BOR/IVR Texas Presidential Primary Poll Results (August)

Richardson (0.00 / 0)

It's amazing to me that Governor Richardson is doing so poorly in a heavily hispanic state like Texas.

His record is great, and credentials super....why are dems not taking a look?

Conservative Yet Pragmatic

by: rightoftexas @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 18:56:46 PM CDT

I like him (0.00 / 0)

but except for the adds, his campaign has been kind of clumsy.  He's had several gaffs and his debate performances haven't been great, at least at the first two (the only debates I've watched.)

But he is a good candidate, and still my first choice.  Just less so than a few months ago.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

by: Timothy @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 02:53:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What these polls tell us... (0.00 / 0)

They only tell us that initial name recognition is relatively high for Clinton and lower for Obama/Edwards (even less for Richardson).  If Richardson had a hispanic name, he probably would poll higher. 

The two useful questions would be one that got at the heart of Hillary's likeability and/or how many people just have a negative reaction when faced with her.  The other question would be would you rather see Hillary Clinton win the nomination or somebody else.

No horse race question in a poll, this far out, means anything at all.  Honestly, as far as Texas goes, we won't have a clue what does matter until a poll that goes in the field Feb 8th.  That poll will show how the super duper uber Tuesday results AND THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THEM has changed people's perceptions.  Of course, such a poll is only useful if the nomination isn't already locked.

by: David O. @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:56:26 AM CDT

Maybe... (3.00 / 1)

I agree that if we come out of Feb. 5th and it's clearly down to 2 candidates, it changes the nature of the poll. But it's interesting to see where candidates are...especially that Clinton has hit her ceiling at 40%. From my experience, I've seen a lot more people willing to float between Edwards/Obama/Richardson, etc., than willing to float to/from Clinton. To phrase it differently: Clinton doesn't seem like as much of a bandwagon candidate as the others.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:57:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Qualified agreement... (0.00 / 0)

I think, for the moment, everybody knows Hillary and 40% of primary voting Democrats in Texas support her.  I think those who support other candidates are quite unlikely to support Hillary.

HOWEVER, I think once the other candidates become more well known, one or more could emerge and take some of Hillary's support.  Due to money, endorcements, and racial politics, I'd guess at this point it would be Obama.  However, Edwards could possibly be that person, especially if he performs well early and gets some good news cycles.

FURTHERMORE, if there are a number of gaffes with other campaigns, I think Hillary could emerge as the "safe" candidate that people might bandwagon onto.  I don't feel this is likely, but if anybody screams after Iowa, it could happen.

Basically, what I'm saying is, this poll in no way tests for intensity.  If I had to guess, I'd guess Edwards supporters are the most intense, with Obama and Hillary both more fluid. 

Has anyone seen any internal campaign polls for TX?  Are any of the candidates even polling in TX or are they ignoring it until mid Feb?  My first instinct is they'll wait until Feb 8th (when the dust settles on the news coverage of uber Tuesday) to see what on earth people here are thinking.  However, with THAT much money, who knows if they're contemplating establishing a minimal field effort now (and it would have to start before Feb 5 to be effective) as insurance in case the nomination isn't locked.  As far as field goes, on one hand in a state this large it would be INCREDIBLY difficult.  To the contrary, with a state with such historically low Democratic primary turnout, field could be amazingly effective. 

by: David O. @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 15:29:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Intensity (0.00 / 0)

If you check the crosstabs, after the candidate choice question, the poll asks whether the respondent will definitely vote for their choice or whether they are still considering other candidates. Clinton has the highest 'definites' while Edwards and Richardson have the lowest. There is the possibility that this just means the anti-Clinton voters are ready to jump to whoever has the best chance of knocking her off. Then again, she led the pack when I asked about second choice in an earlier poll.

by: IVR Polls @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 19:34:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]