TX-PPP: Obama tied with Palin/Perry, all other Republicans ahead

[pbrower2a]

Is it my imagination, or has poundingtherock fled the board like some kind of Tunisian dictator?

---

What a day for Palin- Todd affair rumors, tied with Obama in Texas, and Michelle Bachmann announces she's going rogue and giving her own state of the union response.  All just after ceremonies marking the one week anniversary of saying "blood libel".

Two rival responses to the President's SOTU speech? Egad!

This could indicate the splintering of the GOP.

...If Sarah Palin can't defeat President Obama in Texas, then she might as well drop out of consideration.  What's next? Behind Obama in Kentucky?

[pbrower2a]

Texas is clearly a Democratic state in 2012. [/pbrower2a]

Oh, right.

I never said so. I said that it might be significantly closer in 2012, and it might show that Sarah Palin has no real chance to be President.  The PPP poll also shows that Rick Perry has no meaningful support for any Presidential campaign in his own state, whihc is an added bonus of the poll shown.

Face it -- Texas is a difficult state to poll.  It is arguably the most diverse state in a combination of religion, ethnicity, and economic activity. It has several giant cities and perhaps the largest rural population of any state. It can't be considered a region in itself despite its size; indeed it straddles clear regions of America. It is clearly Southwestern (El Paso seems to fit more into Arizona than into any other part of Texas) in parts; East Texas is decidedly Southern (I used to live in Greater Dallas and heard the saying "Shreveport is the capital of East Texas); about everything to the north and west of Fort Worth seems to be Midwestern (the state college in Wichita Falls calls itself "Midwestern State University"); areas  along and to the south of I-10 (including San Antonio and to some extent Houston) seem like a transition zone into another country. Now try to figure where Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and Houston fit in.

The state is tough to poll. It's possible to poll California, Florida, or New York with smaller sample sizes and smaller margins of error. I really don't trust any poll of Texas for accuracy, and that's not a question of bias. Get too many people from Dallas and too few from San Antonio or vice-versa, and things get distorted.

   
Texas may be no microcosm of America, but it will deliver 38 electoral votes to almost any Republican nominee for President. That is, anyone but Sarah Palin, who seems unable to hold her own against a liberal d@mnyankee politician with more than average melanin content. That may be more relevant than anything else about Texas.

Texas is clearly a Democratic state in 2012. [/pbrower2a]

Oh, right.

What are you trying to say?

i think that the democrats should at least attempt in winning Texas. First, it is an electoral goldmine. Second, the state has a democratic history. I believe that since the formation of the two party system in 1856, the state has voted Democratic 24 times, Republican 12 times, and Third Party once (1860).

Obama can campaign here as many times as he want, it still isn't going to swing the state his way.

If Obama makes an effort to win Texas, either
A) Texas is for Obama what Pennsylvania was for Mccain
or
B) Obama has so much campaign money that he has nowhere else to spend it.
or
C) Sarah Palin is running

Another possibility: with the nationwide election in the bag, President Obama might seek to help some Democrat replace Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Senate.   

[pbrower2a]

It appears now that President Obama has about as much chance of winning Texas as he has of losing Pennsylvania. Either way, that's not much.

So how can he win Texas? About everything has to go right.

1. Not many states are in the tier that he must win before winning Texas. After North Carolina that tier includes Missouri, perhaps Indiana, Arizona, and Georgia... maybe the Dakotas and South Carolina. President Obama would need at least 55% of the popular vote with his gains largely in states that he lost in 2008; maybe he has maxed out in some of the states that he won by monster margins.   


2. He has to have good reasons to do campaigning in Texas -- such as making a difference in the Senate race. Texas will have an open seat, and if the Democrats have a strong candidate for the US Senate, then guess who makes some appearances? Where he campaigns, he wins. But that means that the Democrats need a strong candidate. 

3. That of course implies that the Democrats don't have an easier chance to win a Senate seat, whether some incumbent like Corker, Wicker, Brown, (MA) or Kyl (should the opportunity arise) or someone who wins by tea-bagging an incumbent Republican who "isn't conservative enough" and aren't struggling to hold onto the Senate with someone like Brown (OH), Nelson (either one), McCaskill, Stabenow, Tester, or Warner.   

4. He would have to perform well in the suburbs of Dallas and Houston. Obama did badly in those suburbs, much in contrast to suburbs of cities like Detroit and Philadelphia.  Sure, he would have to campaign in places like Arlington, Denton, and Mesquite -- but he would show that he cares about Texas.

4. The war in Afghanistan would have to come to a graceful end. Texas has a large military presence. That is less significant in Texas than in Georgia, an easier target. Such would probably push his approval into the high 50s with a similar vote total. That is good for about an Eisenhower-scale landslide.

5. The Governor could not be on the ballot as a VP candidate. Well, that is unlikely. If the Republicans have enough doubt about carrying Texas  that they would have to nominate Perry for VP, then they are in deep trouble and have all but conceded the Presidency. Texans could conceivably vote for him as VP so that they could get rid of him as Governor.

Much must go right for President Obama to win Texas.     

 

[pbrower2a]

Add Plano, Richardson, Lewisville, and Carrollton.