 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
 County results Precinct resultsClinton: 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100% Sanders: 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100% O'Malley: 30-40% Other: Tie No Vote | |||||||||||||||||||
The2016 Texas Democratic presidential primary took place on March 1 in the U.S. state ofTexas as one of theDemocratic Party's primaries ahead of the2016 presidential election.
On the same day, dubbed "Super Tuesday,"Democratic primaries were held in ten other states plusAmerican Samoa, while theRepublican Party held primaries in eleven states, including their ownTexas primary.
Decisive support fromLatinos—particularly in the ruralRio Grande Valley—delivered a landslide win to Clinton.[1]
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary results[2] | March 1, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 65.2% | Bernie Sanders 33.2% | Others 1.6% | |
| Emerson[3] Margin of error: ± 5.9% | February 26–28, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 68% | Bernie Sanders 26% | Others / Undecided 6% | |
| American Research Group[4] Margin of error: ± 5.0% | February 26–28, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 58% | Bernie Sanders 38% | Others / Undecided 4% | |
| YouGov/CBS News[5] Margin of error: ± 6.9% | February 22–26, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 61% | Bernie Sanders 37% | Others / Undecided 2% | |
| Monmouth[6] Margin of error: ± 5.6 | February 22–24, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 64% | Bernie Sanders 30% | Others / Undecided 6% | |
| Emerson College[7] Margin of error: ± 5.4 | February 21–23, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 56% | Bernie Sanders 40% | Others / Undecided 4% | |
| NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl[8] Margin of error: ± 4.9 | February 18–23, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 59% | Bernie Sanders 38% | Others / Undecided 3% | |
| KTVT-CBS 11[9] Margin of error: ± 3.8 | February 22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 61% | Bernie Sanders 29% | Others / Undecided 10% | |
| TEGNA/SurveyUSA[10] Margin of error: ± 4.1 | February 21–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 61% | Bernie Sanders 32% | Others / Undecided 7% | |
| Austin American-Statesman[11] Margin of error: ± 5.0 | February 19–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 66% | Bernie Sanders 26% | Others / Undecided 8% | |
| UT/TT[12] 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[13] Margin of error: ± 4.3 | February 14–16, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 57% | Bernie Sanders 34% |
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Texas/Texas Tribune[14] 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[15] Margin of error: ± 3.09% | October 23–24, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 59% | Bernie Sanders 10% | Martin O'Malley 3% | Undecided 28% |
| Texas Lyceum[16] 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[17] 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[18] 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% |
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UoT/Texas Tribune[19] 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[20] 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% |
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UoT/Texas Tribune[21] 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[22] 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% |
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:[23][24] | |||||
| County[25] | 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% |
Clinton won the Texas primary by a landslide margin of over thirty points, thanks in large part to support fromHispanic/Latinos (whom she won by a margin of 71–29 over Bernie Sanders),African American voters (whom she won 83–15) andwhitewomen (63-35 over Sanders).[26] Clinton won all of the major cities (Fort Worth,Dallas,El Paso,San Antonio, andHouston, andCorpus Christi) except forAustin where Sanders won only narrowly.
Sanders won few counties outside ofTravis County, where theUniversity of Texas at Austin is located. He won neighboringHays County, home to another prominent college,Texas State University inSan Marcos. Sanders also managed to very narrowly edge out Clinton inBrazos County, home toCollege Station andTexas A&M University, by 28 votes. In all three counties mentioned above, Sanders performed worse thanBarack Obama did in the 2008Texas 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 theTexas Panhandle inArmstrong County, where he won 80% of the vote, 4 votes to Clinton's 1. Two counties in particular,Glasscock andCoke, had Sanders and Clinton tie.[27]
