Skip to main content

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (6/25-27, Texas voters, 1/14-16 in parens):

John Sharp (D): 37 (31)
David Dewhurst (R): 43 (49)
Undecided: 19 (19)

John Sharp (D): 38 (30)
Tom Leppert (R): 39 (42)
Undecided: 23 (28)

John Sharp (D): 36
Ted Cruz (R): 40
Undecided: 25

Ricardo Sanchez (D): 37
David Dewhurst (R): 45
Undecided: 18

Ricardo Sanchez (D): 35
Tom Leppert (R): 38
Undecided: 27

Ricardo Sanchez (D): 32
Ted Cruz (R): 41
Undecided: 27

Tommy Lee Jones (D): 39
David Dewhurst (R): 43
Undecided: 18

Tommy Lee Jones (D): 37
Tom Leppert (R): 38
Undecided: 26

Tommy Lee Jones (D): 38
Ted Cruz (R): 37
Undecided: 25
(MoE: ±3.5%)

This is PPP's first poll in Texas since January, and the Republican field has narrowed quite a bit. With redistricting complete, two dudes named Williams (Roger and Michael) have decided to drop down to run for the same House seat. Former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz has inherited the teabagger mantle, and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst looks finally set to get in, which means he'll suck up a lot of the remaining oxygen in the GOP primary. Between the two of them and ex-Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, I wouldn't expect this field to get much bigger (though never underestimate a politician's vanity and naivety).

On the Democratic side, the only announced candidate is retired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. Actor Tommy Lee Jones is, as Tom Jensen says, a pipe dream, though from what I understand, former Comptroller John Sharp is still considering the race. And his numbers are quite interesting, on account of the trendlines. Nothing really changed between now and January that I can see - Sharp's favorables barely budged, and the D-R-I sample composition isn't meaningfully different. Yet the gaps between Sharp and both Dewhurst and Leppert closed considerably.

What seems to have happened is that Democrats are cottoning to their candidates more, while Republicans seem to be expressing some more doubts. Dewhurst pulled members of his own party at an 87-5 clip in January, while Sharp was at just 70-6. This time, it's almost equal, with Dewhurst at 79-6 and Sharp at 75-8. Not monster changes, but enough to make the race closer.

The question, of course, is whether a contest which looks close now, when everyone is in the high 30s and low 40s, can stay close when name rec improves. I'm not particularly optimistic right now, given how monstrously expensive Texas is, and how all our big statewide hopes have guttered out since... well... forever, basically. But this poll is nonetheless pretty interesting, and at the very least, TX-Sen may well be worth watching this cycle.

This diary is brought to you by Daily Kos Elections, an official Daily Kos sub-site. Please read our Mission Statement. Our focus is on electoral politics rather than policy. Welcome aboard!

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:30 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Cue bjssp (11+ / 0-)

    Telling us we can win Texas and he will be soon be posting his diary telling us exactly to do so (which I realize comes down to a massive Democratic effort to register new voters).

    I don't think we have much of a chance here, whether the nominee is Cruz or Dewhurst, and I don't think the closing of these numbers shows anything more than "it's too early to poll this race."

    •  If Obama constests the state I think Dems can win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this seat. I mean, all these candidates at this point are pretty much unknown and are withing single digits.  I think all the dems could make this a close race no matter the nominee.

      Swingnut since 2009, 20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

      by Daman09 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 02:07:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't (9+ / 0-)

        I think all the candidates are unknown at this point and once they get well-known, Texas Republican leanings will triumph. These polls are just too early to mean much.

        But to be honest, I also don't see Obama as seriously competitive in Texas at this point. If I'm wrong about that (and I know many people on this site think I am), I might be wrong about the Senate race being competitive too.

        •  Obama has deep pockets... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, MichaelNY, Odysseus, Matt Z

          and as a result, Obama will make a serious attempt in Texas which IMHO this will help Democrats down the ballot.  Texas in 2012 will be different than the 2008 version of Texas (or any other year since LBJ was in office).  The changing demographics will help the Democrats.  A moderate Democrat could make it a race.  

        •  GOP advantage (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          in this poll is plus 9.  The Dems get about their % of the statewide total - the GOP doesn't.

          To answer the question posed in the diary: No.

          Nothing to see here....

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:01:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Neither do I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The Texas Democratic Party is completely dysfunctional, and so bound by its good 'ol boy network that I have no hope of it ever being reformed in any meaningful way.

          Combine that with the sheer number of backwards-assed-country-fucks in this state, and I have no hope for the Democrats to re-emerge as a majority party in my lifetime.

