2016 Texas Democratic presidential primary
The 2016 Texas Democratic presidential primary took place on March 1 in the U.S. state of Texas as one of the Democratic Party's primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
 Texas results by county
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Tie | |||||||||||||||||||
| Elections in Texas |
|---|
 |
 Government |
On the same day, dubbed "Super Tuesday," Democratic primaries were held in ten other states plus American Samoa, while the Republican Party held primaries in eleven states, including their own Texas primary.
Decisive support from Latinos—particularly in the rural Rio Grande Valley—delivered a landslide win to Clinton.[1]
Opinion polling
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary results | March 1, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 65.2% |
Bernie Sanders 33.2% |
Others 1.6% | |
| Emerson[2]
Margin of error: ± 5.9%
|
February 26–28, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 68% |
Bernie Sanders 26% |
Others / Undecided 6% | |
| American Research Group[3]
Margin of error: ± 5.0%
|
February 26–28, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 58% |
Bernie Sanders 38% |
Others / Undecided 4% | |
| YouGov/CBS News[4]
Margin of error: ± 6.9%
|
February 22–26, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 61% |
Bernie Sanders 37% |
Others / Undecided 2% | |
| Monmouth[5]
Margin of error: ± 5.6
|
February 22–24, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 64% |
Bernie Sanders 30% |
Others / Undecided 6% | |
| Emerson College[6]
Margin of error: ± 5.4
|
February 21–23, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 56% |
Bernie Sanders 40% |
Others / Undecided 4% | |
| NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl[7]
Margin of error: ± 4.9
|
February 18–23, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 59% |
Bernie Sanders 38% |
Others / Undecided 3% | |
| KTVT-CBS 11[8]
Margin of error: ± 3.8
|
February 22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 61% |
Bernie Sanders 29% |
Others / Undecided 10% | |
| TEGNA/SurveyUSA[9]
Margin of error: ± 4.1
|
February 21–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 61% |
Bernie Sanders 32% |
Others / Undecided 7% | |
| Austin American-Statesman[10]
Margin of error: ± 5.0
|
February 19–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 66% |
Bernie Sanders 26% |
Others / Undecided 8% | |
| UT/TT[11]
Margin of error: ±4.57 |
February 12–19, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 57% |
Bernie Sanders 40% |
Rocky de la Fuente 2% |
Martin O'Malley 1% Willie Wilson 1% |
| Public Policy Polling[12]
Margin of error: ± 4.3
|
February 14–16, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 57% |
Bernie Sanders 34% |
Polls in 2015
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Texas/Texas Tribune[13]
Margin of error ± 4.57%
|
October 30 – November 8, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 61% |
Bernie Sanders 30% |
Martin O'Malley 1% | Lawrence Lessig 0% No Opinion 7% |
| CBS-DFW[14]
Margin of error: ± 3.09%
|
October 23–24, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 59% |
Bernie Sanders 10% |
