Articles and Analysis


TX: 46% Perry, 39% White (Blum 9/15-22)

Topics: poll , Texas

Blum & Weprin for Texas Newspapers
9/15-22/10; 692 likely voters, 3.9% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Dallas Morning News release)


2010 Governor
46% Perry (R), 39% White (D), 4% Glass (L), 1% Shafto (G) (chart)



Perry's got this one in the bag. There was an article in the Houston Chronicle today about the geographic vote breakdown.......They're neck and neck in the city of Houston & San Antonio, White's winning Austin and Perry's killing him in DFW. Perry's winning by huge margins in the suburban and rural areas. Of course White will win El Paso and the Valley but that won't be enough. The only reason it's so close now is because people in this state are sick of three term Perry.....including me....but We'll take him over White any day of the week.




"The only reason it's so close now is because people in this state are sick of three term Perry"

Or it could also be that White is competitive because of slow demographic shifts that will eventually help Democrats. The last I checked Perry wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the arizona law. I wonder why.



An incumbent under 50 isn't in the bag.

Although if White isn't leading by at least 7 points in Houston, he can't win. You probably saw the same article I did.

One problem with this poll: Perry leading White among women 50-40, but among men only 42-39. I find that hard to believe. Perry should be leading more strongly among men. If he wins women by 10 points he will win with over 60%. In 2008 the female vote in Texas was 52-47 McCain, and the male vote was 59-39.

Perry leading among whites 55-31. A little less than I'd expect. They went 73-26 McCain in 2008. White leads among blacks 89-2, and hispanics 54-24. Essentially the breakdowns are the same as 2008, except for the male/female result. I find it hard to believe Perry and White are neck and neck in San Antonio if White's leading among hispanics by 30 points.

Hispanics seem to make up a large portion of the undecided. Even if they break for Perry 2-1, White would still get above 60% in that demo, indicating they are not moving significantly toward republicans. In 2008 Obama got 63% of TX hispanics. So Melvin will be happy based on the demographic breakdown of this poll.



"The last I checked Perry wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the arizona law. I wonder why."

The Arizona law is "unnecessary" in TX according to Perry. His overall silence on the illegal immigration issue is deafening. He is big on border security. Dealing with illegal immigrants not so much.



You know.............I hear so many dems talking about how the demographic changes in Texas will mean democrat control in 10, 15 or 20 years. There was another article in the Houston Chronicle (last year as I recall) discussing why this may not happen. For one, Hispanics in Texas are much more conservative than they are in most other states. Secondly , they're dynamic. I live in Katy.....upper middle class suburban Houston. I have a numbe of Hispanic neighbors and they are very conservative and often Republican voters. They are small business owners and upwardly mobile. As usual most dems think that a general underclass stays that way but it just isn't the case. This helps explain why the voting patterns in this state haven't shifted much at all over the last six years.



aaron - As many people on this site have pointed out to you, its lame to compare 2008 with potential 2010 turnout. You keep assming 2008 was a standard style election....it was an anomoly. It was an exception, not a rule. 2004 was a more typical type election and Bush did very well among hispanics...getting over 40 percent.

This race will not be that close on election day. White will be lucky if he can get above the standard Dem performance in TX of the low 40's.

2008 turn out was absolutely a one time thing. Look at all the things that fell in place.

1. Traditionally a party does not occupy the WH more than 8 straight years.

2. Bush became highly unpopular.

3. a very nasy recession occured and a stock market crash less than two months before the election.

4. The excitement factor of electing the first balck president.

5. Large sympathy vote for Barry who lost his grandmother right before the election.

6. Depressed conservative enthusiasm for Mccain who is seen as wishy washy.

How often do those types of things fall into place liek that? Once every 50+ years you see everything fall into place like that?

Not only is Whtie unable to even poll at 40 here...but in most polls he does not do better than a normal D perfromance in TX. Perry ia also having to fight off the anti incumbant mood out there....He will iwn this race easily.

Anyone who expects 2008 type turnout this year or in the near future is just loony toons.

To compare data with such an unusual cycle like 2008 is simply improper. I mean for all the hype about Barry being different...he isn't...just look at his approval...down in the low-mid 40's. Most polls show most people don't want him re-elected...he even loses to a broing R like Huckabee in a lot of polls. He's not superman....he's just antoher president. His EV performance in 2012 will almsot certianly decline as states like OH and very quickly turne dthe other direction.

