Abbott started 2026 with $105 million. He raised another $28 million. He is down to $67 million. He has launched tens of millions in advertising. Some polling has nevertheless tightened. At the same time, he is promoting an affordability agenda, pressing the Trump administration over potentially $12 billion in Medicaid funding, and still waiting for billions in federal reimbursement for Operation Lone Star.
_______________
Greg Abbott has been governor of Texas since 2015. He has statewide name recognition, a political organization built over more than a decade, and, using the latest campaign-finance figures, about $67 million available compared with roughly $3 million for Democratic challenger Gina Hinojosa.
Yet a Texas Pulse poll discussed here in July had Abbott at 46 percent and Hinojosa at 45 percent.
One point.
Other polls have shown Abbott with larger leads, so one poll should not be treated as proof of where the election will finish. But put that number beside everything else that has happened during the past few months, and it becomes more interesting.
Hinojosa Has Hardly Run a Traditional Statewide Blitz
This is what makes the number particularly curious.
I recently criticized Hinojosa for what I called her “uncampaign.” She has traveled, advertised, and appeared at events, but her campaign has not shown anything resembling the intensity of James Talarico’s Senate campaign or Bobby Pulido’s congressional campaign. Abbott, meanwhile, has money, organization and three terms of statewide exposure.
Hinojosa even had another warning sign: the University of Texas polling discussed in that article showed her roughly even with Abbott among Hispanic registered voters, while Talarico was doing considerably better against Ken Paxton with the same group.
So if Abbott can find himself only one point ahead in a poll despite those advantages, the obvious analytical question is whether the number reflects enthusiasm for Hinojosa or dissatisfaction with Abbott.
The history collected in these articles points toward the second possibility being worth examining.
Abbott Suddenly Discovered Affordability
By August, Abbott’s campaign behavior had changed noticeably.
On August 4 came an initiative aimed at electric bills. August 5 brought housing proposals. On August 6, his campaign announced a $10 million statewide television buy. Then came proposals involving education, property taxes, and other issues. By August 20, he was traveling the state promoting a five-point property-tax proposal.
None of those problems suddenly appeared in August 2026. Abbott had already been governor for more than eleven years.
Expensive electricity existed before August. Property taxes existed before August. Insurance costs existed before August. Problems in Texas public schools existed before August.
But suddenly affordability was everywhere in the governor’s campaign.
That does not prove Abbott’s internal polling shows political danger. Campaigns spend money and incumbents campaign. But a governor who says August polling does not matter was simultaneously buying $10 million in television advertising and producing an unusually rapid series of policy announcements.
Then Came the Data-Center Reversal
Data centers provide another example.
Texas spent years welcoming enormous data-center projects and providing qualifying facilities with sales-tax exemptions lasting 10, 15 or even 20 years. The figures collected in an earlier article were striking: of 138 data centers receiving the tax break, only 20 had been audited; six of those were out of compliance, and at least four had failed to create the required jobs. The state estimated the exemptions could cost roughly $3.2 billion in sales-tax revenue over two years.
Then Texans began worrying about something else: electricity, water, transmission lines and the costs of infrastructure needed to support those enormous facilities.
Abbott changed direction.
He began saying data centers should provide more of their own infrastructure, conserve water and pay more of their own costs. At an August legislative hearing, public interest was so intense that officials opened two overflow rooms.
One of my earlier articles also noted that Abbott donors identified as having interests connected to the data-center boom included Ed Roski Jr., who had contributed $1 million, and Kelcy Warren, who had contributed $500,000. That does not establish that a contribution bought a policy decision, and there is no evidence cited in the article of a quid pro quo. But it adds another layer to the public debate over who benefited from Texas’s earlier data-center policies and who would bear their infrastructure costs.
Ordinary Texans Keep Appearing on the Other Side of the Bill
That is a theme running through several of these stories.
After Winter Storm Uri, Texas approved billions in financing associated with extraordinary natural-gas costs, with utility customers ultimately paying charges through their bills. The official death toll from the storm was 246.
Another article examined Abbott’s proposal to eliminate property taxes. Research cited there calculated that replacing Texas property-tax revenue entirely through sales taxes would require raising the state sales-tax rate from 6.25 percent to about 22 percent. Texas local governments had collected about $82 billion in property taxes in 2023.
The basic problem does not disappear because a tax is eliminated. Government either spends less or finds the money somewhere else.
Then there are corporate incentives. Texas has offered billions in potential tax benefits to data centers while questions have emerged about electricity, water, and whether promised jobs were actually created.
The broadband program raised a different set of questions. Texas lawmakers were told that payment terms were changed specifically for low-Earth-orbit satellite providers shortly before grants were awarded, and the director of the Broadband Development Office testified that the request to reconsider the payment structure came from Abbott’s office. The state subsequently ordered an audit.
Again, none of that by itself proves wrongdoing. It does, however, give voters concrete government decisions involving their taxes, electric bills, and public money to evaluate.
And Then There Are Workers
The newest example involves HB 2127, signed by Abbott in 2023.
That law prevented cities from maintaining certain local workplace requirements, including Austin and Dallas ordinances requiring construction workers to receive at least a ten-minute break every four hours. Texas still has no statewide heat-rest requirement replacing those local protections.
The research described in that article found that 75 percent of the Texas construction workers observed reported at least one heat-related illness symptom; every worker had at least one urine measurement indicating severe dehydration; 44 percent had blood detected in their urine; and 12 percent showed indicators consistent with possible rhabdomyolysis.
The research does not establish that HB 2127 caused a particular worker’s kidney disease or death. But the policy has become part of a broader debate about whether Texas has balanced statewide business regulation against worker protection appropriately.
Even Border Security Has Produced an Unexpected Vulnerability
Abbott has made border security central to his governorship.
Yet another article documented warnings from Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller as New World screwworm moved north through Mexico. By June, cases had been confirmed in Texas, including a calf in La Salle County and a dog in Andrews County. Miller said officials had known the threat was moving north and had pushed for greater preparation.
Whatever voters conclude about responsibility, it created another issue involving state preparedness, agriculture and the border at a time when Abbott was already defending his record on costs, schools and infrastructure.
So What Does the One-Point Poll Mean?
By itself, not much. It is one poll, and other polling cited in these same articles has shown Abbott ahead by six or seven points.
But the political circumstances surrounding that poll are unusual.
Abbott has the money. He has the name recognition. He has the organization. He has occupied the governor’s office for more than eleven years.
Hinojosa has far less money and, as I wrote only days ago, has not yet conducted the kind of relentless statewide campaign one might expect from a challenger trying to defeat a three-term incumbent.
Meanwhile Abbott has purchased $10 million in television advertising, accelerated his travel and policy announcements, made affordability a major campaign issue and shifted his position toward greater restrictions on data centers after public opposition increased.
That leaves the question in the headline.
Greg Abbott has roughly $67 million. Gina Hinojosa has roughly $3 million.
If one Texas poll can nevertheless put them at 46 percent to 45 percent, perhaps the most interesting thing about that poll isn’t Gina Hinojosa.
Perhaps it is what Texans are saying about the governor they already know.
