Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: SurveyUSA Texas


SurveyUSA

Texas
Obama 49, Clinton 45... McCain 56, Huckabee 32, Paul 7

 

Comments
s.b.:

Two things about this poll. Hispanic turnout at 28%, unlikely. Probably much higher. Second of all with an automated survey, if its in English, they aren't sampling spanish only or mostly spanish speakers.

I think it skews these results.

____________________

Shane:

Man, is there -any- poll people will accept where Obama leads in Texas? ARG I can understand. They're worthless. CNN I can understand somewhat. They're not very professional...

But this is SurveyUSA. Doesn't a lead under SurveyUSA matter here? Wouldn't you think they would try to poll in both Spanish and English? Finally, would a higher Hispanic turnout really matter for the delegate count?

____________________

roy:

sb,

They figured out how to do it in CA, nailing the Clinton margin there.

I suspect that the 51-46 Clinton margin in early voting reflects the very high early turnout in places like Hidalgo and El Paso counties. Is it reasonable to expect Hidalgo to end up with twice the turnout of Dallas? (That's an actual question, I haven't seen historical turnout figures).

____________________

Sacks Romana:

Before all the back and forth between Obama and Hillary supporters start, I wanted to point out that I think a very under-reported story is the continued divisivness reflected in the Republican primary polls and results.

There is no possibility that McCain is not going to be the nominee, yet a large segment of the population keeps showing up to vote against him. Much of the commentary is about how the Obama/Clinton fight is hurting the Democrats, while giving McCain time to shore up support, yet he did no such thing in Wisconsin, taking a lower percentage of the vote in his primary than Obama did.

Granted, McCain still has two oppoenents. It could be that fervrent Huckabee and Paul supporters are still showing up in strong numbers, while McCain supporters aren't feeling any urgency. And many McCain supporters might be crossing over in open-primary states to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is. Still his poor performance in the remaining primaries is largely being ignored simply because the horse race is over. It's understandable, but I think it bodes terribly for the Republicans in November.

____________________

Bree:

The people that say they will "leave the party" if Obama gets the nomination are either a bit too invested in Hillary, delusional, or are racist.

This WHOLE campaign, all we have ever heard is that the candidates are nearly identical on the issues - except for a small difference on healthcare, Hillary's Iraq vote, and earlier NAFTA support (which she flip-flopped on now - rather conveniently).

It is now apparent in various polls who has the best chance of beating down McCain in November.

Obama has started a movement no one in the Democratic party saw coming. Generally, in every election, only half the populace even votes. In November, you will see that mark go up. What this movement means is that Obama has fueled a new generation of voters not just to be involved in voting but the entire political process - that means engaging others in politics. This spells disaster for the Republicans - not just this election but for many to come. The lasting legacy of the Bush administration is that he has helped created a Democratic, progressive movement that will not subside for some time (unless they royally screw it up - and that'll take some doing as Bush set the bar pretty damn low).


The Democrats now have a dynamic candidate that pulls in people from all walks of life - even conservatives. Hillary would NEVER have been able to do that. In fact, conservatives would have come out of the woodwork to vote against her had she been the nominee.


Obama's star is still rising. It is remarkable how many Republicans are switching over - they even have a name for them now - Obamacans.

DO NOT underestimate the power of the Obama movement. A landslide in November is still possible - I put no feat beyond this man.


____________________

Mike in CA:

s.b.,

Hispanic turnout at 28% sounds just about right. The last SUSA survey had it at 32% which was way too high. It seems SUSA has scaled back their Hispanic estimates, so they must have a reason. Additionally, the boosted AA to 23%, from 18%. Seems reasonable considering the extraordinary increases in early voting turnout from Houston and Dallas.

Additionally, take the 51-46 Clinton lead in early voting with a grain of salt. Because the sample size for this is just 176 voters, the MOE is almost 8%, meaning its essentially a dead heat.

Finally, one thing all of the surveys this cycle have failed to fully capture is the youth vote. Because of that, it seems Obama's numbers have consistently bested pre-election polls by about 5-10 %. If that were to happen, it would be 55-44 Obama, which seems to be a realistic survey of the situation.

____________________

Sasha:

I agree with you s.b you nailed this one.
28% Latino turnout when it's been predicted by most political pundits they could very well make up anywhere from 33% to 50% of the democratic vote is being overly conservative in my opinion. Alongside that spanish is an issue with most of these polls and not surveying respondents in them. The average California pol had Clinton up only 5 points on Obama but come election day she beat him by 11 points due to the Latino's. If these trends stay the same; even these overly conservative estimates via SurveyUSA will likely subside. As far as CNN Opinion and ARG; like others I take them with a grain of salt. They have been very inconsistent in the past.

