When will Texas become a swing state?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:03:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  When will Texas become a swing state?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: When will Texas become a swing state?  (Read 32856 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2010, 03:32:58 AM »

Election 2008 was painful for the Republican Party.

So was 1932, but that didn't mean the party was finished.

So you're saying that the GOP is going to be out of the White House for twenty years?  Wink
Logged
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,199
Faroe Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2010, 04:58:32 AM »

Election 2008 was painful for the Republican Party.

So was 1932, but that didn't mean the party was finished.

So you're saying that the GOP is going to be out of the White House for twenty years?  Wink

No. Are you? With a low-forties approval rating halfway through the first term?
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2010, 12:11:14 PM »

Election 2008 was painful for the Republican Party.

So was 1932, but that didn't mean the party was finished.

So you're saying that the GOP is going to be out of the White House for twenty years?  Wink

No. Are you? With a low-forties approval rating halfway through the first term?

Reagan and Clinton had the same ratings during their first half...
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2010, 12:47:14 PM »

Election 2008 was painful for the Republican Party.

So was 1932, but that didn't mean the party was finished.

So you're saying that the GOP is going to be out of the White House for twenty years?  Wink

No. Are you? With a low-forties approval rating halfway through the first term?

Never mind, you missed the point.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2010, 01:34:36 PM »

In the 2020s or 30s, though it will always lean Republican

"Always" is a hell of a long time.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2010, 01:57:48 PM »

Election 2008 was painful for the Republican Party.

So was 1932, but that didn't mean the party was finished.

So you're saying that the GOP is going to be out of the White House for twenty years?  Wink

No. Are you? With a low-forties approval rating halfway through the first term?

Reagan and Clinton had the same ratings during their first half...

Exactly, and so did Nixon and Truman. Yet all of them managed to have their approvals bounce back up by Election Day. If history is any guide, Obama will be reelected.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2010, 07:10:26 PM »

Not for a LONG time.  The State is big enough and Republican enough to where the Democrats need to roughly triple the Hispanic population to have Obama win it with 2008 Percentages.

Hispanics made up about 25% of Texas’ electorate, and voted for Obama 63-37.  Which means out of the roughly 8 Million Texas Voters in 2008, 2 Million were Hispanic, 1.26 Million voted for Obama, and .74 Million voted for McCain, giving Obama roughly 520,000 Vote edge from them.  McCain won the state by 940,000 Votes.

According to Chuck Todd’s and Sheldon Gawiser’s How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historical 2008 Presidential Election, Hispanics were 20% of the Texas vote. Yes, they voted 63% for Obama, but he won them by 28, not 26, points. Their turnout was the same, percentage wise, as in 2004. For Whites, 63% of them cast votes, and gave Obama 26%. In 2004, Whites in Texas were 66%, and they gave John Kerry 25%. That was just a 2% Democratic shift, but Whites were a 3% decline in the vote. Texas Blacks were 13% in 2008, and cast 98% for Obama, a 96-point margin. In 2004, Texas Blacks were 12%, and gave Kerry 83% of their vote with a 66-point margin over native son Bush.

In 2004, George W. Bush won males by 20% (60% to John Kerry’s 40%). 2008 John McCain — who carried Texas by a raw vote count of 950,695 — won them also by 20% (59% to Barack Obama’s 39%). The male vote rose by two percent, 47% in 2008. In 2004, Bush won females by 26% (63% to Kerry’s 37%). In 2008, McCain won the female vote by just 5% (52% to Obama’s 47%) — a 21-point decline in a state that, percentage wise, shifted 11.11%. The 2008 female vote turnout was a two-percent decline, 53%.


Race Breakdown Info (for 2008 Obama)Sad
• Whites 63 x .26 = 16.38%
• Hispanics 20 x .63 = 12.60%
• Blacks 13 x .98 = 12.74%

16.38% + 12.60% + 12.74% = 41.72%

(Election 2008 Result in Texas, for Obama: 43.63% to McCain’s 55.39%.)



Hypothetical Flip Scenarios (for 2012 Obama)Sad

Scenario A
• Whites 62 x .30 = 18.60%
• Hispanics 23 x .74 = 17.02%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 13.72%

(Result: 18.60% + 17.02% + 13.72% = 49.34%.)

