Polls generally are pretty accurate these days. The Texas Republican Party knows its not worth campaining here any more. They are recruiting folks from Texas to go campain in other states. McCain or Palin hasn't been here in months and has no plans to do so. They believe they might have a slim chance of winning the election. But neither party is giving any concideration about spending resources in Texas.Skiprr wrote: Third: It's been stated as absolute fact that Texas is a foregone conclusion: 34 electoral votes for McCain. Done deal: nothing can change that.
There can be only two sources of information from which to derive this dangerous (IMHO) assumption: recent state political history and poll results.
To the former point: If you're under 35 or so, you don't remember anything but a Republican Texas. Fact is, Texas has been staunchly Democrat far longer than it's been Republican. The first Republican Governor of Texas in over 100 years, since the Reconstruction, was Bill Clements, elected in 1978. He was defeated by Democrat Mark White in '82, but came back to win again 1986. The Republican Party in Texas really came into its current position of strength around 1984 when we saw Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Phil Gramm on ballots.
So, in truth, Texas has been strongly Republican for only the past 24 or so years. A very short time.
Now here we are facing a financial crisis the likes of which the country hasn't experienced since the Great Depression.
We have a sitting Republican President with (unfairly, I think) some of the lowest approval ratings in U.S. history (Gallup pegged Bush at a 25% approval rating in October, just three points higher than Truman in 1952).
We have the largest recent-immigrant population, by total number, in the history of the State of Texas. See the story a few weeks ago where the U.S. Census Bureau published its estimate: one in three households in the Greater Houston Metropolitan Area speak Spanish as the primary language at home.
I'll add here my opinion that legal immigration is to be encouraged and appreciated.
Given the facts of today's environment, I'd say our short hold on Republican dominance is very much in jeopardy. Our position November 4 is tenuous. It certainly is not a foregone conclusion.
Fourth: Election polls are more prevalent and accessible than at any time in history, and citizens don't scrutinize them with the level of analysis and skepticism needed. I posted about this on another Topic. To risk annoying The Annoyed Man with repetition...
Opinion polls are an art, not a science. All of statistics is based on extracting the most accurate assumptions without having available complete data from the entire possible universe of targets. The key word is "assumption" because polls and surveys have to work with only a portion, a sample, of that total universe.
In fact, when polls report their "margin of error" (e.g., plus or minus 4%), they really take into account only sampling error, because of the four major types of survey errors that's the only one that can sufficiently be quantified. The other biggie sources of errors are coverage error, measurement error, and non-response error. In the instance of Presidential polling, I'd point to coverage error and non-response error as the non-quantifiable factors that offer the greatest chance for inaccuracy.
Pre-election polls serve valuable purposes, but I wish they weren't as prevalent. Remember when, in October of 2004, Newsweek polls had 47% of the vote for Kerry, 45% for Bush, and 2% for Nader?
These are opinion polls, random surveys, and they have a very real potential to mislead and to affect voter behavior.
The last poll results I saw for Texas (Rasmussen, October 23, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... index.html) showed McCain ahead by 10 points. As things go, that's a respectable lead. But does it mean a McCain/Palin win is a foregone conclusion? Absolutely not.
All it would take for a Republican loss in Texas is for a healthy number of Republicans and Libertarians to assume the state is done-deal Red, and either stay home or vote for an independent candidate or a write-in.
Then bingo, NObama could walk away with 34 electoral votes by a very slim margin...for example, by less than 400 popular votes, like New Mexico in 2000.
Think about it.
I believe that Obama is exactly what the the Democrats wanted? What Republican ever wanted McCain? Was there a Republican Candidate more liberal, Even Guilianni didn't make deals with Lieberman and Kennedy and stab the Republican party in the back .. Yeah, Maverick my Donkey. The Arguement that McCain will be at least a little better than Obama isn't a good enough arguement for those who expect better from our leaders.
If someone believes that McCain will be a great president they should vote for him. Fearing voting for McCain because your vote is going to put Texas over the top for Obama is silly. The scenario that the vote could go to Texas while the rest of the country is close enough to give Obama a chance is ignoring the reality of the numbers.
And yes a Generation ago we voted for Democrats... but today we are a red state. That may change some day, but its not going to change in 8 days.
I think we need some purple. Those in Texas who vote for McCain or Obama are telling the party that we approve of the choices that they have presented us.