So you Dems need to stop thinking this is still 2008...its 2010....



Since June this year Whites highest poll # is 43 and that was from PPP, a Dem freindly pollster. Perry's highest is 50. White is simply stuck down in normal D territory for a Dem in TX, low 40's. Barry pushed it it to 44, but thats pretty much as good as it gets in TX for the Dems....



aaron - another thing...just using pres numbers going back to 1988.

Dems got the following results

88 Dukakis - 43 percent
92 Clinton - 37 percent
96 Clinton - 44 percent
00 Gore - 38 percent
04 Kerry - 38 percent
08 Barry - 44 percent

And if you look at the guvna

90 Richards - 49 percent
94 Richards - 46 percent
95 Mauro - 31 percent
02 Sanchez - 40 percent
06 bell - 30 percent (indy in race thsi year)
10 White - Average polling 40 percent

So where is this supposed huge shift in TX? barry didn't do anything Duakakis and Clinton did in 88 or 96. And as far as guvna, if anythign the state has trended away from Dems. Whit eis performing totally as expected.

You lefties keep doing all this talk about this and that changing....yet looking abck 20 years or so for btoh Pres and guvna, nothing has changed. Not even for Barry in his super year of 2008. So again, you guys keep blabbing about all this stuff, but the data does not back up anything your claiming!!!!!



"There was another article in the Houston Chronicle (last year as I recall) discussing why this may not happen."

Hispanics have never voted majority republican since we've started tracking them. George W. Bush was by far the best performer among them in the low 40s. The average hispanic R percentage since 1972 is something like 33%. So why should we assume they will change? They've been culturally conservative that whole time, have they not?

The young hispanics in 2008 were about 10 points more democratic than hispanics overall - something like 75/25. That's why most people find it unlikely republicans will ever get a majority among them in the next 20-30 years. The gap will likely close, but probably not 30-40 points anytime soon. If this poll is to be believed then it has closed marginally if at all.

I have hispanic friends that are republican too. I also have democratic friends that are white; the anecdotes don't mean anything.

"why the voting patterns in this state haven't shifted much at all over the last six years."

Yes they have. They've actually shifted in important ways. Look at Gore's map vs. Obama's map. Very different.

In 2000 Gore only won the border region and a few remnants of the democratic counties in east TX. None of the major cities except El Paso. Bush even won in Austin. In 2004, Kerry won in Austin. In 2008, Obama added San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston, and reduced the margin in the suburbs. Western and eastern areas of the state moved away from the democrats at the same time.

Harris and Dallas counties used to be republican strongholds. Now they aren't. Harris cty was the political base of George H.W. Bush.

If you want to talk about trends, Fort Bend county, where part of Katy is, voted 38% for Gore in 2000, 42% for Kerry in 2004 (bucked the trend, most of the state voted more strongly for Bush), and 48% for Obama in 2008. It's trending democrat. Harris county, where the rest of Katy is, also swung towards Obama in 2008. I expect it will swing back somewhat this year.



Stillow, the topline numbers just happen to be equalizing out, probably because once democratic strongholds have so dramatically turned against them. The county shifts are what's important, and there's continuity there that's been discernible since 2000. It wasn't a one time thing with Obama since Kerry experienced some of it too.

Look at where Carter, the last democrat to win TX at the presidential level, won in 1976. It's a complete reversal. The cities voted for Ford, particularly Houston/Dallas, rural areas for Carter. Now democrats have the cities.

I'd take the cities, seeing as how the rural eastern and western counties are declining rapidly and all the growth is in the DFW-Hou-SA triangle, and also in the border region.



"To compare data with such an unusual cycle like 2008 is simply improper"

Than what do you compare it to? I could just as easily say 2004 was unusual because it had higher than normal evangelical turnout.



aaron - You are ignoring the data. I posted the data since the post Reagan era. Dems peak out at 44 percent. they did it in 88 and 96. Porbably owuld ahve in 92 if not for the perot factor. Dems slightly underperormed in 00 and 04 cus W was a popular TX governor so that was to be expected. after W was gone TX went right back to its normal 44 percent it gives to Dems.

as for Governor, about 40 percent is nromal i nthe post richards era.