____________________

Sasha:

I agree with you s.b you nailed this one.
28% Latino turnout when it's been predicted by most political pundits they could very well make up anywhere from 33% to 50% of the democratic vote is being overly conservative in my opinion. Alongside that spanish is an issue with most of these polls and not surveying respondents in them. The average California pol had Clinton up only 5 points on Obama but come election day she beat him by 11 points due to the Latino's. If these trends stay the same; even these overly conservative estimates via SurveyUSA will likely subside. As far as CNN Opinion and ARG; like others I take them with a grain of salt. They have been very inconsistent in the past.

____________________

Cokie Roberts:

"The people that say they will "leave the party" if Obama gets the nomination are either a bit too invested in Hillary, delusional, or are racist."

As opposed to the people that say they will "riot" or "burn cities down" or "never vote again" if Obama doesn't get the nomination? Talk about delusional. Haven't heard many 68 year old women talking about rioting in Denver!

____________________

Otto:

Rasmussen has early voters going heavy for Obama though, and AA voters in % terms will be higher than normal. Also publicpolicypolling.com they just released a poll 30 minutes ago 48-48% with Obama ahead with White and AA and her up by a large margin with Latino.

____________________

RS:

Rasmussen has two new polls out:
Ohio Clinton 48-43
Texas Clinton 46-45 [Hispanics 26% - down from 31% earlier, Af-Am 21% - up from 19%, women 57% - up from 52%]

Various (unexplained) permutations for Texas give results ranging from Obama +2% to Clinton +5%. Early voters are 29%, apparently "won handily" by Senator Obama.

____________________

Todd:

Wow Bree.

You really are drinking the Kool-Aid too much.

____________________

Bree:

Who said that cokie??


The only time I have heard anything about rioting is if the super delegates overturn the pledged delegate count, and so would make many people feel that the election was stolen from them.

And yes, rioting would ensue in that case, and I may just be one of them!


Look, the only reason 68-year-old women vote for Hillary is because they haven't heard of Obama. Even still, many are switching over to his camp.

The only reason Hillary was even in this race is because of name recognition. Period. She is an uninspiring, divisive candidate that the Republicans would have destroyed in November.

Lucky for Democrats they now have a force of nature on their hands that is going to wipe out McCain in the fall. Done and done. Just be happy a Republican isn't going to be in the white house for another four years.

____________________

Bree:

Hey Todd -

How many primaries/caucuses has Hillary won? What's that? Can't hear you....speak louder.


By the way, the Kool-aid was tasty even when Obama was 20 points down.

____________________

Macy:

The people that say they will "leave the party" if Obama gets the nomination are either a bit too invested in Hillary, delusional, or are racist.

Or they have big time reservations about Obama. Personally, I think any candidate who believes the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by people lying about their income on mortgage applications will have a similar, and just as nonsensical, approach to the other problems our country faces. That's not 'too invested in Hillary, delusional, or racist'.

____________________

Not Cokie Roberts:

Bree, almost 10 million people have come to the polls to vote for Hillary. Do not insult us by saying the only reason those people, including myself, voted for Hillary was because we had not heard of Obama. Plenty of us just preferred Hillary, even now with his surge. What is so hard for you to comprehend about that?

____________________

illinoisindie:

lying on your mortgage applications WAS a factor in the subprime crises...Im maried to a mortgage broker/real estate broker so this is an informed opinion. Ever heard of the term "liar loans". Not to take responsibility away from the banks and shady brokers (that definitely need more oversight) for some lax enforcement standards.

____________________

Not Cokie Roberts:

Check out the difference in Hispanic and White vote breakdown versus SUSA in the newest PPP poll. These polls are all over the place!

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/26/ppp_poll_dead_even_in_texas.html

____________________

Not Cokie Roberts:

Notably, while Hillary was up 16 among whites in SUSA, she is down 7 in PPP. And while up 13 among hispanics in SUSA, she is up 41 in PPP. Polls are all over the place, but roughly have the same end result in a statistical tie. But the internals on some of these are going to be just plain wrong.


____________________

Greggie:

This Texan's opinion:

Hispanic vote inches up from 2004 levels to about 28-30%.

AA vote increases due to Katrina and due to Obama being on the ballot to about 22-24%.

