Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Palabra Final > Politics > Early Texas Polls Show Race for Democratic Nominee Too Close to Call

Early Texas Polls Show Race for Democratic Nominee Too Close to Call

LatinaLista — When it comes to the March 4 primary in Texas, there’s really only one race going on.

While television advertisements are juggling self-endorsements from both Clinton and Obama, one is hard-pressed to find a Republican ad running on TV. If they are, it must be late at night with the infomercials.
The fact is a Texas news station is reporting that McCain’s camp doesn’t feel the need to campaign in Texas since they feel the race has already been decided in their favor.
Yet in a new Texas poll McCain and Huckabee are in a dead heat for Texas votes and as far as who will win the Democratic nomination in Texas?
Let’s just say Clinton and Obama commercials will be running until the polls close.

The poll, commissioned by the Texas Credit Union League, revealed that Clinton is ahead of Obama — but only by 8 points.
With such a tight race, a casual observer would question Clinton’s strategy of concentrating her early campaigning in south Texas from El Paso to Laredo.
While it’s true that South Texas can practically be called “Clinton Country,” it’s also true that they don’t hold the bulk of votes that she needs to pull ahead of Obama.
It’s reported that the Hispanic vote comprises 35-40% of the Texas Democratic primary vote and will be a significant element in the final outcome, but there’s a little secret that the Clinton campaign may not know — not all of the state’s Latinos live along the border.
Latinos are dispersed throughout the state and especially in the cities where there is a higher concentration of eligible Latino voters.
According to José Angel Gutiérrez, an attorney and political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, in an interview with the Rio Grande Guardian:

South Texas’ predominantly Hispanic population is favorable for Clinton, Gutiérrez said, but he warned the senator’s campaign not to overestimate the importance of the Valley.
“That’s an old political stereotype, that the votes of the Mexicanos are in the Valley and all along the border area,” said Gutiérrez. “They keep saying they are going to keep working the Valley. There are only about three delegates coming out of the Valley. There are more delegates in West Texas than in the Valley, and Houston and Dallas outnumbers the Valley by three times at least.”
Obama is highly favored in the Houston, Dallas and Austin areas, which are part of Senate districts that have a substantial amount of delegates at stake.

In the end, Gutiérrez doesn’t feel Texas will make or break either candidate but just be one more stop in one of the most historic elections of our times.

Related posts


  • laura
    February 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Did you know that Bill Clinton signed a law in 1996 that made it much easier to deport people, and took away the right of many immigrants to a court hearing before deportation ? I just read about this law recently and haven’t even fully grasped all the implications of the change for the worse that Clinton made.
    Since Senator Clinton is running on her husband’s record, we should remember all of his record.
    Obviously NAFTA is one of the most egregious parts of Clinton’s record – impoverishing farmers in Mexico and eliminating jobs in the US. But other, more obscure parts of his record need to be carefully reviewed as well.
    Otherwise Latina/os will end up like African-Americans: used by the Clintons until not needed anymore.
    (I don’t expect Obama to be our angel either – he will have to be pushed too, for good change to happen. But his record so far is not as dismal as the Clintons’).

  • Chaos45i
    February 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    There is a legitimate reason why people should not blindly vote for Barack Obama. I have been reporting all over the internet since before Obama decided to even run that it can be verified that IL. U.S. Senator Presidential Candidate Barack Obama , IL. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin co-chair Obama 2008 are being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to treat me an American U.S. Hispanic citizen who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner by preventing me the same race discrimination charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination which has allowed Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to not be held accountable for race discrimination against me because I happen to be Hispanic. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of (for instance but not limited to) Obama and Durbin are responsible for my American civil rights continuing to be violated in Illinois as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in their state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this still ongoing form of discrimination against an American who happens to be a Hispanic in Illinois. Hispanics who Know are just showing they will not be willing victims of his “Good Judgement”. He has this still going on in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama tells Hispanic/Latinos nothing about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should address it but does not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just one example (If you happen to be a Hispanic/latino like me you can not be the victim of race discrimination in Illinois as I can atest) this is on IDHR’s own website in the public domain.,%20M.htm

  • Frank
    February 15, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    “Votes of the Mexicanos”? I thought they were U.S. citizens.

  • annevilla
    February 16, 2008 at 11:21 am

    As the composer, Bjarne O., writes:
    “I combined Latino Rhythms, Chinese Erhu, African- and Native-American Voices with the Contemporary Symphonic Orchestra – in the great spirit of Unity – for this Song in support of Obama’s great and true message: “Our Time Has Come; We the People are the Change we’ve all been waiting for. We are the Hope for the Future – YES WE CAN.”


  • Tane
    February 17, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Listen to this fabulous speech Barack gave in 2006 on how faith applies to governing a pluralistic society and how to unite people of all faiths with the commonality of our values. Another example of how he can reach across divides to unite this nation.