Martin O'Malley 3% |
Undecided 28% |
| Texas Lyceum[15]
Margin of error: ± 7.15%
|
September 8–21, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 36% |
Bernie Sanders 24% |
Joe Biden 15% |
Jim Webb 1%, Martin O'Malley 0%, Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 23% |
| UoT/Texas Tribune[16]
Margin of error: ± 4.58%
|
June 5–14, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 53% |
Bernie Sanders 15% |
Joe Biden 8% |
Elizabeth Warren 8%, Andrew Cuomo 1%, Martin O'Malley 1%, Jim Webb 1%, Lincoln Chafee 1% Undecided 12% |
| UoT/Texas Tribune[17]
Margin of error: ± 4.89%
|
February 6–15, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 62% |
Elizabeth Warren 12% |
Joe Biden 6% |
Bernie Sanders 5%, Martin O'Malley 1%, Jim Webb 1%, Undecided 14% |
Polls in 2014
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UoT/Texas Tribune
Margin of error: ± 4.73%
|
October 10–19, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 60% |
Elizabeth Warren 13% |
Joe Biden 10% |
Andrew Cuomo 2%, Brian Schweitzer 1%, Jim Webb 1%, Martin O'Malley 0%, Undecided 13% |
| UoT/Texas Tribune
Margin of error: ± 4.75%
|
May 30 – June 8, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 64% |
Elizabeth Warren 15% |
Joe Biden 8% |
Andrew Cuomo 2%, Brian Schweitzer 1%, Martin O'Malley 0%, Undecided 10% |
Polls in 2013
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UoT/Texas Tribune
Margin of error: ± 4.82%
|
October 18–29, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 67% |
Joe Biden 7% |
Elizabeth Warren 5% |
Andrew Cuomo 1%, Martin O'Malley 1%, Brian Schweitzer 1%, Mark Warner 1%, Kirsten Gillibrand 0%, Don't Know 17% |
| UoT/Texas Tribune
Margin of error: ± 5.89%
|
May 31 – June 9, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 66% |
Joe Biden 11% |
Andrew Cuomo 1% |
Kirsten Gillibrand 1%, Mark Warner 1%, Martin O'Malley 0%, Brian Schweitzer 0%, Don't Know 19% |
Results
Primary date: March 1, 2016
National delegates: 75
| Texas Democratic primary, March 1, 2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Popular vote | Estimated delegates | |||
| Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total | |
| Hillary Clinton | 936,004 | 65.19% | 147 | 21 | 168 |
| Bernie Sanders | 476,547 | 33.19% | 75 | 0 | 75 |
| Rocky De La Fuente | 8,429 | 0.59% | |||
| Martin O'Malley (withdrawn) | 5,364 | 0.37% | |||
| Willie Wilson | 3,254 | 0.23% | |||
| Keith Judd | 2,569 | 0.18% | |||
| Calvis L. Hawes | 2,017 | 0.14% | |||
| Star Locke | 1,711 | 0.12% | |||
| Uncommitted | — | 0 | 8 | 8 | |
| Total | 1,435,895 | 100% | 222 | 29 | 251 |
| Source: The Green Papers, Texas Secretary of State | |||||
Results by county
| County[18] | Clinton | % | Sanders | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson | 996 | 75.6% | 299 | 22.7% |
| Andrews | 76 | 66.1% | 38 | 33.0% |
| Angelina | 1,950 | 73.7% | 622 | 23.5% |
| Aransas | 488 | 63.1% | 272 | 35.1% |
| Archer | 99 | 58.9% | 64 | 38.1% |
| Armstrong | 1 | 20.0% | 4 | 80.0% |
| Atascosa | 1,355 | 71.7% | 478 | 25.3% |
| Austin | 492 | 73.4% | 165 | 24.6% |
| Bailey | 84 | 71.2% | 29 | 24.6% |
| Bandera | 378 | 55.4% | 294 | 43.1% |
| Bastrop | 2,896 | 59.0% | 1,950 | 39.8% |