Scenario B
• Whites 61 x .29 = 17.69%
• Hispanics 24 x .75 = 18.00%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 14.70%

(Result: 17.69% + 18.00% + 13.72% = 49.41%.)

Scenario C
• Whites 60 x .28 = 16.80%
• Hispanics 25 x .76 = 19.00%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 13.72%

(Result: 16.80% + 19.00% + 13.72% = 49.52%.)

Scenario D
• Whites 59 x .27 = 15.93%
• Hispanics 25 x .77 = 19.25%
• Blacks 15 x .98 = 14.70%

(Result: 15.93% + 19.25% + 14.70% = 49.88%.)

Scenario E
• Whites 58 x .26 = 15.08%
• Hispanics 25 x .77 = 19.25%
• Blacks 16 x .98 = 15.68%

(Result: 15.08% + 19.25% + 15.68% = 50.01%.)



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Reminder: Combined Texas 2008 vote for John McCain [55.39%] and Barack Obama [43.63%] was 99.02%.)

Additional Hispanic vote of, say, your initially stated 25 percent, would have put the state of Texas in play with in Election 2008 if that would have combined with a significant, say, 10-point Democratic shift of the White vote (compared to 2004).

What would have worked (for 2008 Obama)Sad 

• Whites [62] x [.35] = 21.70%
• Hispanics [25] x .63 = 16.25%
• Blacks [12] x .98 = 11.76%

(Result: 21.70% + 16.25% + 11.76% = 49.71%. This means that Obama would have flipped/carried Texas, over McCain’s 49.31%.)



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There’s a problem: This all doesn’t just rest on the shoulders of Hispanic voters and Blacks. Again, look at the demographics that are changing, nationally and with Texas, and look at the breakdown on the vote from Election 2008. You are attempting to paint a picture about Hispanics’ and Democrats’ limits, specifically with Texas, but I can paint one too as to why you’re wrong. Also, you haven’t written about the ground that’s been lost with the Republican Party — and with White voters, which also entails a breakdown with the age groups.

2004 Texas (Bush 61.09% • Kerry 38.22%; R+22.86%)Sad
• 18–29 (20): Bush 59% • Kerry  41% [R+18%]
• 30–44 (29): Bush 68% • Kerry 31% [R+37%]
• 45–64 (40): Bush 62% • Kerry 37% [R+25%]
• 65+ (11): Bush 52% • Kerry 48% [R+4%]

2008 Texas (McCain 55.39% •Obama 43.63%; R+11.76%; Shift D+11.76%)Sad
• 18–29 (16): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (31): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (39): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (14): McCain 66% • Obama 32% [R+34%; Shift R+30%]


In essence, this tells us that oldest age-voting group, 65 and over, had the biggest increased turnout (from 2004) and assured that John McCain would keep Texas in double-digit margins. But the next-to-youngest nearly flipped parties, and they were two-fifths the statewide vote.

Considering that native son Bush, in his re-election, performed poorly with over-65s, what if their vote would’ve been the same for McCain?

Single-digit margins (held for 2008 McCain)Sad 

• 18–29 (16): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (31): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (39): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (14): McCain 52% • Obama 48% [R+4%; Shift 0%]

18–29: 16 x .45 = 7.20%
30–44: 31 x .52 = 16.12%
45–64: 39 x .58 = 22.62%
65+: 14 x .52 =  7.28%

7.20% + 16.12% + 22.62% + 7.28% = 53.22%

(Result: McCain would have carried Texas over Obama’s 45.80%, by 7.42%.)


Now let’s use the above, with the 2004 Texas turnout:

• 18–29 (20): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (29): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (40): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (11): McCain 52% • Obama 48% [R+4%; Shift 0%]

18–29: 20 x .45 = 9.00%
30–44: 29 x .52 = 15.08%
45–64: 40 x .58 = 23.20%
65+: 11 x .52 =  5.72%

9.00% + 15.08% + 23.20% + 5.72% = 53.00%

(Result: McCain would have carried Texas over Obama’s 46.02%, by 6.98%.)