          I say this as a life-long Texan and Democrat.

          Molly, Ann, we miss you so much.

        •  possible but very far from probable... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Texas is trending blue because of demographics - but painfully slowly. 2012 is probably too early.

          On the other hand predicting when a swing is possible is very hard. In states trending away from a lock for one party it often takes the right personality to release the pent up potential, it seems, comibined with the timing of a good overall climate. Warner did it in Virginia, and it has been a swing state since, Obama did it in North Carolina. The pattern is equally evident in the Dem implosions in various southern states over the past decades.

          Being European I'm no expert on Texas, but there are a few features that makes me think it's likely the swing will come later rather than sooner:

          Most important is that the demographic swing is based on hispanics, who have a large part of underage or non-citizens, and a very low turn out amongst the ones who are eligible to vote.

          Turning out the vote in populations, that rarely vote is hard. Turning out the vote in populations where many have NEVER voted and nor has anybody in their family is much, much harder. Obamas millions will help here, if he decides to spend, but even then this looks like a multi cycle effort to get hispanics to vote their numbers.

          The Obama apparatus might be capable at this task for this cycle, but the Texan Democratic party doesn't look at all like it - and they are the ones that could put in a longer term effort, as individual candiates have little interest in spending their money on long term efforts. But the process of tapping the changing demographics has not gotten very far. All the footwork has to be done in a single cycle, and that might not be possible.

          Additionally the local big donor funding base - read oil - is very republican. Democrats have their funding bases in California and the North East.

          As for the current cycle, a winning scenario, however unlikely, could look like this:

          Enough money, from Obama or otherwise.

          A major gotv effort coincides with some issue dominating the election that really clicks with hispanics - most likely Texan or national republicans making immigration a signature issue, driving the demographic very firmly into the dem camp and creating a voter registration movement within the community.

          There must be a substantial group of dissaffected (white) moderate republicans, conservadems and independents who have just about had it with the very hard right dominance of the Texan Republican party. They need to be catered to.

          A candidate has to be found, that is capable of building a coalition out of these two groups, while still firing up the liberal base in the large cities, who are needed for activists. No small task as catering to one of these segments easily alienates one or two of the other...

    •  Have I become that predictable? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tarheelman1993, Odysseus

      I guess I have. I'd like to finish my diary, but I've been very, very unproductive recently.

      Oh well, if I ever do get around to finishing that diary, I think you'll see that what it illustrates is what's possible, not what is guaranteed, which is what I've been saying all along. I've never denied that (a) it's an uphill battle regardless, (b) we'd need a favorable climate, (c) we'd probably need support in the form of a presidential race, (d) we'd need a good candidate or at least someone not instantly offensive to most voters, and (e) that we'd need to do a lot of work in registering voters. (And possibly other things I am forgetting.) Can you say that we are absolutely not going to fail in any one of those requirements?

      As far as registering new voters go, that would certainly be a big part of it, but it's far from the only part. There are so many voters that don't show up for whatever reason that we can also tap, in addition to changing some minds.

  •  What's really interesting (7+ / 0-)

    is that each Democrat does better, sometimes a lot better, than the Republicans with Independents. The fact that these guys are still pretty unknown might have something to do with it, but at the same time, it's even true against Dewhurst, who would presumably have more visibility than any of these guys. I can't think of any good reason why Tommy Lee Jones would get 47 percent of Independents versus 24 for Dewhurst in a match up.

    Maybe all of these results are just outliers, but if not, perhaps there's some sort of skepticism about these Republicans amongst the voters.

    •  Here's why I wish you'd post your diary (4+ / 0-)

      I feel like we are stuck in a rut with Texas where I pretty much disdain any poll that shows Democrats with much of a chance and you say nope, they have very good chance.

      I suspect I should stop posting on Texas before David comes on and says "we know what you think." But I think your diary might make some very interesting points. I look forward to reading it.

      •  It's not just you. (7+ / 0-)

        It's not my site, so my opinion is kind of small, but I've never found anything you've said to be any more repetitive than anything I've said on this subject. I repeat myself quite a bit, which is understandable, since we don't have much besides speculation and manufactured scenarios to go on. You aren't antagonizing anyone, either.

          •  Do you think ? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TofG, MichaelNY

            The surprising strength among independents might have to do with possible backlash during the session from the budget ? We're seeing similar numbers here in FL where our standing among Indies shot up after session

          •  i think everyone on this site (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            texasmom, MichaelNY

            falls into one of two camps on texas: the markhanna camp or the bjssp camp.

            i'm in the markhanna camp, but i think both of you have very strong points and shouldn't just stop mentioning them.

