twice...

---

by: Andrew Dobbs @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 18:43:37 PM CDT

... (0.00 / 0)

Which 'Pub are you warming to, in the case Clinton is our nominee?  Or would you more than likely go for a third party?

---

by: Indigo @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 20:02:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She's in good company (0.00 / 0)

Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry all carried Texas in the Democratic Primary

---

by: Wanderer @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 23:13:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As did (0.00 / 0)

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter!

Considering Kerry won ever primary except 3 in 04 that is a pretty weak argument.

Its fine if you want to diss Hillary but you can do better than that.

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 23:38:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No kidding (0.00 / 0)

There are so many things wrong with Clinton's wife that we hardly know where to begin.  But since the subject is the Texas primary, there you go.  She's in great company with other great losers of the last 30 years.  Two were winners?  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

---

by: Wanderer @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:10:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah (0.00 / 0)

but will you say the same thing if Obama or Edwards wins the primary?

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 16:40:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hopefully not (0.00 / 0)

I could conceivably vote for either of those two, although Edwards is not wearing well.  We'll have to wait for the general election results before we make comparisons to previous elections.

---

by: Wanderer @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 13:39:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yay (3.00 / 1)

hillary 25 points ahead is great!!!  more good news to annoy the hillary haters. keep it coming. GO HILLARY!!!!

---

by: terrondt @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 20:39:02 PM CDT

I have no idea (0.00 / 0)

How this shows that Hilary's support has plateaued.  If anything, this shows that she's consolidated her support. 35-40 is her floor, not her ceiling.

And as we've seen in the two previous debates, she gets a fantastic bounce after them, so I wouldn't just write the debates off right now.

But the trend is clear, both Edwards and Obama are either static or bleeding support (yes, I know, still within the MOE, but there is a clear downward trend) while Hilary is slaughtering everyone even while getting nowhere near 50% plus one.  And Richardson's making a huge jump.

I think the make-up of the top tier D candidates a week or two before Iowa is going to look drastically different (Clinton, Richardson and either Obama/Edwards) then what everyone has been predicting for the last few months (Clinton, Obama and Edwards trailing far behind).

---

by: Jose Blasquez @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 21:17:02 PM CDT

Matt you say (0.00 / 0)

that the debates will hurt Hillary but in New Hampshire, where the debate was most widely seen, she went up pretty dramatically in the post-debate poll while Edwards and Obama fell a little.

Why do you think the debates will hurt her ... especially if she is winning them?

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 22:06:32 PM CDT

A lot of events (0.00 / 0)

We have a long way to go, and a lot of happenings-

The MSM is going to freak out when/if Obama beats Hillary in Q2 fundrasing, driving up his numbers

Gore is either going to run or endorse, and he could likely endorse Obama

Kerry will probably endore Obama - they have been seen together at meals in D.C. a number of times (perhaps Kennedy will follow)

I don't since a lot of Texas D's have begun to pay attention to the race - which is inflating Hillary's numbers.  Actually, I think Obama has a lead in national polls in the catagory of those paying a "fair amount" or "a lot" of attention to the race.

---

by: gb1437a @ Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 23:38:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

The post is written for Texas only.  I am not thinking about NH, NM, SC, FL, or anywhere else.

Since 73% are decided with Hillary, her room for growth is low and so is ability to lose votes.  This is Hillary's blessing and curse.

My argument is that people are starting to solidify around her-- either for or against.  Basic economic theory is the rule of diminishing marginal return, and I believe that since her numbers are at 40% and her commitment level is 73% she is about as high as she is going to go.

For example, if Richardson were to drop out, would his 9% move mostly to Hillary or somewhere else.  Because 73% are committed around Hillary, I suspect that  the people that are supporting Hillary are firm in their support and picked very early in the process.  Someone that picked Richardson, is far less likely to move over to Hillary instead of Obama, Edwards, or any other.

My hunch is based on the Al Gore numbers.  If Gore got in the race, 53% of her supporters would stay and only 22% would change who they support. 

This is a good indicator that her base is close to 35% of the voting electorate, but it also makes it clear she is going to have a hard time moving much higher than her current levels.

Hope this helps.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 07:26:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]