Now, Texas shifted harder in 2008 than then national average (by 1.38%). It is nowadays guaranteed to carry for a prevailing Republican presidential candidate — it has to. But If Obama wins re-election, in 2012, with less than 55% of the U.S. Popular Vote, it is apparent Texas won’t arbitrarily get flipped into his column. But if he gets 58% or 59% — rather than 56% or 57% tops — in the U.S. Popular Vote, well the state of Texas would indeed end up in play.


Logged
timmer123
Rookie
**
Posts: 139


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2010, 01:23:04 AM »

Once the children of illegal immigrant (who are themselves citizens) are old enough to vote. Texas went from 61% R in 2004 to 55% R in 2008, while the white vote remained at 75/25 R. As another poster would say, be patient.


This was because the "favorite son" vote actually helped Bush a lot in the Rio Grande valley (much less elsewhere); it is almost impossible to imagine Cameron County coming even close to voting for a Republican not from Texas, but it happily voted for Bush in 2004. In the long-term, yes, as the second and third generations grow up, the state will become more Democratic. However, this needs to be coupled with a weakening of the GOP in the suburbs to tip the state to the Democrats.

Happily voted for?  He won it by a margin of 1%  Fix your wordage dude.  Even if Bush being from Texas helped him in the border counties, they're not highly populated.

It's not a big deal we went from 61% to 55% in Texas.  We did worse in almost every state.  What do you expect.  As it stands now, Obama is highly unpopular in Texas.  We'll bounce back nicely in 2012.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2010, 04:26:50 PM »

Not for a LONG time.  The State is big enough and Republican enough to where the Democrats need to roughly triple the Hispanic population to have Obama win it with 2008 Percentages.

Hispanics made up about 25% of Texas’ electorate, and voted for Obama 63-37.  Which means out of the roughly 8 Million Texas Voters in 2008, 2 Million were Hispanic, 1.26 Million voted for Obama, and .74 Million voted for McCain, giving Obama roughly 520,000 Vote edge from them.  McCain won the state by 940,000 Votes.

According to Chuck Todd’s and Sheldon Gawiser’s How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historical 2008 Presidential Election, Hispanics were 20% of the Texas vote. Yes, they voted 63% for Obama, but he won them by 28, not 26, points. Their turnout was the same, percentage wise, as in 2004. For Whites, 63% of them cast votes, and gave Obama 26%. In 2004, Whites in Texas were 66%, and they gave John Kerry 25%. That was just a 2% Democratic shift, but Whites were a 3% decline in the vote. Texas Blacks were 13% in 2008, and cast 98% for Obama, a 96-point margin. In 2004, Texas Blacks were 12%, and gave Kerry 83% of their vote with a 66-point margin over native son Bush.

In 2004, George W. Bush won males by 20% (60% to John Kerry’s 40%). 2008 John McCain — who carried Texas by a raw vote count of 950,695 — won them also by 20% (59% to Barack Obama’s 39%). The male vote rose by two percent, 47% in 2008. In 2004, Bush won females by 26% (63% to Kerry’s 37%). In 2008, McCain won the female vote by just 5% (52% to Obama’s 47%) — a 21-point decline in a state that, percentage wise, shifted 11.11%. The 2008 female vote turnout was a two-percent decline, 53%.


Race Breakdown Info (for 2008 Obama)Sad
• Whites 63 x .26 = 16.38%
• Hispanics 20 x .63 = 12.60%
• Blacks 13 x .98 = 12.74%

16.38% + 12.60% + 12.74% = 41.72%

(Election 2008 Result in Texas, for Obama: 43.63% to McCain’s 55.39%.)



Hypothetical Flip Scenarios (for 2012 Obama)Sad

Scenario A
• Whites 62 x .30 = 18.60%
• Hispanics 23 x .74 = 17.02%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 13.72%

(Result: 18.60% + 17.02% + 13.72% = 49.34%.)

Scenario B
• Whites 61 x .29 = 17.69%
• Hispanics 24 x .75 = 18.00%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 14.70%

(Result: 17.69% + 18.00% + 13.72% = 49.41%.)

Scenario C
• Whites 60 x .28 = 16.80%
• Hispanics 25 x .76 = 19.00%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 13.72%

(Result: 16.80% + 19.00% + 13.72% = 49.52%.)

Scenario D
• Whites 59 x .27 = 15.93%
• Hispanics 25 x .77 = 19.25%
• Blacks 15 x .98 = 14.70%

(Result: 15.93% + 19.25% + 14.70% = 49.88%.)