White vote makes up 45-48% with the rest being "other" (mostly Asians in Houston and Native Americans out west). Anyone talking about a 50% Hispanic vote is nuts. Also, Hispanics are voting early more often than blacks, but that has traditionally been the case, and the margins seem much LOWER than they usually are. Particularly in Hidalgo County, where you may have to drive a fair distance to vote, early voting has always been very popular. The surge in AA early voting is the trend to note.


As an aside, if EITHER candidate wins a majority of pledged delegates and is overturned by Superdelegates, I'd by in for a riot. When your democracy is being stolen, that is what riots are FOR.

____________________

Not Cokie Roberts:

Clinton (-6) and Obama (-8) equally electable in Texas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=d0a48297-fe73-416d-af18-2cb68bee8273&q=46035

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=d0a48297-fe73-416d-af18-2cb68bee8273&q=45622

I think Obama's greater electability is greatly overstated. He could be moreso, but not by as much as some of you have suggested. Only have to look at OH, FL, and now TX to see that.

____________________

Cokie:

You are right on, the internals are terribly messed up on nearly all these polls. That they all come to roughly the same conclusion in the end suggests there is more fudge going on than they'll cop to.

My guess is that they are really, really trying to not repeat the mistakes made in NH, SC, .... well, everywhere - but they have no idea what's going on.

We'll see in a week or so.

____________________

Not Cokie Roberts:

"Also, Hispanics are voting early more often than blacks"

They are Tex? Look at the graph. Your contention is not supported by the data, which show that early voting is up most in non-Hispanic counties. Thanks for playing!

http://www.burntorangereport.com/upload/images/TXturnout.gif

____________________

illinoisindie:

I think that quoting the "national" Mccain/obama or Clinton/Mccain polls now as an indication of November anything is kinda silly. Democrats will drink the cool aid come November regardless of who the nominee is so these numbers WILL change. Check the Obama TX polls pre-wisconsin with an average 17 point margin favoring clinton. Lots can happen between now and then.

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

Um..."Cokie?"

Not sure if you noticed, but the real Cokie Roberts felt the need to post a comment here the other day pointing out that she is a journalist who is not supporting any candidate.

We don't have a policy about using false names when posting comments (yet), but your satirical use of "Cokie Roberts" was obviously lost on some. I've modified your comment name as posted above. Could you choose a different handle in the future that does not assume the identity of a real person?

More generally to all: We have been fairly hands-off about moderating comments until now, but with popularity comes growing pains. We are working to try do kill the delays in posting comments that lead to double-comments, which are frankly a bigger priority. Please help us keep the need for moderation low.

____________________

roy:

Cokie,

Can it realy be this hard? The percentage increase is higher in places like Houston and Dallas. The turnout is still higher in Hidalgo and El Paso, by a big margin.

You can see the turnout percentages on the state SoS site.

____________________

Evan :

Mark,

I was evident to most of us here, I believe, that this was not in fact, Cokie Roberts, as the real Cokie Roberts would not make inane, and simply delusional comments like this partisan hack.

It was evident that this person was just a mouthpiece/big time financial contributor to Team Clinton as their arguments were essentially the same nonsense. To see some these, just click on Mark's link - they are quite funny as everyhting this poster said turned out to be false or just patently ridiculous.

____________________

Gabe:

Bree,
I'm a Black American woman, I'm a life-long Democrat, I'm not dilusional, have no "investment" in Hillary and I'm NOT a racist - but come November if Obama is the Democratic nominee - I'm voting for McCain in protest against the Democratic Party for fielding a COCKY, ARROGANT candidate who's not ready for prime time,and not ready to get America back on track. The decision for Obama is being made by REPUBLICANS in open primary states who appear to be much smarter than the Dems in knowing that McCain will wipe the floor with Obama. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!! STOP DRINKING THE KOOL AID!!

____________________

David :

Hi Mark-

Yes, we kinda figured out it wasn't the "real" Cokie, some time back, when he/she started making these unbelievable assertions about Clinton winning the nomination by winning just 15/50 states, etc. etc. I was rather amused by the out of left field comments that were made by this poster. I listen to Cokie all the time on NPR and no way do these two people sound even remotely similar. The posts that you linked to were just hilarious. Everyone needs a good laugh every once in awhile.

____________________

s.b.:

Greggie as far as democracy being stolen, how about counting the votes of 2 million democrats in Florida and Texas. 2 million voters who had no say whatsoever in when their voting took place.

That's, democracy being stolen!

____________________

Jerri Smith:

GABE-

HMMMMM, EVERY poll on potential matchups in November have OBAMA winning against McCain!!! WONDER WHY?? Maybe you should LOOK before making such ignorant comments.


