Pollster.com

In the only Rasmussen poll for Texas in June of 2004, Bush led Kerry by 18%. Compare this to McCain's 9% and we have to conclude that Obama is definitely a stronger candidate at this point that Kerry was at a similar point in '04.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2004/texas_bush_55_kerry_37

Yes because Bush clearly had no extra advantage in the state of which he had been governor.

Lets take the results of presidential candidates in their home states, minus the previous year's results in that state and then subtract the average national swing in elections, to demonstrate this point.
Kerry in MA: 4.5
Gore in TN: 2
Bush in Texas (2000): 12.5
Dole in KS: 21
Clinton in AR: 18.5

So presidential candidates often do well in their home states - this explains much of the reduction in McCain's lead in Texas, versus what Bush was able to do.

both of you make good and both valid points. @kings, Obama is running stronger in Texas than Kerry was, but @eternal, it's probably because TX was Bush's home state. Nevertheless, it's not McCain's and therefore Obama is running stronger than Bush :)

Indeed. Both points are valid. However, the poll still does seem to be showing Obama running a bit weaker than he has in recent polls in Texas (McCain +5 in the Texas Lyceum one) - but same as in the last Rasmussen poll of Texas (McCain +9 on june10). Isnt it?

Texas is one of just a handful of states where the white non-hispanic population is less than 50%.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

The Hispanic/Latino population is 35.7%, the AA population is 11.9%, and the Asian population is 3.4%. Normally this would be grounds for a sizemic shift away from Republicans, and it does appear to be starting on the state level.

The main reason why Texas is so strongly republican is because whites make up 2/3 of the actual voters, massively over representing their race. Also, whites vote republican in that state by a ratio of 3:1, which is more tilted than the other races combined for the Dems.

Possibly the biggest reason for underrepresentation in the vote is the fact that 31.2% do not speak English in the home.

If voter representation represented the actual population breakdown, Texas would be a battleground state. I don't expect that to happen soon, but if the Dems make inroads with the white vote, it might start moving that direction in future elections.

Good point about Texas' lead for Bush was helped by the fact that it was his home state;

However, McCain's current 10% lead in Arizona (in the only poll conducted in June so far) seems weak considering this is his home state.

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/245366

And not let's overestimate home-field advantage either.

The guy before Al Gore (Clinton) actually did better in Tennesee than Gore himself.

And Gore won Massachussets by a larger margin (27% to 25%) than Kerry. Go figure.

No surprise here.

No surprise here.

No surprise here.

This latest Texas-poll is not listed on your "Texas board" and I guess it's not included in your poll average for Texas.
BTW: The "Mississippi board" is not loading.

"And Gore won Massachussets by a larger margin (27% to 25%) than Kerry"

within the exit poll margin of error.