Scenario E
• Whites 58 x .26 = 15.08%
• Hispanics 25 x .77 = 19.25%
• Blacks 16 x .98 = 15.68%

(Result: 15.08% + 19.25% + 15.68% = 50.01%.)



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Reminder: Combined Texas 2008 vote for John McCain [55.39%] and Barack Obama [43.63%] was 99.02%.)

Additional Hispanic vote of, say, your initially stated 25 percent, would have put the state of Texas in play with in Election 2008 if that would have combined with a significant, say, 10-point Democratic shift of the White vote (compared to 2004).

What would have worked (for 2008 Obama)Sad 

• Whites [62] x [.35] = 21.70%
• Hispanics [25] x .63 = 16.25%
• Blacks [12] x .98 = 11.76%

(Result: 21.70% + 16.25% + 11.76% = 49.71%. This means that Obama would have flipped/carried Texas, over McCain’s 49.31%.)



Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There’s a problem: This all doesn’t just rest on the shoulders of Hispanic voters and Blacks. Again, look at the demographics that are changing, nationally and with Texas, and look at the breakdown on the vote from Election 2008. You are attempting to paint a picture about Hispanics’ and Democrats’ limits, specifically with Texas, but I can paint one too as to why you’re wrong. Also, you haven’t written about the ground that’s been lost with the Republican Party — and with White voters, which also entails a breakdown with the age groups.

2004 Texas (Bush 61.09% • Kerry 38.22%; R+22.86%)Sad
• 18–29 (20): Bush 59% • Kerry  41% [R+18%]
• 30–44 (29): Bush 68% • Kerry 31% [R+37%]
• 45–64 (40): Bush 62% • Kerry 37% [R+25%]
• 65+ (11): Bush 52% • Kerry 48% [R+4%]

2008 Texas (McCain 55.39% •Obama 43.63%; R+11.76%; Shift D+11.76%)Sad
• 18–29 (16): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (31): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (39): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (14): McCain 66% • Obama 32% [R+34%; Shift R+30%]


In essence, this tells us that oldest age-voting group, 65 and over, had the biggest increased turnout (from 2004) and assured that John McCain would keep Texas in double-digit margins. But the next-to-youngest nearly flipped parties, and they were two-fifths the statewide vote.

Considering that native son Bush, in his re-election, performed poorly with over-65s, what if their vote would’ve been the same for McCain?

Single-digit margins (held for 2008 McCain)Sad 

• 18–29 (16): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (31): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (39): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (14): McCain 52% • Obama 48% [R+4%; Shift 0%]

18–29: 16 x .45 = 7.20%
30–44: 31 x .52 = 16.12%
45–64: 39 x .58 = 22.62%
65+: 14 x .52 =  7.28%

7.20% + 16.12% + 22.62% + 7.28% = 53.22%

(Result: McCain would have carried Texas over Obama’s 45.80%, by 7.42%.)


Now let’s use the above, with the 2004 Texas turnout:

• 18–29 (20): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (29): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (40): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (11): McCain 52% • Obama 48% [R+4%; Shift 0%]

18–29: 20 x .45 = 9.00%
30–44: 29 x .52 = 15.08%
45–64: 40 x .58 = 23.20%
65+: 11 x .52 =  5.72%

9.00% + 15.08% + 23.20% + 5.72% = 53.00%

(Result: McCain would have carried Texas over Obama’s 46.02%, by 6.98%.)



Now, Texas shifted harder in 2008 than then national average (by 1.38%). It is nowadays guaranteed to carry for a prevailing Republican presidential candidate — it has to. But If Obama wins re-election, in 2012, with less than 55% of the U.S. Popular Vote, it is apparent Texas won’t arbitrarily get flipped into his column. But if he gets 58% or 59% — rather than 56% or 57% tops — in the U.S. Popular Vote, well the state of Texas would indeed end up in play.




If there is to be any mass swing of white votes in Texas, then it will be in suburban counties surrounding Dallas and Houston. That includes about half of Tarrant County (Fort Worth) which is itself about half suburban. President Obama can completely forget  Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, and Wichita Falls, all large cities.