            18, D, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college next year). Economic liberal, social libertarian, fiscal conservative. Put your age and CD here :) -.5.38, -3.23

            by jncca on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 03:47:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  . (10+ / 0-)

              There are those of use who are in the middle... I think that Texas is winnable, but that the work and money it would take to win Texas would mean that we'd be taking money and work from elsewhere that are easier gets (Florida and Ohio are good examples where the money it takes to win them combined is still probably less than it would take to win Texas) that we would then lose. Which is better? Texas's 38 EVs or Florida and Ohio's combined 47?

              21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

              by wwmiv on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 04:48:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Allen, MichaelNY

                Granted, Obama's money machine probably means that this point doesn't apply to him.

                21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

                by wwmiv on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 04:50:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not necessarily (6+ / 0-)

                  Look, Obama is going to raise a huge amount of cash in 2012, but there's a big difference between "huge" and "unlimited". He'll have enough that he could actually consider contesting Texas, but not enough that he could do so without at least somewhat hurting his chances elsewhere.

                  Male, VA-08, Born CA-36, SwingStateProject expat

                  by drobertson on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 05:13:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I disagree. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    James Allen, MichaelNY, Odysseus

                    He could drop $200 million on the state, but why would he? After a certain point, diminishing returns kick in. If he does raise $1 billion or something close to it, he's getting close to the point of limitless potential. I can't imagine him doubling his spending in Pennsylvania or Ohio, for instance. And because he spent so heavily last time, he might not have to spend as much money, relatively speaking, particularly on ground game, this time.

                    If he raised $750 million last time and spent basically all of it, let's use this as a starting point. If you assume that, because of the the fact that he doesn't have a primary opponent and has his infrastructure basically ready to go from last time, he can essentially operate at a slightly discounted rate, you'll find a lot of savings. Let's say everything is ten percent cheaper. Well, if he merely raised as much as last time, that's $75 million. That's basically the funding for Texas right there. Add in another $50 or $60 million and we have the funding for Georgia, Arizona, South Carolina, Montana, the Dakotas, and any other small state, and maybe even a wild card like Tennessee.

                    If his fund raising continues to be strong, the sky really is the limit.

                    •  $1 billion is a lot, but by no means limitless (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY, drobertson

                      nearly $4 billion was spent on last year's midterms. And there's no guarantee he'll actually raise that much.

                      •  Well, I can't speculate how much the (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        presidential race will see in spending from all ends. That figure is misleading, in a large sense.  What's spent on a Senate election in Mississippi or Pennsylvania doesn't necessarily have an effect on the senate or presidential election in Texas.

                        I think it's safe to say that if a single candidate has $1 billion, while his opponent is way behind that, means a lot. I doubt that any one group can match the sort of spending that Obama would put down in the state without completely ignoring all other states. Indeed, that's the big gamble: either they need to spend money sooner rather than later to try to ward off the Democrats' efforts, or they risk losing a lot of ground.

                •  Citizens United (0+ / 0-)

                  Remember, he'll be competing against huge corporate spending against him (while having some in his favor).

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:54:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Planning (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY, Odysseus

                I think this is were I stand too.  To win Texas would require a massive effort, and Obama's resources would almost certainly be better spent somewhere else.  After all, there is no scenario in which Texas is a make it or break it state.  However, if things are looking very good for Obama, then putting some money into some place like San Antonio or the border that could help knock out Canseco is probably a pretty good idea.  After all, there are few scenarios in which Democrats control the House and Canseco is one of its members.

              •  I tend to agree with that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                And for all the bullishness on President Obama's fundraising...he still has finite money even if he does meet that enormously high goal (which isn't a downright certainty, either). And so does the DSCC.

                Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

                by SaoMagnifico on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 09:28:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just how much more money can he spend (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  in the swing states? The total amount of money he spent on advertising (I can't find it for ground game efforts) in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida* was about $240 million. A 25 percent increase would cost an additional $60 million. Does that sound so hard? But also, does each state need such an increase? He spent about $40 million in advertising in Florida and Pennsylvania each, specifically. Just how much more money does he need to drop into Pennsylvania before his return on his investment gets less and less?

                  I think we are underestimating just how much less money he might need to spend given what he spent last time. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but he put in a lot of work, even in states where Democrats hadn't competed in a long time. Thus, he merely needs to upgrade his infrastructure, rather than essentially building it from scratch. This doesn't mean that he can finance a campaign in Texas from the fiscal scraps of other states, but it does help. I also think that if he were to seriously contest the state, he'd get more money from Democrats in the state, and maybe even other states.