| Bland | 46 | 61.3% | 24 | 32.0% |
| Bee | 1,133 | 75.1% | 320 | 21.2% |
| Bell | 7,430 | 69.9% | 3,090 | 29.1% |
| Bexar | 76,533 | 66.8% | 36,750 | 32.1% |
| Blanco | 284 | 54.9% | 232 | 44.9% |
| Borden | 4 | 80.0% | 1 | 20.0% |
| Bosque | 353 | 62.6% | 199 | 35.3% |
| Bowie | 2,437 | 76.7% | 687 | 21.6% |
| Brazoria | 8,009 | 69.6% | 3,721 | 28.6% |
| Brazos | 3,561 | 49.1% | 3,589 | 49.5% |
| Brewster | 701 | 43.7% | 771 | 48.1% |
| Briscoe | 16 | 57.1% | 11 | 32.3% |
| Brooks | 1,603 | 74.4% | 362 | 16.8% |
| Brown | 319 | 58.5% | 212 | 38.9% |
| Burleson | 469 | 74.0% | 149 | 23.5% |
| Burnet | 878 | 59.4% | 580 | 39.3% |
| Caldwell | 1,543 | 66.1% | 742 | 31.8% |
| Calhoun | 709 | 66.6% | 305 | 28.6% |
| Callahan | 87 | 44.2% | 104 | 52.8% |
| Cameron | 20,332 | 68.2% | 8,320 | 27.9% |
| Camp | 484 | 76.6% | 134 | 21.2% |
| Carson | 50 | 62.5% | 30 | 37.5% |
| Cass | 778 | 73.1% | 265 | 24.9% |
| Castro | 127 | 73.9% | 40 | 23.3% |
| Chambers | 688 | 67.9% | 295 | 29.1% |
| Cherokee | 990 | 74.2% | 324 | 24.3% |
| Childress | 54 | 58.7% | 34 | 37.0% |
| Clay | 120 | 62.5% | 65 | 33.9% |
| Cochran | 4 | 50.0% | 3 | 37.5% |
| Coke | 25 | 48.1% | 25 | 48.1% |
| Coleman | 75 | 60.0% | 49 | 39.2% |
| Collin | 23,670 | 59.1% | 16,171 | 40.4% |
| Collingsworth | 36 | 59.0% | 24 | 39.3% |
| Colorado | 474 | 74.8% | 150 | 23.7% |
| Comal | 3,112 | 60.0% | 2,027 | 39.1% |
| Comanche | 221 | 63.5% | 117 | 33.6% |
| Concho | 27 | 69.2% | 11 | 28.2% |
| Cooke | 449 | 56.4% | 334 | 42.0% |
| Coryell | 1,010 | 62.7% | 577 | 35.8% |
| Cottle | 27 | 57.5% | 18 | 38.3% |
| Crane | 62 | 66.0% | 24 | 25.5% |
| Crockett | 266 | 37.7% | 240 | 34.0% |
| Crosby | 131 | 58.2% | 91 | 40.4% |
| Culberson | 358 | 62.2% | 160 | 27.8% |
| Dallam | 24 | 61.5% | 13 | 33.3% |
| Dallas | 113,664 | 71.5% | 44,275 | 27.8% |
| Dawson | 92 | 70.2% | 34 | 26.0% |
| Deaf Smith | 200 | 67.8% | 86 | 29.2% |
| Delta | 110 | 67.9% | 51 | 31.5% |
| Denton | 16,491 | 50.7% | 15,781 | 48.6% |
| Dewitt | 293 | 70.3% | 113 | 27.1% |
| Dickens | 13 | 52.0% | 11 | 44.0% |
| Dimmit | 1,804 | 68.9% | 534 | 20.4% |
| Donley | 35 | 47.8% | 35 | 50.7% |
| Duval | 2,273 | 76.2% | 523 | 17.5% |
| Eastland | 171 | 55.7% | 122 | 39.7% |
| Ector | 1,855 | 64.9% | 942 | 33.0% |
| Edwards | 42 | 57.5% | 27 | 37.0% |
| Ellis | 3,725 | 69.5% | 1,568 | 29.2% |
| El Paso | 36,140 | 66.0% | 17,234 | 31.5% |
| Erath | 427 | 52.5% | 365 | 44.9% |
| Falls | 551 | 91.4% | 115 | 17.0% |
| Fannin | 507 | 63.0% | 279 | 34.7% |
| Fayette | 584 | 63.9% | 309 | 33.8% |
| Fisher | 226 | 53.3% | 146 | 34.4% |
| Floyd | 60 | 65.9% | 24 | 26.4% |
| Foard | 80 | 34.3% | 112 | 48.1% |
| Fort Bend | 29,259 | 74.6% | 9,774 | 24.9% |
| Franklin | 164 | 67.8% | 73 | 30.2% |
| Freestone | 380 | 76.8% | 102 | 20.6% |
| Frio | 1,864 | 67.7% | 630 | 22.9% |
| Gaines | 91 | 55.8% | 59 | 36.2% |
| Galveston | 9,466 | 68.2% | 4,241 | 30.6% |
| Garza | 35 | 56.5% | 22 | 35.5% |
| Gillespie | 493 | 60.9% | 314 | 38.8% |
| Glasscock | 4 | 50.0% | 4 | 50.0% |
| Goliad | 389 | 66.4% | 151 | 25.8% |
| Gonzales | 368 | 72.3% | 129 | 25.3% |
| Gray | 111 | 53.9% | 86 | 41.8% |
| Grayson | 1,940 | 52.8% | 1,687 | 45.9% |