I was looking at the county-wide vote in Texas. Obama won Dallas (Dallas), Travis (Austin), Bexar (San Antonio), Harris (Houston), Jefferson (Beaumont), and El Paso (El Paso) Counties, and everything along the Mexican Border from about Eagle Pass. He lost Tarrant County (Fort Worth), but the county is heavily suburban (containing Arlington, one of the largest suburbs in America not in New York or California). He barely lost San Patricio County (Corpus Christi), which really is a large city, 

What Obama did not win in Texas that he won in most other states with giant cities is... suburban Texas. Aside from coming close to winning Fort Bend (near Houston) and Hays (near Austin) he lost the suburban rings of counties around Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. He was just simply clobbered in Denton, Collin, Rockwall,  and Ellis Counties near Dallas, Comal (near San Antonio), and Galveston (which is about half-suburban and half "Greater Galveston"). Some of those counties went about 75-25 for McCain. In the states that Obama won, with the arguable exception of Wisconsin, Obama did well in the suburbs.

If Obama had done as well in suburbs around Dallas and Houston as he did around, for example, Philadelphia or even St. Louis, then he would have won Texas. Of course Barack Obama did practically no campaigning in Texas after the primary campaign, so he never gave his pitch to suburbanites in Texas.

Obama did execrably in the northwestern third of the state, even losing Amarillo, Lubbock, and Wichita Falls (all cities over 100,000 people) and of course Midland and Odessa by huge margins.  Politically the area is much like western Nebraska even where it is urban.

Is Texas racist? Not especially. Much less than Mississippi or Alabama. Texas is one of few states with large Hispanic and African-American populations by proportion. Obama did campaign in the suburbs, much as he had to in Illinois, in those states tin which he did campaign.

This can be said: should Texas suburbanites vote in 2012 as did suburbanites in Ohio or Virginia did in 2008, then Obama wins Texas. Of course, President Obama will need to do well in suburban America outside Texas to win re-election. Core cities just aren't enough anymore. It is hard to see how Texas suburbanites are in any lesser economic stress than suburbanites in California or Pennsylvania. But without a mass shift of white suburban voters in the state, Obama still loses the state by about an 8% margin.

 
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2010, 04:45:47 PM »


If there is to be any mass swing of white votes in Texas, then it will be in suburban counties surrounding Dallas and Houston. That includes about half of Tarrant County (Fort Worth) which is itself about half suburban. President Obama can completely forget  Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, and Wichita Falls, all large cities.

I was looking at the county-wide vote in Texas. Obama won Dallas (Dallas), Travis (Austin), Bexar (San Antonio), Harris (Houston), Jefferson (Beaumont), and El Paso (El Paso) Counties, and everything along the Mexican Border from about Eagle Pass. He lost Tarrant County (Fort Worth), but the county is heavily suburban (containing Arlington, one of the largest suburbs in America not in New York or California). He barely lost San Patricio County (Corpus Christi), which really is a large city,  

What Obama did not win in Texas that he won in most other states with giant cities is... suburban Texas. Aside from coming close to winning Fort Bend (near Houston) and Hays (near Austin) he lost the suburban rings of counties around Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. He was just simply clobbered in Denton, Collin, Rockwall,  and Ellis Counties near Dallas, Comal (near San Antonio), and Galveston (which is about half-suburban and half "Greater Galveston"). Some of those counties went about 75-25 for McCain. In the states that Obama won, with the arguable exception of Wisconsin, Obama did well in the suburbs.

If Obama had done as well in suburbs around Dallas and Houston as he did around, for example, Philadelphia or even St. Louis, then he would have won Texas. Of course Barack Obama did practically no campaigning in Texas after the primary campaign, so he never gave his pitch to suburbanites in Texas.

Obama did execrably in the northwestern third of the state, even losing Amarillo, Lubbock, and Wichita Falls (all cities over 100,000 people) and of course Midland and Odessa by huge margins.  Politically the area is much like western Nebraska even where it is urban.

Is Texas racist? Not especially. Much less than Mississippi or Alabama. Texas is one of few states with large Hispanic and African-American populations by proportion. Obama did campaign in the suburbs, much as he had to in Illinois, in those states tin which he did campaign.

