In the past I have talked about how Texas is primed to flip from Republican stronghold to Liberal territory, mainly based on the growth of Hispanic population, along with long term trends such as senior citizens slowly dying and younger voters turning more liberal.
Recently (early September 1-11, of 2016), there was a poll done by Texas Lyceum, that has some interesting results. As always, they do a lot of questions, and several different analytical methods.
The one they concentrated on was the "likely Voters, who do you prefer out of the four candidates", There, Clinton came in at 32% vs Trump's 39%. Johnson got 9% and Stein got 3%. Trumps minute lead of 7% is ridiculous for a GOP candidate in Texas. For comparison purposes, in 2012, the actual poll results were: 4,555,799 votes for Romney (57.2%), 3,294,440 votes for Obama (41.4%), 8,110 votes for Johnson (1.1%) and 24,450 votes for Stein (0.3%).
Yes, Johnson and Stein - the candidates for the Libertarian and Green party - ran in 2012, just as they are running in 2016.
But that is not the whole story. First, note that the poll is likely voter, not registered voter, not actual voters.
Likely voter is something that the POLLING company determines. Good polling companies base it on answers to questions such as 1) Did you vote in the last presidential election? 2) Did you vote in the last non-presidential election. 3) Did you know where people in your district have to go to vote? 4) Rate your chances of voting. Not-so-good polling companies try to do calculations such as x% of Democrats voted last time, so x% will vote this time.
Second, note that lots of people will give their 'real preference' in a poll, but when it comes down to actual voting in the election, they will not vote for a third party candidate unless that candidate has over 20% of the votes in the polls. That is, they only vote for a third candidate if they think they have a real shot.
Digging deeper into the polls, we find some more interesting answers, rather than the heavily biased "likely voters, out of four".
First, let's do the Clinton Vs Trump vs Johnson vs Stein, all registered voters. That makes it 30% Trump, 29% Clinton, 10% Johnson, 3% Stein. That's a big deal for Democrats. Johnson and Stein stay about the same, Trump loses a lot, Clinton loses a moderate amount (those losses are 'undecided', not surprising in unlikely voters). But most importantly it means a LOT of the people that are unlikely voters do not like Trump. A heavy get out the vote effort from the Democrats in Texas could easily take the state.
Now lets' ignore the people that got less than 2% the last time they ran.
Likely Voters - 42% Trump, 36% Clinton. not much difference there, Trump still wins by 6% rather than 7%.
But Registered Voters: 35% Trump, 39% Clinton. Here we have a huge win for Clinton. She finally beats Trump.
The problem is, that involves the registered voters that are unlikely to vote. The Democrats really need a HUGE Get Out The Vote program to take Texas back.
Also note, a similar thing happens For the US Congress and Texas state representatives elections, although not quite that extreme (i.e. 31% dem vs 32% rep among registered voters).
The Democrats need to create a new, superior get out the vote program in Texas. It should be the single most important priority for the DNC. It has to do so in direct opposition to the GOP's attempts to stop people from voting in Texas.
It probably needs to be lead by a charismatic Hispanic Texan born Democrat.
Recently (early September 1-11, of 2016), there was a poll done by Texas Lyceum, that has some interesting results. As always, they do a lot of questions, and several different analytical methods.
The one they concentrated on was the "likely Voters, who do you prefer out of the four candidates", There, Clinton came in at 32% vs Trump's 39%. Johnson got 9% and Stein got 3%. Trumps minute lead of 7% is ridiculous for a GOP candidate in Texas. For comparison purposes, in 2012, the actual poll results were: 4,555,799 votes for Romney (57.2%), 3,294,440 votes for Obama (41.4%), 8,110 votes for Johnson (1.1%) and 24,450 votes for Stein (0.3%).
Yes, Johnson and Stein - the candidates for the Libertarian and Green party - ran in 2012, just as they are running in 2016.
But that is not the whole story. First, note that the poll is likely voter, not registered voter, not actual voters.
Likely voter is something that the POLLING company determines. Good polling companies base it on answers to questions such as 1) Did you vote in the last presidential election? 2) Did you vote in the last non-presidential election. 3) Did you know where people in your district have to go to vote? 4) Rate your chances of voting. Not-so-good polling companies try to do calculations such as x% of Democrats voted last time, so x% will vote this time.
Second, note that lots of people will give their 'real preference' in a poll, but when it comes down to actual voting in the election, they will not vote for a third party candidate unless that candidate has over 20% of the votes in the polls. That is, they only vote for a third candidate if they think they have a real shot.
Digging deeper into the polls, we find some more interesting answers, rather than the heavily biased "likely voters, out of four".
First, let's do the Clinton Vs Trump vs Johnson vs Stein, all registered voters. That makes it 30% Trump, 29% Clinton, 10% Johnson, 3% Stein. That's a big deal for Democrats. Johnson and Stein stay about the same, Trump loses a lot, Clinton loses a moderate amount (those losses are 'undecided', not surprising in unlikely voters). But most importantly it means a LOT of the people that are unlikely voters do not like Trump. A heavy get out the vote effort from the Democrats in Texas could easily take the state.
Now lets' ignore the people that got less than 2% the last time they ran.
Likely Voters - 42% Trump, 36% Clinton. not much difference there, Trump still wins by 6% rather than 7%.
But Registered Voters: 35% Trump, 39% Clinton. Here we have a huge win for Clinton. She finally beats Trump.
The problem is, that involves the registered voters that are unlikely to vote. The Democrats really need a HUGE Get Out The Vote program to take Texas back.
Also note, a similar thing happens For the US Congress and Texas state representatives elections, although not quite that extreme (i.e. 31% dem vs 32% rep among registered voters).
The Democrats need to create a new, superior get out the vote program in Texas. It should be the single most important priority for the DNC. It has to do so in direct opposition to the GOP's attempts to stop people from voting in Texas.
It probably needs to be lead by a charismatic Hispanic Texan born Democrat.
No comments:
Post a Comment