  • M.J.
    February 17, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Barack Obama – a John Kennedy for our times
    One man has captured the heart of the new AmericaWilliam Rees-Mogg
    It is hard to see who can stop Senator Barack Obama becoming the next President of the United States. He has built up an excitement such as no candidate has created since President Kennedy in 1960. He is, in my view, a better speaker than Kennedy. Like Kennedy, he combines personal magnetism with a strong appeal to American idealism.
    Like Kennedy, he is young and speaks for the new generation of American politics. By ordinary political reckoning, 2008 ought to be the Democrats’ year. In 2006 they captured both houses of Congress in mid-term elections.
    There are, of course, hypothetical events that could change everything. There could be an attack on Mr Obama himself, but he is protected by the Secret Service. There could be an action by al-Qaeda, which would refocus American anxiety on the threat of terror.
    But al-Qaeda is itself highly political. It would probably not be in its interest to secure the election of Senator John McCain. Al-Qaeda may be unpredictable, but it would be a mistake for it to interfere in American politics, even if it had the capacity to do so.
    At the start of the primaries, when all eyes were on Iowa and New Hampshire, Senator Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination. She had the organisation, she had the money, she had the name recognition, she had the professionalism; she even had Bill Clinton, even if he is something of an unguided missile.
    But those days are now long ago. Senator Clinton has fallen behind Senator Obama in almost all of these factors, except for Bill Clinton’s support. Senator Obama has captured the public’s imagination, and gone ahead in the polls, but he also has more money, a better organisation and valuable endorsements from all sectors of the Democratic spectrum. He is now ahead in delegates.
    Theoretically, Hillary Clinton could still finesse the nomination, possibly by holding on to the “super delegates” (senior party members appointed to the Convention), though they are free to switch to Obama whenever they wish; some have already done so. She could also try to instal the Florida and Michigan delegates, though their primaries were invalidated because their states tried to steal a march by holding primaries early. These were primaries without campaigns.
    However, the Clintons are already suspected of clever tricks, whether fairly or not.
    If Senator Clinton takes the nomination away from the presumptive “first black President of the United States” by playing games with the delegates, she will alienate the electorate. Her image would be that of the Wicked Witch of the West – she would become unelectable.
    One has to remember that there is already a deep undertow of Clintonphobia among American voters, not only among Republicans. A divided Democratic Convention, with Hillary emerging as the nominee as a result of challenged votes from Florida or from super delegates, would virtually guarantee a Republican victory.
    This means that the Democrats will have to ensure that the candidate who is nominated is the one who gets the most delegates from the primaries and the caucuses. The super delegates cannot afford to use their power to override the popular vote.
    Senator McCain is another matter. I am a McCain admirer; if I were an American, I would almost certainly vote for him. He has the key qualities a President needs – courage, intelligence, humanity, independence, experience of international affairs and sufficient self confidence to support the most intolerable role in the world. As a prisoner of war in Vietnam he was tortured and his behaviour was heroic. If one regards the security of the world as the supreme concern of the President of the United States, one would want John McCain to be the next President. He is probably a wiser man who knows more about war than any President since Eisenhower in the 1950s.
    Senator McCain has an advantage over Senator Obama; he is already assured of the Republican nomination, when Obama is still under fire from Hillary Clinton. She may do some damage. Naturally, Senator Obama has briefer and in some ways narrower experience than McCain. The President has to be Commander-in-Chief; undoubtedly Senator McCain is far better qualified for that aspect of the President’s function. Anything that emphasises global threats to the United States would focus attention on Senator McCain’s strengths.
    Yet the core argument of the Obama campaign is both powerful and timely. In American politics each generation looks for a renewal. That may come from either party; it is not simply a matter of a swing from the right to the left. In the first half of the past century it came from Theodore Roosevelt as a Republican and from Franklin Roosevelt as a Democrat.
    John F. Kennedy offered renewal in the 1960 election, though an older man, Lyndon Johnson, passed the legislation that gave reality to Kennedy’s promises. There was a renewal of hope in the Ronald Reagan presidency but there has been little renewal since Reagan’s time, which ended 24 years ago.
    Senator Obama offers a new generation of ideas that appeal to a new generation of voters. He is the presidential candidate of the young. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain belong to older generations. Americans do not want to return to the issues of the 1990s with Clinton, let alone the 1960s with McCain. Senator Obama identifies with the issues of the 21st century. In 2008 these issues are more relevant than those of a generation ago.
    Politicians who offer hope win elections. Despite his age, John McCain offers an alternative Republican programme. He is not a neo-Conservative and would be very unlike George Bush. Hillary Clinton would represent only too clearly a third Clinton term. Barack Obama has the future of America ahead of him.

Comments are closed.