10/21/08; 500 LV, 4.5%
McCain 54, Obama 44
Sen: Cornyn (R-i) 55, Noriega (D) 40
Designer suits from Neiman Marcus - $75,062
Manolo Blahniks and "accessories" from Saks Fifth Avenue - $49,425.74
Designer fashion items from Bloomingdale's - $5,102
Making sure a mentally handicapped, bat-**** crazy governor from Alaska gets nowhere NEAR the White House - PRICELESS!
Posted on October 23, 2008 12:44 PM
@deeznutsrepubs: Stop posting this nonsense; it has nothing to do with these polls.
Posted on October 23, 2008 12:50 PM
I had hoped TX would get within single digits.. just for sh*ts and giggles.
Posted on October 23, 2008 1:03 PM
Seriously. I was amused the first time, annoyed the second, and now this is just obnoxious. Bad troll!
Posted on October 23, 2008 1:19 PM
For comparison, the final couple polls in 2004 showed Bush up over 20 (of course there was not a lot of polling in Texas).
Posted on October 23, 2008 1:20 PM
Just in case someone hasn't seen this yet. Good for a laugh...
Posted on October 23, 2008 1:21 PM
To give you an idea of how ludicrous McCain going after Pennsylvania is, it would equate to Obama pinning all his hopes on flipping Texas!
IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR OBAMA TO FLIP TEXAS THAN FOR MCCAIN TO FLIP PENNSYLVANIA - ACCORDING TO THE POLLS!
Posted on October 23, 2008 1:39 PM
@ andareed and andrew:
u guys need to take a chill pill. if u want to call "bad trolls" and "nothing to do with polling" go talk to ur repub buddies, boomshak, alankeyes, kiptin and the other wingnuts
and nuts to u - we have free speech in this country so we'll say what we want about bat**** crazy hoes not gettin anywhere near the white house
Posted on October 23, 2008 1:48 PM
Well, I don't want to discourage McCain from pulling out his resources from states like Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida...
But I will admit that Pennsylvania is a more "compact" media and geographical market than Texas. So McCain could still win it...sure, why not. :-)
Actually Obama could win Texas if he undertakes a massive GOTV in the Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, Austin and the Gulf Coast counties wracked by Rita and Ivan (and the refugees of Katrina).
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Those senate numbers are incredibly discouraging. Noriega has not had an effective campaign.
I was also hoping Obama would close the gap into single digits as well.
Oh well, I have a suspicion that if Obama wins and has a good first term, that TX will be a swing state in 2012. He will have won over a lot of skeptics by then.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:23 PM
"But I will admit that Pennsylvania is a more "compact" media and geographical market than Texas. So McCain could still win it...sure, why not. :-)"
Much more so. There are something like 26 individual media markets in Texas (including 2 top ten markets and a total of 4 top 50 markets). It's probably the most expensive state in which to run a campaign (one reason Noriega has been at a disadvantage with his underfunded campaign)
"Actually Obama could win Texas if he undertakes a massive GOTV in the Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, Austin and the Gulf Coast counties wracked by Rita and Ivan (and the refugees of Katrina)."
There is a surprising amount of truth in this statement. If it's any consolation, early voting here in the left-leaning Austin area is shattering records.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:26 PM
Also, Dallas County has taken a sharp blueward turn over the past few years. Obama should be strong there as well...especially with an early sign of strong AA turnout across the state. African-Americans are only about 12% of the total population in Texas though. The Latino vote is crucial to making things closer. Hillary did really well here with that group but Obama seems to be getting strong Latino support now.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:29 PM
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:34 PM
Please... someone poll Arizona! It's been weeks.
Posted on October 23, 2008 3:35 PM
Everybody *please* calm down.
This poll is a M+1 spread compared to Rasmussen's previous Texas poll of 9/29/08, which had McCain 52, Obama 43.
It's not unusual that a state drops down for a party when the former candidate of said party hadn't just had it as his home state, but even got an incumbent bonus.
1988: 55.95 (G. Bush, originally CT, later TX)
1992: 40.56 (G. Bush again, but 22.01 for Perot/TX)
1996: 48.76 (Dole, KS; 6.75 for Perot/TX(
2000: 59.30 (GW Bush / TX)
2004: 61.09 (GW Bush again)
It wouldn't be THAT much of a surprise if it turned back to roundabaout 55% for a non-Texan Republican.
Or in order to try to explain the question "why?" -> there seems to be a "home state bonus" of ca. 4% and an additional incumbency bonus of 2% for Republican candidates in Texas.
This is more or less along the line of this poll.
For Arizona, I'd expect a number somewhere around 54 for McCain; tha last Rasmussen poll for Arizona had McCain at 59%, so he's doing rather fine on his home turf.
A similar effect can be observed in Illinois for Obama, but also in its neighboring states MI, WI, IA, IN and MO, and even - though only slightly so - in KY.
If the VP candidates weren't from states with relatively few EC votes (which were both quite safe in each party's column even before their respective nominations), we might even have seen some effects there. But then again, maybe Delaware has some side effects on VA, who knows? ;-)
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:05 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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