| Gregg | 3,423 | 78.0% | 911 | 20.8% |
| Grimes | 584 | 73.2% | 201 | 25.2% |
| Guadalupe | 3,793 | 63.9% | 2,067 | 34.8% |
| Hale | 312 | 60.4% | 176 | 34.0% |
| Hall | 63 | 64.3% | 28 | 28.6% |
| Hamilton | 115 | 56.5% | 84 | 40.2% |
| Hansford | 21 | 58.3% | 13 | 36.1% |
| Hardeman | 71 | 39.4% | 88 | 48.9% |
| Hardin | 625 | 59.5% | 398 | 27.9% |
| Harris | 157,000 | 70.5% | 63,416 | 28.5% |
| Harrison | 2,046 | 76.9% | 530 | 19.9% |
| Hartley | 19 | 55.8% | 19 | 36.5% |
| Haskell | 159 | 58.7% | 92 | 34.3% |
| Hays | 6,634 | 46.9% | 7,322 | 51.8% |
| Hemphill | 15 | 65.2% | 8 | 34.8% |
| Henderson | 1,593 | 71.6% | 598 | 26.9% |
| Hidalgo | 40,308 | 69.1% | 15,907 | 27.3% |
| Hill | 718 | 69.1% | 297 | 28.6% |
| Hockley | 183 | 58.3% | 116 | 36.9% |
| Hood | 928 | 62.6% | 527 | 35.6% |
| Houston | 464 | 80.0% | 101 | 17.4% |
| Howard | 351 | 63.5% | 192 | 34.7% |
| Hudspeth | 99 | 39.9% | 97 | 39.1% |
| Hunt | 1,329 | 60.5% | 849 | 38.6% |
| Hutchinson | 153 | 55.8% | 103 | 37.6% |
| Irion | 28 | 65.1% | 14 | 32.6% |
| Jack | 87 | 62.1% | 46 | 32.9% |
| Jackson | 266 | 70.6% | 94 | 24.9% |
| Jasper | 932 | 75.7% | 270 | 21.9% |
| Jeff Davis | 140 | 49.5% | 132 | 46.6% |
| Jefferson | 16,589 | 76.9% | 4,441 | 20.6% |
| Jim Hogg | 1,421 | 75.0% | 356 | 18.8% |
| Jim Wells | 4,697 | 71.7% | 1,436 | 21.9% |
| Johnson | 2,271 | 58.5% | 1,566 | 40.4% |
| Jones | 173 | 63.1% | 95 | 34.7% |
| Karnes | 726 | 53.0% | 479 | 34.9% |
| Kaufman | 2,234 | 69.6% | 951 | 29.6% |
| Kendall | 641 | 56.2% | 491 | 43.0% |
| Kenedy | 63 | 59.4% | 32 | 30.2% |
| Kent | 22 | 36.7% | 28 | 46.7% |
| Kerr | 1,020 | 58.4% | 709 | 40.6% |
| Kimble | 29 | 44.6% | 34 | 52.3% |
| King | 2 | 66.7% | 1 | 33.3% |
| Kinney | 211 | 60.8% | 107 | 30.8% |
| Kleberg | 1,740 | 70.7% | 630 | 25.6% |
| Knox | 68 | 71.6% | 17 | 17.9% |
| Lamar | 924 | 69.3% | 388 | 29.1% |
| Lamb | 172 | 53.3% | 87 | 26.9% |
| Lampasas | 324 | 59.8% | 207 | 38.2% |
| Lavaca | 322 | 68.5% | 137 | 29.2% |
| Lee | 367 | 65.4% | 180 | 32.1% |
| Leon | 289 | 74.3% | 89 | 22.9% |
| Liberty | 1,043 | 71.3% | 383 | 26.2% |
| Limestone | 592 | 79.1% | 144 | 19.3% |
| Lipscomb | 22 | 64.7% | 11 | 32.4% |
| Live Oak | 203 | 67.4% | 73 | 24.3% |
| Llano | 519 | 64.8% | 267 | 33.3% |
| Loving | 3 | 25.0% | 5 | 41.7% |
| Lubbock | 5,782 | 57.3% | 4,137 | 41.0% |
| Lynn | 14 | 58.3% | 10 | 41.7% |
| Madison | 227 | 75.2% | 70 | 23.2% |
| Martin | 36 | 59.0% | 17 | 27.9% |
| Mason | 89 | 62.7% | 50 | 35.2% |
| Matagorda | 1,088 | 74.2% | 344 | 23.5% |
| Maverick | 4,343 | 69.5% | 1,508 | 24.2% |
| McCulloch | 93 | 66.0% | 43 | 30.5% |
| McLennan | 5,531 | 67.0% | 2,633 | 31.9% |
| McMullen | 4 | 80.0% | 1 | 20.0% |
| Medina | 1,073 | 69.7% | 436 | 28.3% |
| Menard | 23 | 56.1% | 16 | 39.0% |
| Midland | 1,556 | 63.1% | 854 | 34.6% |
| Milam | 577 | 67.8% | 252 | 29.6% |
| Mills | 50 | 53.2% | 41 | 43.6% |
| Mitchell | 109 | 73.2% | 33 | 22.2% |
| Montague | 153 | 54.3% | 122 | 43.3% |
| Montgomery | 7,540 | 59.5% | 5,040 | 39.8% |
| Moore | 149 | 59.9% | 81 | 32.5% |
| Morris | 488 | 71.4% | 169 | 24.7% |
| Motley | 13 | 68.4% | 6 | 31.6% |
| Nacogdoches | 1,600 | 65.2% | 829 | 33.8% |