Data does nto lie....and for the past 20 years some things may have moved around and counties shifted slightly in diffetrnt ways, but the numbers have stayed almsot exactly the same...especially for president.

So there is absolutely no fundamental change or surge to the Dems in TX, its simply not happening...the numbers prove that. And current polling proves that.

Seriously, you guys can claim anything you want, but the raw data simply contradicts all your claims of some magical shift taking place.

There is no fundamental shift going on....just the nromal movement of regional voting patterns over time, but overall the numbers are exactly where they hav ealways been with the exception of a possible slight trend AWAY from Dem governors.....................! Sorry, but numbers are numbers.



aaron - My freind if you want to think 2010 or 2012 turnout will look like 2008 then by all means go full steam ahead with that!



You're also oversimplifying things, especially if you compare 2010 to 2006.

Perry only got 39% in 2006. Strayhorn got 18% mostly moderate/conservatives, but she's from Austin and a former mayor, and also got endorsed by the teachers association, who usually endorses democrats, so she may have pulled a few normally democratic votes. Kinky got undoubtedly what would have been mostly democratic votes. Just Bell + Kinky was 42%. Add Strayhorn's liberal vote and that's probably at least 2-3% added to that.

White will do better than 40%. I predict he will get at least 45% and perhaps 46-48%.



"You are ignoring the data."

No I'm not, I'm using more microdata than you. I'm looking at counties. In 1988 Dukakis got 43.35% winning 87 counties. In 2008 Obama got 43.63% winning 28 counties.

You can't say a shift has not taken place. You can say that the shifts in some areas have equalized out because of the shifts in other areas.

If you don't think it's significant that dems get a similar percentage while getting a fraction of the number of counties they used to get... well, you go on thinking whatever you want.



aaron - Its nto oversimplifying...the numbers have reamined steady for a long time. Like i said, looking at the actual numbers and not just opinion, if there's any movement at all its away from Dems for governor. White will not exceed 44 percent on election day.

Had Barry gotten say 46 or 47 percent you could argue there was a trend taking place....if Whtie had average polling above 40.5 percent, maybe you could argue there was a trend taking place....but the fact is neither of thsoe things is happening.

Again, making claims of this or that is simple to do, but there comes a poitnt, as in this case now, where the data just makes your claims look, well foolsih at best.

To much wishful thinking on your part aaron, it'd be great if the numbers supported your claims, but they just do not.



Aaron - "If you don't think it's significant that dems get a similar percentage while getting a fraction of the number of counties they used to get... well, you go on thinking whatever you want."

Like I said and like everyone knows, counties, cities, they all shift around...but if growth or improvement in one area is simply washed out by doing worse in another area, then the shift means nothing.

right now I can "claim" a shift is tkaing place in Vermont, they are moving to the GOP.....its easy to make that claim and perhaps I could even spin some data to make it look some what plausible, but the reality is thats not shifting.

On this issue your letting your wishful tinking cloud logic.

"Everyone" knos things shift around, but to get a trend you have to get more positive shifts than negative ones...in the state of TX, absolutley ntohing has changed o nthe presidnetial level since 1988. Had any other GOPer been pres in 00 and 04 TX probably would ahve given its standard 44 percent tothe Dem.

When your claims actually start manifesting thesmelves in actual election results, that is when they will be given the validity they deserve...until that happens...and current polling doesn't indicate that at all.....its all just your wishful thinking.



aaron - an example of a claim that would actually be supported by the numbers would be if you were to say since 1988 (post Reagan era) West Virginia has been shifting and trending to the GOP.

88 Dukakis - 52 percent
92 Clinton - 48 percent
96 Clinton - 52 percent
00 W - 52 percent
04 W - 56 percent
08 McCain - 56 percent

That woudl be a case where you oculd backup a claim with actual facts and numbers. You can see a clear shift in the numbers from one aprty to antoher and how the shift holds for a chain of election cycles.

That is what is seen as a real shift...what you and others on the left claim is happening in TX has absolutely no foundation in fact...sinc ethe numbers have remained consistent since 1988.



"but if growth or improvement in one area is simply washed out by doing worse in another area,"

I guess you think geography is a useless subject, since there are people that study this kind of data for a living.