                  •  I think President Obama... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Can afford to contest Texas, if he feels confident that he can win it. I do not think he will spend there just to help Lt. Gen. Sanchez, and I don't know if Obama will feel confident that he can win Texas if the nominee is someone the White House fears, like Huntsman (not happening), Pawlenty (doubtful at best), or Romney (more likely).

                    Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

                    by SaoMagnifico on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 02:34:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Not to dash any hopes... (11+ / 0-)

    Let's travel back to 2010 and a glance at the SSP archives...

    Feb. 2010, PPP
    Bill White 42%
    Rick Perry 48%

    Feb. 2010, Rasmussen
    Bill White 41%
    Rick Perry 47%

    Feb. 2010, coalition of newspapers
    Bill White 37%
    Rick Perry 43%

    Mar. 2010, Rasmussen
    Bill White 43%
    Rick Perry 49%

    May 2010, YouGov
    Bill White 35%
    Rick Perry 44%

    June 2010, PPP
    Bill White 43%
    Rick Perry 43%

    Aug. 2010, Rasmussen
    Bill White 41%
    Rick Perry 49%

    Sept. 2010, PPP
    Bill White 42%
    Rick Perry 48%

    Sept. 2010, Blum & Weprin
    Bill White 39%
    Rick Perry 46%

    Sept. 2010, Rasmussen
    Bill White 42%
    Rick Perry 48%

    Sept. 2010, UT/Texas Tribune
    Bill White 33%
    Rick Perry 39%

    Sept. 2010, Hill Research
    Bill White 41%
    Rick Perry 42%

    Sept. 2010, Wilson Research Strategies
    Bill White 38%
    Rick Perry 50%

    Oct. 2010, Public Strategies
    Bill White 36%
    Rick Perry 50%

    Oct. 2010, UT
    Bill White 40%
    Rick Perry 50%

    Oct. 2010, Rasmussen
    Bill White 42%
    Rick Perry 53%

    Oct. 2010, Rasmussen
    Bill White 42%
    Rick Perry 51%

    Largest point spread: +14 Perry
    Smallest point spread: 0
    Avg. point spread: +7 Perry

    Final result: Bill White 42%, Rick Perry 55%

    Some Senate numbers from 2009:

  •  To the TX-Sen doubters out there (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trowaman, Odysseus, Matt Z

    and whether Obama can compete at all in the state, I want you to look at These numbers

    Indiana, 2004: Kerry: 39.26%
    Texas, 2004: Kerry: 38.22%

    Indiana, 2008: Obama 49.95%
    Texas, 2008: Obama 43.63%

    Now tell me which state the Obama campaign actually contested in 2008.  If Obama wants to compete in Texas come 2012, he could very well win it. It's also likely that a local candidate would run ahead of Obama in a state like Texas by picking up a few white voters.

    I'm not saying Texas is a tier one pickup, but it could be a tier 3 pick up, just like Indiana and North Carolina were back in 2008, same thing with Georgia and South Carolina this time around. As we know with North Carolina by the way, Obama, by contesting the state, undoubtedly helped Perdue and Hagen last time around, I wouldn't be surprised if he bolsters statewide dems in Texas next year.

    Swingnut since 2009, 20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

    by Daman09 on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 05:39:02 PM PDT

  •  damn son (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    i thought WI was bad. you guys are locked UP. you bitches be crazy! it's always funny to think of someone who's not a millionaire voting Republican, because their policy choices do not help you.

    oh well, yeah, there's lots of non-white people down there, to be cynical about it. regardless of that there'd need to be some massive Democratic turning out of new voters to win there. and i'm sure there are plenty of liberal Texas DKOs users on here, so, I will stop messing with texas.

    "Hook 'em horns!" does that ring familiar to any Texas users? there was a woman i used to work with from Texas (really cool older lady) and she said that was a common phrase.

    It's okay though, our stupid slogan in Wisconsin is "..." because we're passed out drunk

  •  I think it depends on the R Prez. nominee (0+ / 0-)

    If it is a teabagger type then turnout will be large and seat will remain red, if the nominee is Romney then we might have a shot.

  •  Question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Brooke In Seattle, Matt Z

    I know Tommy Lee Jones was Al Gore's college roommate and all but why is he being polled in the Texas senate race?  Are you also polling drummer Tommy Lee for the California senate race?