And by the way, Obama doesn't need democratic traitors like you !! Just check the polls and the last 11 contests - oh, wait, I forgot, they don't mean anything!

____________________

Ferd:

WOW, this same, stupid argument sb?? Give it a rest already.

Clinton "won" those on name recognition alone. Let Obama campaign there for a month and see what happens. He will wipe the floor with her - yet again. EVERYONE KNOWS IT!

By the way, Clinton agreed that those contests would not produce delegates months ago - and didn't say **** then. Now, after she "wins" them, she makes a big deal about it. Figures. She will say and DO anything to get elected. What a piece of trash.

____________________

Shane:

Gabe,

I can't really figure out what you're trying to say. Is your problem with Obama about experience? Have you succumb to the silly theory that Republicans vote for Obama just to setup a victory in the fall? Do you think that Obama is arrogant? Or will you vote for McCain because Obama's supporters are passionate?

If its about experience, where does Hillary's come from? Obama has successfully passed more personal bills in the Senate in his short tenure than she has in her career (look it up). Before he was in the Senate, he was in the Illinois Senate, and, before that, he was serving his community on the streets.

Where was Hillary? She was a wife who failed in her great endeavor as a first lady (healthcare) and denies all aspects of her husband's tenure that are unpopular now (NAFTA). Does Hillary get it both ways? Does she get to claim her husband's work as her experience while avoiding his failures?

If its about arrogance, how is Hillary any less arrogant? She makes the same promises as Obama does. She just happens to attack Obama for "lacking experience" when she doesn't have any executive experience herself.

If you'll vote for McCain because Republicans voted for Obama.. well.. you just don't make any sense. If all of his support (instead just the VAST majority of his support) came from democrats, would you still vote for him? Republican and independent support of McCain doesn't seem to impact you voting for him.

If you'll vote for McCain because Obama's supporters are passionate, why? What do you have against voters who sincerely believe in a candidate? I mean, if you are against passionate support, I guess McCain is the way to go. He is old, has tepid support from his OWN PARTY, and wants us to be in Iraq for 100 years (while 2/3rds of Americans want out). My question is: why?

____________________

Cookie Roberto:

Wow, you boys are smart! How did you ever figure out I wasn't really Cokie Roberts? That takes some real keen insight. You idiots. Now quick, explain the differences in white and hispanic vote in PPP and SUSA. Or I will have to call Sam Donaldson and tell on you.

____________________

Cookie Monster Roberts:

"It was evident that this person was just a mouthpiece/big time financial contributor to Team Clinton"

HAHA. Yes, I am filthy rich. That's not the point here. I want to know the opinion about the different internals on that PPP and SUSA poll. Anyone want to guess?

____________________

Shane:

Cookie,

I don't know what to tell you. Polls like these are usually done with pretty small sampling groups, so sub-groups (since they are even smaller!) should be taken with an extra grain of salt.

____________________

Vern:

Those who post that Clinton has a better chance than Obama against McCain do not know how to read polls. All the polls on this site show Obama beating McCain head to head while Clinton loses or ties. And this is before the conservatives would likely come out of the woodwork to take her down in November.

So who ever said that only Obama inspires is wrong! Clinton inspires......she just inspires HATE in conservatives to come out en masse in November. I still don't understand why they hate her so much.


What is also surprising is the strong showing Obama has among red Republicans. I think we'll be seeing a few red states turn blue this November.


As far as that ridiculous argument that Florida will go to Republicans because their vote "didn't count". Well, that is just rubbish. Many people here are moving to Obama already. And if the numbers hold up, it won't matter if Clinton gets BOTH Michigan AND Florida.


If Obama just campaigns here, it will be over since Latinos here love him the more they hear from him. In addition there is a large AA population here as well.


I feel sorry for Hillary but she is just yesterday's news that no one wants to re-live. We want a dynamic new voice to usher in a new era in American politics.

So all you Hillary backers - either fall in line or...don't. It really doesn't matter if you protest vote for Nader or McCain. The gap between Obama and the rest of the field will only continue to grow regardless of your choice. Join the movement or get out of the way. It makes no difference to us. But don't you want to be able to tell your grandchildren that you were a part of the most amazing, transformational force to hit the American political landscape in your generation? It would like missing out on the JFK era.

I feel sorry for those people. Oh well.


Much love from Orlando!

____________________

Shane:

"kool aid" response to Vern from Clinton fanatic in 5, 4, 3, 2....

____________________

Ferd:

LMAO.

____________________

Rino:

The people that say they will "leave the party" if Obama gets the nomination are either a bit too invested in Hillary, delusional, or are racist.