It's used in marketing quite a bit. You want to know who is moving where so you know where to place stores and advertisements.

There have been dramatic changes on both sides. Ie: Nolan county in west TX used to vote 50-48 dem in 1988. In 2008 it voted 68-30 for McCain. Dallas country voted 58-40 for Bush, in 2008, it was 57-42 for Obama. That's remarkable if you ask me.

Here's the problem - Nolan county has not grown, it has declined. It's total vote in 1988 was 5609. It's total vote in 2008 was 5063. Dallas county posted 594538 votes in 1988, and 740074 in 2008.

See the long term problem for republicans here? Most of the places they put up huge numbers are like Nolan county. Republicans have been able to compensate for losing more populated regions by racking up larger margins in the smaller areas. But as those counties decline relative to the cities, that will cease to be as important.

The same thing happened in CA, Stillow, come on.



Ay yi yi yi....hopeless. Again you cite one year, 2008, which by most peoples observations, even a lot of liberals was an exception year due to all the things that fell into place for Obama. Despite all this, he still did exactly what Dukakis and Clinton did years before him....

We will ahve to continue this conversation in November after White loses with around 40-44 percent of the vote and you can once again explain how TX is shifiting.....even though the numbers will yet again prove toherwise.

As Yoda might say, a trend one election makes not. You have to duplicate soemthing for several cycles. And you are in for a sore awakening if you think 2008 was a normal cycle that will be duplicated.

Everything your claiming is refuted by the actual numbers. Like i said, when your claims are actually supported by election results, then you will have a point...until then your claim of TX changing and y claims of Vermont chaning will have to be just that, claims without basis.

God speed, goodnight.



I think we're arguing past each other here, since I'm taking into account internal population changes, you're not. That means this is all useless.

WV isn't really a fair comparison since it hasn't had the kind of growth TX has. WV's raw vote has grown about 10% since 1988. TX's raw vote growth has been about 50% in the same period.



"Everything your claiming is refuted by the actual numbers."

I cited you very specific numbers. You're really not getting my point.



"Again you cite one year, 2008,"

I would argue 2008 was not a unique cycle in TX's case. Neither campaign paid attention to it, except for about a 1-2 week ad buy by the Obama camp in early October. Neither candidate visited the state post-primaries, and Obama's organization told its Texas people to travel to New Mexico to GOTV there.

"You have to duplicate soemthing for several cycles."

What I've been saying IS a trend over several cycles, actually a trend over several decades.


SC Guy:

I have found this debate about the future of Texas voting trends very interesting here because I have followed it for years as it's such an integral GOP state. And Stillow and Rightward have made some very good points on Texas voting trends how that the pro-Democrat trend so touted by many analysts has really failed to materialize.

Aaron in TX churns out the usual liberal doomsday message for the GOP but he fails to understand some key points. Quoting what happened in 2000 and 2004 is simply only marginally relevant because Texas was George W. Bush's home state and that definitely skewed his margins to his favor there, so that he took 59% in 2000 and 61% in 2004. But I think that it's very remarkable that Senator McCain did as well as he did in 2008. Consider that Virginia and North Carolina (neither of which have anywhere near the Hispanic vote that Texas has) voted for Obama in 2008 and traditionally rock-ribbed Republican states like Georgia and South Carolina gave McCain only 52% and 54% respectively. But the fact that McCain carried Texas with nearly 56% of the vote is quite remarkable in my book, considering all the counterintuitive trends at work.

Additionally, there's another factor at work in Texas which a lot of the analysts seem to miss and that is the fact that there is the issue of a certain number of Hispanics being counted as whites, either intentonally ur unintentionally because they identify themselves as such - and also because there is also more racial mixing than with other races. That could help explain why McCain did very well in a minority heavy state like Texas when Obama was doing so well in other strong minority states.

Stillow and Rightward also make a good point that the 2008 Texas electorate was pretty unique in its large minority turnout (black turnout was up from 2004 and McCain's percentage of the black vote was almost nil), yet it still somehow tilted strongly Republican overall. The Democrats are very unlikely to forward another minority candidate after Obama so this minority excitement element is likely to fade.