| Navarro | 957 | 72.5% | 334 | 25.3% |
| Newton | 605 | 44.2% | 529 | 40.4% |
| Nolan | 270 | 65.5% | 122 | 29.6% |
| Nueces | 15,671 | 70.5% | 6,175 | 27.8% |
| Ochiltree | 36 | 53.7% | 29 | 43.3% |
| Oldham | 11 | 68.8% | 4 | 25.0% |
| Orange | 1,852 | 68.1% | 816 | 30.0% |
| Palo Pinto | 361 | 59.5% | 230 | 37.9% |
| Panola | 559 | 80.1% | 130 | 18.6% |
| Parker | 1,808 | 54.6% | 1,475 | 44.5% |
| Parmer | 82 | 72.6% | 26 | 23.0% |
| Pecos | 816 | 55.4% | 488 | 33.2% |
| Polk | 860 | 71.1% | 326 | 26.9% |
| Potter | 1,490 | 56.5% | 1,094 | 41.5% |
| Presidio | 776 | 57.4% | 447 | 33.1% |
| Rains | 173 | 64.3% | 89 | 33.1% |
| Randall | 1,591 | 51.0% | 1,489 | 47.7% |
| Reagan | 12 | 63.2% | 7 | 36.8% |
| Real | 28 | 53.9% | 23 | 44.2% |
| Red River | 378 | 70.1% | 87 | 18.2% |
| Reeves | 1,128 | 59.6% | 563 | 29.7% |
| Refugio | 549 | 64.1% | 254 | 29.7% |
| Roberts | 3 | 60.0% | 2 | 40.0% |
| Robertson | 896 | 70.9% | 289 | 22.9% |
| Rockwall | 1,726 | 59.5% | 1,046 | 36.1% |
| Runnels | 80 | 57.6% | 55 | 39.6% |
| Rusk | 1,114 | 78.1% | 276 | 19.4% |
| Sabine | 192 | 66.4% | 82 | 28.4% |
| San Augustine | 368 | 83.1% | 62 | 14.0% |
| San Jacinto | 562 | 72.1% | 193 | 24.7% |
| San Patricio | 2,638 | 73.2% | 850 | 23.6% |
| San Saba | 58 | 67.4% | 27 | 31.4% |
| Schleicer | 58 | 64.4% | 24 | 26.7% |
| Scurry | 154 | 61.6% | 85 | 34.0% |
| Shackelford | 15 | 50.0% | 14 | 46.7% |
| Shelby | 346 | 77.8% | 90 | 20.2% |
| Sherman | 19 | 61.3% | 8 | 25.8% |
| Smith | 5,778 | 73.5% | 2,003 | 25.5% |
| Somervell | 66 | 49.3% | 67 | 50.0% |
| Starr | 6,936 | 77.8% | 1,635 | 18.3% |
| Stephens | 45 | 55.6% | 35 | 43.2% |
| Sterling | 5 | 50.0% | 4 | 40.0% |
| Stonewall | 59 | 57.8% | 36 | 35.3% |
| Sutton | 27 | 69.2% | 10 | 25.6% |
| Swisher | 141 | 60.5% | 78 | 33.5% |
| Tarrant | 68,044 | 65.2% | 35,733 | 34.2% |
| Taylor | 1,794 | 54.6% | 1,427 | 43.4% |
| Terrell | 67 | 43.5% | 64 | 41.6% |
| Terry | 141 | 59.0% | 83 | 34.7% |
| Throckmorton | 26 | 61.9% | 16 | 38.1% |
| Titus | 552 | 71.3% | 197 | 25.5% |
| Tom Green | 1,657 | 55.9% | 1,239 | 41.8% |
| Travis | 69,446 | 48.2% | 74,068 | 51.4% |
| Trinity | 333 | 71.8% | 117 | 25.2% |
| Tyler | 453 | 74.3% | 372 | 22.8% |
| Upshur | 725 | 71.7% | 269 | 26.6% |
| Upton | 91 | 55.8% | 45 | 27.6% |
| Uvalde | 1,744 | 63.4% | 762 | 27.7% |
| Val Verde | 1,776 | 65.8% | 765 | 28.3% |
| Van Zandt | 722 | 64.1% | 377 | 33.5% |
| Victoria | 2,206 | 64.5% | 1,119 | 32.7% |
| Walker | 1,292 | 61.3% | 789 | 37.4% |
| Waller | 1,221 | 67.4% | 559 | 30.9% |
| Ward | 306 | 62.2% | 147 | 29.9% |
| Washington | 782 | 73.0% | 278 | 25.9% |
| Webb | 18,559 | 71.9% | 6,177 | 23.9% |
| Wharton | 961 | 76.5% | 224 | 18.3% |
| Wheeler | 37 | 59.7% | 23 | 37.1% |
| Wichita | 1,958 | 55.5% | 1,524 | 43.2% |
| Wilbarger | 136 | 61.5% | 75 | 33.9% |
| Willacy | 2,081 | 70.0% | 660 | 22.2% |
| Williamson | 16,396 | 52.7% | 14,554 | 46.7% |
| Wilson | 1,282 | 71.5% | 481 | 26.8% |
| Winkler | 30 | 69.8% | 11 | 25.6% |
| Wise | 751 | 56.2% | 558 | 41.8% |
| Wood | 663 | 68.7% | 285 | 29.5% |
| Yoakum | 9 | 42.9% | 10 | 47.6% |
| Young | 201 | 58.8% | 132 | 38.6% |
| Zapata | 1,973 | 67.9% | 685 | 23.6% |