    "Children lack morality, but they also lack fake morality." Mignon McLaughlin

    by djbender on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 06:46:09 PM PDT

  •  Tommie Lee Jones could use that little device (9+ / 0-)

    from Men in Black to make everyone forget that they are right wing nuts. That should do the trick.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 06:49:37 PM PDT

  •  "Is there hope for Democrats in Texas?" Election (6+ / 0-)

    victory is a result of hard work and determination.  Please forgive me, hope is a passive wish for results without effort.

  •  If I had to bet on any of the Dems it'd be Sanchez (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY

    With a crazy-strong voter registration drive among Hispanics.

    Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

    by Bush Bites on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 06:51:46 PM PDT

  •  when the GOP started attacking childrens education (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    they went through a door they cannot back out of.  I actually think these numbers are conservative based on the backlash of the horrible mismanagement of Texas finances at the hands of Perry and his idiot band and their attack on children's education.

  •  No. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andgarden, fladem, MichaelNY, Odysseus, Nickers

    This has been another episode of Short Answers to Silly Questions. (See Eschaton.)

    I moved to Texas in 1973. Lived there until 2004. Moved back in 2007.

    Nothing has changed for the better.

    It was getting better under Governor Ann Richards, but once she lost to that worthless fake cowboy, it all started going to hell again.

    Texas Democrats can't seem to work together on anything. Everybody wants to be the boss and not the worker, in my campaigning experience in various cities across the state.

    And people don't want to register to vote because it makes them eligible for jury duty. Jury duty makes them miss work (and therefore, lose pay) or lose their jobs outright. Yes, it's not legal to fire someone for that, but Texas is a right-to- (beg for) work state, and they really don't give a damn what you think.

    Tommy Lee Jones? Really? That WOULD be a dream. And therefore, not happening.

    I hate David Dewhurst almost as much as I hate Rick Perry, but it looks like he will either be the next senator from Texas or the next governor.


    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:13:03 PM PDT

  •  No. At least, not soon. Next question? ;-) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inoljt, MichaelNY

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:30:03 PM PDT

  •  It isn't just about a Senate race. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, MichaelNY, Odysseus, Matt Z

    It's about recooping most of the 2010 losses.

    Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo! So little time, so much to know!

    by KingofSpades on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 07:45:07 PM PDT

  •  It's just the same ol', same ol'. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwmiv, MichaelNY

    A lot of people in Texas don't make up their minds until later, or maybe they just don't pay attention until later.  So, you always get results in the forties for the Republican when you start polling.  Eventually, that turns into about 60% for the Republican.

    Now, maybe if we could get a candidate with something to say besides vague generalities about "good government" or "solving problems," that so far undecided group might vote differently than they have in the past.  Who knows? It would certainly be worth a try.

  •  A story (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, MichaelNY, Odysseus, yakimagrama

    The Texas two step confused Hillary's people but Obama got it. On primary day, 15 minutes after the polls close, the caucuses are called to order in the polling place. Those party members present, whose registration cards are stamped "voted", get to be half of the primary electorate. I always attend. The smallest caucus I ever attended was in 1988. I was the only participant but the precinct captain had put a note in the envelope, addressed to me, asking me to name him and his wife to the State Delegate list.

    Because so few understand the system, it was easy for the Christian Right to capture the Republican party. In 2008 I went to the caucus in my mixed race precinct, expecting something like 30 or 40 AA voters. We had 1500. I got to be a delegate because of my history but the delegation included a majority of people I had registered for the first time down at the recreation center, because, for the second time since 1988, a black man had a chance for the nomination. Obama didn't win Texas, but the Democratic party won Dallas County, Harris (Houston) County and Travis (Austin) County. This last week the Republican legislature cut the public schools to the bone and everyone knows it. If Obama puts on the pressure, we might do it. In any event, we're closing in. Mine enemy grows older.

    "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

    by johnmorris on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 08:46:45 PM PDT

  •  Perry in Texas? (0+ / 0-)

    The Houston Chronicle has been running a Perry Watch, which does not always praise him:

  •  Not going to happen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A Democrat will not win a statewide race in Texas as long as the local parties continue to have circle jerks and close anyone not "with them" out of the process.  We have the same dozen people running the show and it doesn't seem like anything can get them out.  

    Local parties cant even find candidates to run.  But then again they send out emails telling you of meetings the day of the meeting or day after.  

    I have pretty much given up on local politics.  I fought that battle when W was running.

  •  Texass n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Just as prostitution is the world's oldest profession, religion is the world's oldest scam.

    by Agent420 on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 09:33:00 AM PDT

  •  Hispanics must be registered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There needs to be a gargantuan drive in Texas to register all Hispanics who are eligible to vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site