This can be said: should Texas suburbanites vote in 2012 as did suburbanites in Ohio or Virginia did in 2008, then Obama wins Texas. Of course, President Obama will need to do well in suburban America outside Texas to win re-election. Core cities just aren't enough anymore. It is hard to see how Texas suburbanites are in any lesser economic stress than suburbanites in California or Pennsylvania. But without a mass shift of white suburban voters in the state, Obama still loses the state by about an 8% margin.

 

I don't see Obama winning the suburbs in Texas in 2012. The Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth suburbs, as you noted, went strongly for McCain.  And counties like Montgomery (Houston suburbs) are very white, middle to upper class, and conservative in economic and social issues. The voters in places like Tarrant are angry at what they see as an overly liberal agenda.

One thing to note is that suburbs in the South (if you consider Texas especially Southern) are the historic bastions of Southern Republicanism.  These areas can be quite reactionary, for lack of a better term, and they are resistant to strong change that they perceive to be threatening. A lot of these areas also aren't urbanized culturally or economically like many Northern suburbs are.

If we look at Obama's strongest showings in suburban Texas, places like Tarrant County are on the list. Obama got just under 44 percent of the vote here-not bad for a conservative Southern suburban county, but still not close to winning. Kerry and Gore both got about 37 percent here.

I suspect that the GOP is wise enough in 2012 to run a ticket that doesn't alienate suburban voters like McCain/Palin did in 2008. If we consider 2008 to be an especially bad year for the GOP in suburbs, then 44 percent is probably close to the best that a Democrat can do in the Texas suburbs until major demographic changes occur in the Texas suburban electorate.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2010, 06:17:48 PM »


No, the GOP won't be bounding back as soon as 2012.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2010, 06:34:16 PM »


If there is to be any mass swing of white votes in Texas, then it will be in suburban counties surrounding Dallas and Houston. That includes about half of Tarrant County (Fort Worth) which is itself about half suburban. President Obama can completely forget  Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, and Wichita Falls, all large cities.

I was looking at the county-wide vote in Texas. Obama won Dallas (Dallas), Travis (Austin), Bexar (San Antonio), Harris (Houston), Jefferson (Beaumont), and El Paso (El Paso) Counties, and everything along the Mexican Border from about Eagle Pass. He lost Tarrant County (Fort Worth), but the county is heavily suburban (containing Arlington, one of the largest suburbs in America not in New York or California). He barely lost San Patricio County (Corpus Christi), which really is a large city,  

What Obama did not win in Texas that he won in most other states with giant cities is... suburban Texas. Aside from coming close to winning Fort Bend (near Houston) and Hays (near Austin) he lost the suburban rings of counties around Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. He was just simply clobbered in Denton, Collin, Rockwall,  and Ellis Counties near Dallas, Comal (near San Antonio), and Galveston (which is about half-suburban and half "Greater Galveston"). Some of those counties went about 75-25 for McCain. In the states that Obama won, with the arguable exception of Wisconsin, Obama did well in the suburbs.

If Obama had done as well in suburbs around Dallas and Houston as he did around, for example, Philadelphia or even St. Louis, then he would have won Texas. Of course Barack Obama did practically no campaigning in Texas after the primary campaign, so he never gave his pitch to suburbanites in Texas.

Obama did execrably in the northwestern third of the state, even losing Amarillo, Lubbock, and Wichita Falls (all cities over 100,000 people) and of course Midland and Odessa by huge margins.  Politically the area is much like western Nebraska even where it is urban.

Is Texas racist? Not especially. Much less than Mississippi or Alabama. Texas is one of few states with large Hispanic and African-American populations by proportion. Obama did campaign in the suburbs, much as he had to in Illinois, in those states tin which he did campaign.

This can be said: should Texas suburbanites vote in 2012 as did suburbanites in Ohio or Virginia did in 2008, then Obama wins Texas. Of course, President Obama will need to do well in suburban America outside Texas to win re-election. Core cities just aren't enough anymore. It is hard to see how Texas suburbanites are in any lesser economic stress than suburbanites in California or Pennsylvania. But without a mass shift of white suburban voters in the state, Obama still loses the state by about an 8% margin.

 

I don't see Obama winning the suburbs in Texas in 2012. The Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth suburbs, as you noted, went strongly for McCain.  And counties like Montgomery (Houston suburbs) are very white, middle to upper class, and conservative in economic and social issues. The voters in places like Tarrant are angry at what they see as an overly liberal agenda.