| Zavala | 1,557 | 75.5% | 373 | 18.1% |
| Total | 936,004 | 65.2% | 476,547 | 33.2% |
Analysis
Clinton won the Texas primary by a landslide margin of over thirty points, thanks in large part to support from Hispanic/Latinos (whom she won by a margin of 71–29 over Bernie Sanders), African American voters (whom she won 83–15) and white women (63-35 over Sanders).[19] Clinton won all of the major cities (Fort Worth, Dallas, El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston, and Corpus Christi) except for Austin where Sanders won only narrowly.
Sanders won few counties outside of Travis County, where the University of Texas at Austin is located. He won neighboring Hays County, home to another prominent college, Texas State University in San Marcos. Sanders also managed to very narrowly edge out Clinton in Brazos County, home to College Station and Texas A&M University, by 28 votes. In all three counties mentioned above, Sanders performed worse than Barack Obama did in the 2008 Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, despite all three containing a bloc of young voters, a demographic Sanders usually performs well in.
The rest of Sanders's victories came from 11 sparsely populated counties where Republicans have performed strongly in the past several elections. His strongest performance came from the Texas Panhandle in Armstrong County, where he won 80% of the vote, 4 votes to Clinton's 1. Two counties in particular, Glasscock and Coke, had Sanders and Clinton tie.[20]
References
- "Texas Latinos Back Clinton, Sanders Takes Latino Counties in Colorado". NBC News. March 2, 2016. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
- "EMERSON POLL: CRUZ CLINGS TO NARROW LEAD IN TEXAS; TRUMP ROMPS IN BAY STATE, CLINTON PULLS AWAY FROM SANDERS" (PDF).
- "Texas Democratic Presidential Primary".
- "CBS News 2016 Battleground TrackerTexas".
- "TEXAS: CRUZ, CLINTON LEAD PRIMARIES" (PDF).
- "2016 Texas Republican Presidential Primary – Cruz 29%, Trump 28% (Emerson College Polling Society 2/21-2/23)" (PDF).
- "NBC News/WSJ/Marist Poll" (PDF).
- "Cruz Increases Lead In TX Against Trump In KTVT-CBS 11 / Dixie Strategies Poll".
- "Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #22696" (PDF).
- "Cruz, Clinton still lead in Texas".
- Ramsey, Ross. "UT/TT Poll: Clinton Still Leads in Texas, But Margin Has Narrowed, by Ross Ramsey". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved February 23, 2016.
- "Subject: Clinton leads in 10 of 12 Early March Primaries; Benefits From Overwhelming Black Support" (PDF).
- "Texas Statewide Survey" (PDF). University of Texas / Texas Tribune. Retrieved January 22, 2016.
- "Carson Leads Trump Slightly In Texas KTVT-CBS 11 Dixie Strategies Poll". cbslocal.com.
- "Texas Lyceum Poll Results: 2015 Texas Statewide Survey" (PDF). texaslyceum.org. Retrieved October 1, 2015.
- "TX Tribune" (PDF). amazonaws.com. Retrieved July 9, 2015.
- "Texas Statewide Survey" (PDF). Retrieved January 22, 2016.
- "Historical Elections - Official Results".
- "2016 Election Center". CNN. Retrieved July 18, 2016.
- "Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections".
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.