This WHOLE campaign, all we have ever heard is that the candidates are nearly identical on the issues - except for a small difference on healthcare, Hillary's Iraq vote, and earlier NAFTA support (which she flip-flopped on now - rather conveniently).

It is now apparent in various polls who has the best chance of beating down McCain in November.

Obama has started a movement no one in the Democratic party saw coming. Generally, in every election, only half the populace even votes. In November, you will see that mark go up. What this movement means is that Obama has fueled a new generation of voters not just to be involved in voting but the entire political process - that means engaging others in politics. This spells disaster for the Republicans - not just this election but for many to come. The lasting legacy of the Bush administration is that he has helped created a Democratic, progressive movement that will not subside for some time (unless they royally screw it up - and that'll take some doing as Bush set the bar pretty damn low).


The Democrats now have a dynamic candidate that pulls in people from all walks of life - even conservatives. Hillary would NEVER have been able to do that. In fact, conservatives would have come out of the woodwork to vote against her had she been the nominee.


Obama's star is still rising. It is remarkable how many Republicans are switching over - they even have a name for them now - Obamacans.

DO NOT underestimate the power of the Obama movement. A landslide in November is still possible - I put no feat beyond this man.

____________________

Jim Jones:

DO NOT underestimate the power of the Obama movement. A landslide in November is still possible - I put no feat beyond this man.

____________________

Rod:

It seems to me that Obama supporters are just more willing to get out and vote for him.


Look at all the recent polls - it shows that on election day, Obama far exceeded the expected result. This doesn't bode well for Clinton at all.


____________________

"Cactus Jack" Smith:

Jerri Smith, aka Bob Evans,

How is the trailer park today? Is the wind blowing trash around? Sorry, didn't mean to ask about your family.

____________________

Dewey:

This is interesting.......

Looks like the dirty Republican smear campaign has already started - so Rovian - and yet so expected:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/26/mccain-distances-himself-from-supporters-comments/


I wonder what is next? Super-imposed pictures of Obama with Saddam or bin Laden? Or perhaps the "Hey everyone, Obama rhymes with Osama!" ploy?


Clinton is already throwing everything she has at him, and it is not working. It is like he is made of Teflon.....the BS just doesn't stick to him. It is like he is above all the nonsense. Interesting indeed.


____________________

crumbtrail:

I find it very irritating to come here looking for insightful commentary on the polling numbers and then spend half my time filtering out inane political "discussions." Aren't there about 9 million places on the web for people to hurl unfounded political insults at each other? Get a room already.

____________________

crumbtrail:

brilliant. tell me more.

____________________

Jerr:

crumbtrail,

gotta get tardy when confronted by a tard. or did you not see jack's post above?

____________________

Anonymous:

Yeah, I see it, and I see nothing worth responding to. I think it's kind of disgusting the way people act when they're anonymous.

When over half the page is covered with comments that are completely off-topic, from people who are entrenched on one ill-conceived side or the other, I have to ask, "Why am I here again?"

____________________

:

Most people here would agree the SUSA has the best polling. Could the fact that they do most of their polling on Sunday and Monday when people are actually home be part of the reason?

____________________

Alex:

As a long time reader of this site (getting close to two years now), the onslaught of inane cheerleading is ridiculous. Can you please start moderating the comments?

____________________

Shane:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/internetdickwad.jpg

Summary:
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Dickwad

____________________

14th Gen Texan:

I think 50% turnout among the Hispanics is a bit absurd, except maybe this time. What has not been discussed because of everyone's intense interest in the national election is that we are also voting for a Senator this year. We also have many Democrats running for US House in districts that have never had a realistic candidate before.

Not only that, we have multiple good choices in many of the races! Take the US SEN race for example. We have State Rep. Noriega vs McMurray, that is why I made sure I voted early.

Plus many were inspired by the long walk from Prairie View to Hempstead.

As per the Hispanic vote, I have often wondered where they place my family and when we can finally get away from racial association of the vote. I am tired of being labeled White Hispanic, it is absurd.

I am not white, I am not hispanic, I am an US citizen.

Can anyone explain why the labeling of people is so important to these polls, or is it just used to divide up the people?

I heard somewhere at the end of the day all of our votes count the same, so maybe we should be polled that way.

Thanks.

And one more thing, when did Spain no longer be considered part of Europe, where all the rest of the "white" people came from? Please tell, so I can tell my people why we are counted separate, and not equal.

____________________

Christ, J.:

"I have to ask, "Why am I here again?""

Your lord, God almighty.

He brought you here.

He will take you away someday.

Ashes to ashes.

Amen.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR