Texas Senate Race: Fitzgerald Leads, But Hernandez Shows Strength in Urban Areas
Entry posted by TedderBear in Elections Coverage
37 views
With just weeks remaining until the U.S. Senate election, the race between State Legislator Kyle Fitzgerald (R) and activist Maria Hernandez (D) is proving to be a fierce contest across Texas. According to the latest polling, Fitzgerald holds a slim lead at 52%, while Hernandez trails closely behind with 48%, setting up a highly competitive election that could come down to the wire.
Rural Dominance vs. Urban Resilience
The polling reveals a clear urban-rural divide, with Fitzgerald dominating in many of the state’s rural counties. In areas like Armstrong County (80% Fitzgerald, 20% Hernandez) and King County (82% Fitzgerald, 18% Hernandez), Fitzgerald is firmly in control, thanks to his tough stances on immigration, law enforcement, and his deep ties to Texas’s conservative values.
Meanwhile, Hernandez is seeing strong support in Texas's urban centers and Hispanic-majority counties, where her platform of social justice, healthcare reform, and immigrant rights resonates deeply. Counties like Starr (72% Hernandez, 28% Fitzgerald), El Paso (66% Hernandez, 34% Fitzgerald), and Harris, home to Houston, where Hernandez leads 55% to Fitzgerald’s 45%, are key to her chances.
Key Battlegrounds
The race is expected to be decided in critical swing regions like Bexar County, home to San Antonio, where Hernandez leads with 55% compared to Fitzgerald’s 45%. Similarly, Williamson County, a suburb of Austin, shows Hernandez with 46%, trailing only slightly behind Fitzgerald’s 54%, illustrating how suburban voters may ultimately tilt the race.
Fort Bend County, often seen as a bellwether in Texas elections, also leans toward Hernandez at 53%, showing that the shifting demographic and political landscape of the suburbs could be a deciding factor.
Issues Driving the Race
Fitzgerald has centered his campaign on traditional conservative values, including his "Texas First" agenda, focusing on tough immigration policies, increased law enforcement funding, and a strong defense of border security. These themes have played well in rural areas where his hardline stance on immigration and law and order is well-received. His military background and long career as a high school football coach have cemented his image as a strong, steady leader.
Hernandez, meanwhile, has rallied support around progressive issues, focusing on healthcare reform, economic justice, and immigrant rights. Her speeches, often delivered with passionate calls for unity, have energized younger voters, working-class families, and communities of color. Her grassroots organizing background and deep connection to the Hispanic community have made her a formidable opponent, particularly in South Texas and urban areas.
A Race Too Close to Call
While Fitzgerald’s lead in the polls shows strength among traditional Republican voters, Hernandez’s momentum in urban and suburban areas, coupled with her appeal to Latino voters, keeps this race far from decided. With Texas’s rapidly changing demographics and increasing political competitiveness, the final outcome may come down to voter turnout in key areas like Bexar, Williamson, and Harris counties.
As both campaigns ramp up their efforts in the final stretch, Texas is poised for one of its closest Senate races in recent memory. Whether Fitzgerald can hold onto his rural stronghold or Hernandez can drive up urban and suburban turnout will be the determining factor as Texans head to the polls.
Conclusion
This election highlights the continued battle for the soul of Texas, with two candidates offering starkly different visions for the state’s future. The outcome will not only shape the direction of Texas but could have national implications, particularly as control of the U.S. Senate hangs in the balance. Texans have a pivotal decision to make, and every vote will count in this razor-thin race.
Stay tuned as both campaigns continue to make their final pushes in this high-stakes election.
| County | Fitzgerald | Hernandez |
| Anderson | 70% | 30% |
| Andrews | 72% | 28% |
| Angelina | 66% | 34% |
| Aransas | 68% | 32% |
| Archer | 78% | 22% |
| Armstrong | 80% | 20% |
| Atascosa | 60% | 40% |
| Austin | 71% | 29% |
| Bailey | 68% | 32% |
| Bandera | 72% | 28% |
| Bastrop | 57% | 43% |
| Baylor | 75% | 25% |
| Bee | 55% | 45% |
| Bell | 55% | 45% |
| Bexar | 45% | 55% |
| Blanco | 68% | 32% |
| Borden | 78% | 22% |
| Bosque | 73% | 27% |
| Bowie | 66% | 34% |
| Brazoria | 58% | 42% |
| Brazos | 58% | 42% |
| Brewster | 51% | 49% |
| Briscoe | 76% | 24% |
| Brooks | 32% | 68% |
| Brown | 76% | 24% |
| Burleson | 69% | 31% |
| Burnet | 70% | 30% |
| Caldwell | 55% | 45% |
| Calhoun | 62% | 38% |
| Callahan | 77% | 23% |
| Cameron | 50% | 50% |
| Camp | 65% | 35% |
| Carson | 79% | 21% |
| Cass | 71% | 29% |
| Castro | 66% | 34% |
| Chambers | 72% | 28% |
| Cherokee | 70% | 30% |
| Childress | 76% | 24% |
| Clay | 77% | 23% |
| Cochran | 69% | 31% |
| Coke | 77% | 23% |
| Coleman | 77% | 23% |
| Collin | 56% | 44% |
| Collingsworth | 76% | 24% |
| Colorado | 68% | 32% |
| Comal | 68% | 32% |
| Comanche | 74% | 26% |
| Concho | 74% | 26% |
| Cooke | 74% | 26% |
| Coryell | 64% | 36% |
| Cottle | 74% | 26% |
| Crane | 69% | 31% |
| Crockett | 66% | 34% |
| Crosby | 65% | 35% |
| Culberson | 42% | 58% |
| Dallam | 74% | 26% |
| Dallas | 40% | 60% |
| Dawson | 68% | 32% |
| Deaf Smith | 65% | 35% |
| Delta | 72% | 28% |
| Denton | 57% | 43% |
| DeWitt | 72% | 28% |
| Dickens | 74% | 26% |
| Dimmit | 36% | 64% |
| Donley | 75% | 25% |
| Duval | 37% | 63% |
| Eastland | 76% | 24% |
| Ector | 64% | 36% |
| Edwards | 65% | 35% |
| El Paso | 34% | 66% |
| Ellis | 66% | 34% |
| Erath | 73% | 27% |
| Falls | 62% | 38% |
| Fannin | 72% | 28% |
| Fayette | 71% | 29% |
| Fisher | 68% | 32% |
| Floyd | 68% | 32% |
| Foard | 69% | 31% |
| Fort Bend | 47% | 53% |
| Franklin | 74% | 26% |
| Freestone | 71% | 29% |
| Frio | 47% | 53% |
| Gaines | 75% | 25% |
| Galveston | 58% | 42% |
| Garza | 74% | 26% |
| Gillespie | 72% | 28% |
| Glasscock | 80% | 20% |
| Goliad | 66% | 34% |
| Gonzales | 67% | 33% |
| Gray | 78% | 22% |
| Grayson | 69% | 31% |
| Gregg | 65% | 35% |
| Grimes | 68% | 32% |
| Guadalupe | 62% | 38% |
| Hale | 68% | 32% |
| Hall | 74% | 26% |
| Hamilton | 75% | 25% |
| Hansford | 78% | 22% |
| Hardeman | 72% | 28% |
| Hardin | 76% | 24% |
| Harris | 45% | 55% |
| Harrison | 66% | 34% |
| Hartley | 78% | 22% |
| Haskell | 72% | 28% |
| Hays | 50% | 50% |
| Hemphill | 77% | 23% |
| Henderson | 71% | 29% |
| Hidalgo | 35% | 65% |
| Hill | 70% | 30% |
| Hockley | 72% | 28% |
| Hood | 73% | 27% |
| Hopkins | 71% | 29% |
| Houston | 68% | 32% |
| Howard | 70% | 30% |
| Hudspeth | 58% | 42% |
| Hunt | 70% | 30% |
| Hutchinson | 77% | 23% |
| Irion | 76% | 24% |
| Jack | 78% | 22% |
| Jackson | 72% | 28% |
| Jasper | 71% | 29% |
| Jeff Davis | 58% | 42% |
| Jefferson | 50% | 50% |
| Jim Hogg | 29% | 71% |
| Jim Wells | 46% | 54% |
| Johnson | 71% | 29% |
| Jones | 73% | 27% |
| Karnes | 65% | 35% |
| Kaufman | 66% | 34% |
| Kendall | 72% | 28% |
| Kenedy | 46% | 54% |
| Kent | 75% | 25% |
| Kerr | 70% | 30% |
| Kimble | 77% | 23% |
| King | 82% | 18% |
| Kinney | 62% | 38% |
| Kleberg | 48% | 52% |
| Knox | 72% | 28% |
| La Salle | 45% | 55% |
| Lamar | 71% | 29% |
| Lamb | 70% | 30% |
| Lampasas | 71% | 29% |
| Lavaca | 75% | 25% |
| Lee | 69% | 31% |
| Leon | 76% | 24% |
| Liberty | 70% | 30% |
| Limestone | 68% | 32% |
| Lipscomb | 77% | 23% |
| Live Oak | 72% | 28% |
| Llano | 72% | 28% |
| Loving | 81% | 19% |
| Lubbock | 64% | 36% |
| Lynn | 70% | 30% |
| Madison | 70% | 30% |
| Marion | 65% | 35% |
| Martin | 74% | 26% |
| Mason | 72% | 28% |
| Matagorda | 64% | 36% |
| Maverick | 30% | 70% |
| McCulloch | 73% | 27% |
| McLennan | 59% | 41% |
| McMullen | 79% | 21% |
| Medina | 66% | 34% |
| Menard | 72% | 28% |
| Midland | 70% | 30% |
| Milam | 68% | 32% |
| Mills | 77% | 23% |
| Mitchell | 73% | 27% |
| Montague | 77% | 23% |
| Montgomery | 68% | 32% |
| Moore | 69% | 31% |
| Morris | 64% | 36% |
| Motley | 80% | 20% |
| Nacogdoches | 62% | 38% |
| Navarro | 67% | 33% |
| Newton | 68% | 32% |
| Nolan | 69% | 31% |
| Nueces | 50% | 50% |
| Ochiltree | 78% | 22% |
| Oldham | 79% | 21% |
| Orange | 72% | 28% |
| Palo Pinto | 72% | 28% |
| Panola | 72% | 28% |
| Parker | 74% | 26% |
| Parmer | 63% | 37% |
| Pecos | 58% | 42% |
| Polk | 70% | 30% |
| Potter | 65% | 35% |
| Presidio | 36% | 64% |
| Rains | 75% | 25% |
| Randall | 73% | 27% |
| Reagan | 72% | 28% |
| Real | 73% | 27% |
| Red River | 69% | 31% |
| Reeves | 47% | 53% |
| Refugio | 59% | 41% |
| Roberts | 82% | 18% |
| Robertson | 62% | 38% |
| Rockwall | 67% | 33% |
| Runnels | 76% | 24% |
| Rusk | 70% | 30% |
| Sabine | 76% | 24% |
| San Augustine | 66% | 34% |
| San Jacinto | 70% | 30% |
| San Patricio | 58% | 42% |
| San Saba | 76% | 24% |
| Schleicher | 71% | 29% |
| Scurry | 74% | 26% |
| Shackelford | 80% | 20% |
| Shelby | 71% | 29% |
| Sherman | 77% | 23% |
| Smith | 66% | 34% |
| Somervell | 75% | 25% |
| Starr | 28% | 72% |
| Stephens | 77% | 23% |
| Sterling | 76% | 24% |
| Stonewall | 71% | 29% |
| Sutton | 69% | 31% |
| Swisher | 69% | 31% |
| Tarrant | 53% | 47% |
| Taylor | 68% | 32% |
| Terrell | 62% | 38% |
| Terry | 67% | 33% |
| Throckmorton | 77% | 23% |
| Titus | 65% | 35% |
| Tom Green | 67% | 33% |
| Travis | 36% | 64% |
| Trinity | 71% | 29% |
| Tyler | 73% | 27% |
| Upshur | 74% | 26% |
| Upton | 68% | 32% |
| Uvalde | 54% | 46% |
| Val Verde | 46% | 54% |
| Van Zandt | 76% | 24% |
| Victoria | 64% | 36% |
| Walker | 62% | 38% |
| Waller | 60% | 40% |
| Ward | 68% | 32% |
| Washington | 68% | 32% |
| Webb | 32% | 68% |
| Wharton | 64% | 36% |
| Wheeler | 79% | 21% |
| Wichita | 68% | 32% |
| Wilbarger | 70% | 30% |
| Willacy | 36% | 64% |
| Williamson | 54% | 46% |
| Wilson | 67% | 33% |
| Winkler | 68% | 32% |
| Wise | 75% | 25% |
| Wood | 74% | 26% |
| Yoakum | 71% | 29% |
| Young | 76% | 24% |
| Zapata | 38% | 62% |
| Zavala | 29% | 71% |
((Players referenced: @TexAgRepublican))
0 Comments
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.