Aaron in TX makes a critical mistake by comparing Texas to California, because he fails to identify that the Republican problem in California isn't Hispanics - it's whites. The GOP routinely wins between 60% and 80% of the Texas white vote but in California, they're fortunate to get 50%. And if you must talk the Hispanic vote, consider that Texas Hispanics are much more likely to vote Republican than their California counterparts. (For instance, McCain got 35% of the TX Hispanic vote compared to 23% in CA).

So finally, will Texas become more competitive in the future? Possibly. But people are making a huge mistake if they think that it will cease to be a GOP state in the near future. The state is fundamentally conservative and can't be likened to California or most other Hispanic heavy states.


Field Marshal:

The more important question is why are Stillow and Aaron having that great debate (and thanks to SC guy for some additional info) at 3AM!?!?



If you were to slice off the eastern half of Texas (Wichita Falls down to San Antonio and over to Corpus Christi) there you have approximately 20 million people or 75%-80% of the state population. Harris County is about 50/50 and trending democratic. Dallas County along with Travis (Austin) and Bexar (San Antonio) are more solidly dem. However, primary population growth over the last twenty years has not been in these counties, it is in the Houston, Dallas (and to a lesser extent Austin and San Antonio) "collar" counties. Counties such as Collin, Denton, Rockwall, Montgomery, Fort Bend, Williamson........guess how these counties vote????? 65% to 80%+ Republican. That's where the Republicans win elections in Texas and it will take a long time to change considering how deeply conservative these areas are.



"Collin, Denton, Rockwall, Montgomery, Fort Bend, Williamson........guess how these counties vote????? 65% to 80%+ Republican. "

Fort Bend voted about 50/50 in 2008. Collin and Denton have both seen significant increase in their democratic share.

Rockwall and Montgomery are moving the other way.

Probably the highest percentage growth has occurred in the border region.



Actually I looked at all those counties you mentioned, Rightward, and found the democratic share of the vote increased in all of them in every election 2000-2008, and in some cases increased from 1996.

If trends continue (no way to know if they will, but the growth is continuing along the same patterns), Fort Bend will be the first to go, followed by Williamson.



And after all the normal population changes and this country trending this way and that country trending that way, lets take a quick peak at the changes over the past 20 years.

Bush - 55.95%
Dukakis - 43.35%

McCain - 55.39%
Obama - 43.63%

Crap, look at that huge shift to the Dems the past 20 years. At thsi rate TX will indeed be blue in about 300 years.

Fact is TX simply has a R majoirty that is entrenched and is not going anywhere. Aaron and other libs can try to spin numbers to make themselves feel good about what they hope will happen....but there is absolutely ZERO change in TX going on. It is as red as its been since Reagan left and there is no proof its changing anytime soon....unless you cosnider Whites average poll numbers at 40.5 percent to be some amazing sign of a huge shift to the Dems.

There's an old but classic saying aaron, when your in a hole, stop digging.

TX is red and staying red....all the changes the past 20 years in population growth, etc have netted us zero change...the state remains exactly as it was 20 years ago.




Sometimes you are an F***ing idiot.

You have a problem with not reading what people say, instead putting words in their mouths and attacking that. You do that to basically all liberals on here.

Yes, the percentage is about the same. I was not saying TX has shifted into a democratic state since 1988. I'm saying the voter distribution has significantly reconstituted. Yes Dukakis got about the same percentage as Obama, but the way he did it was totally different.

The election of 1896 was very similar to 2004, except that the northeast/west coast went to republicans while the south/midwest went to democrats. Should we say that "there has been no change, it doesn't mean anything," like you do?

"At thsi rate TX will indeed be blue in about 300 years."

Wrong. IF the trends continue... the democratic vote share continues to grow in those suburban counties cited above even if a dem does not win them outright, the cities continue to favor democrats (they all do except Fort Worth, which has also seen its democratic share grow, and the rural counties that vote ~75% republican continue to decline in population, it will shift in 16-20 years.

Please note that I am not positive that these trends WILL continue. We don't know. IF White gets better than 44% that will be an indication. I think he's going to do marginally better. If he doesn't, and particularly if he does worse than that, well, then I will be wrong.

I think you need to understand what "raw data" is. What I've been citing IS raw data - county vote totals and population numbers. What you're citing are topline percentages which I am not trying to make my point with.

All of this is useless, since you will not respond to what I say, but rather what you think I'm saying.


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.