One thing to note is that suburbs in the South (if you consider Texas especially Southern) are the historic bastions of Southern Republicanism.  These areas can be quite reactionary, for lack of a better term, and they are resistant to strong change that they perceive to be threatening. A lot of these areas also aren't urbanized culturally or economically like many Northern suburbs are.

If we look at Obama's strongest showings in suburban Texas, places like Tarrant County are on the list. Obama got just under 44 percent of the vote here-not bad for a conservative Southern suburban county, but still not close to winning. Kerry and Gore both got about 37 percent here.

I suspect that the GOP is wise enough in 2012 to run a ticket that doesn't alienate suburban voters like McCain/Palin did in 2008. If we consider 2008 to be an especially bad year for the GOP in suburbs, then 44 percent is probably close to the best that a Democrat can do in the Texas suburbs until major demographic changes occur in the Texas suburban electorate.


I just don't see him campaigning in Texas in 2012. If the state is close then the 35 or so electoral votes mean the difference between about 400 and about 435 electoral votes,  implying the complete lack of need to do much campaigning anywhere. The only way in which Obama campaigns in Texas (unless for some embattled Democrat) is in desperation , when Texas is the difference between 230 and 275 electoral votes because he has mucked up badly as President -- much as John McCain made his quixotic last-minute campaigns in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

It is more likely that Obama wins back the poor-white"Clinton-but-not-Obama" voters who made the difference between Clinton wins in 1992 and 1996 and an Obama loss in 2008 in five states (AR, KY, LA, TN, WV) than that he wins Texas -- and I think that the New Orleans-to-Wheeling arc is gone for the Democrats.   
Logged
DariusNJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 414


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2010, 09:07:18 PM »

If the suburbs stop being so damn Republican. Also, I believe McCain got over 30% in Houston and San Antonio, so it's not like those cities provide a ridiculous margin of votes for the Democrat. And Hispanics in Texas are slightly more Republican than in most other states.
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2010, 09:17:21 PM »

If the suburbs stop being so damn Republican. Also, I believe McCain got over 30% in Houston and San Antonio, so it's not like those cities provide a ridiculous margin of votes for the Democrat. And Hispanics in Texas are slightly more Republican than in most other states.

He actually got about 38% in Houston, and 42% in San Antonio.  The biggest reason the Democrats do so poorly is because they are held to such low margins in the big cities that they usually dominate in.
Logged
DariusNJ
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 414


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2010, 05:54:03 PM »

If the suburbs stop being so damn Republican. Also, I believe McCain got over 30% in Houston and San Antonio, so it's not like those cities provide a ridiculous margin of votes for the Democrat. And Hispanics in Texas are slightly more Republican than in most other states.

He actually got about 38% in Houston, and 42% in San Antonio.  The biggest reason the Democrats do so poorly is because they are held to such low margins in the big cities that they usually dominate in.

Yeah, that was the point I was making...Wink
Logged
Deldem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2010, 08:25:51 PM »

If the suburbs stop being so damn Republican. Also, I believe McCain got over 30% in Houston and San Antonio, so it's not like those cities provide a ridiculous margin of votes for the Democrat. And Hispanics in Texas are slightly more Republican than in most other states.

He actually got about 38% in Houston, and 42% in San Antonio.  The biggest reason the Democrats do so poorly is because they are held to such low margins in the big cities that they usually dominate in.
Something one should note is that Texas cities aren't quite like those in the Northeast- they sprawl out in a ridiculously huge way. I'm way out in the Houston suburbs, but I travel less than one mile away and I'm technically in Houston, even though the whole area is comprised of wealthy white conservatives. I bet if the suburbs that comprise a surprisingly large portion of Houston and San Antonio were removed the margins would be similar to other big cities.
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2010, 11:32:46 PM »
« Edited: August 18, 2010, 11:34:23 PM by Dgov »

Something one should note is that Texas cities aren't quite like those in the Northeast- they sprawl out in a ridiculously huge way. I'm way out in the Houston suburbs, but I travel less than one mile away and I'm technically in Houston, even though the whole area is comprised of wealthy white conservatives. I bet if the suburbs that comprise a surprisingly large portion of Houston and San Antonio were removed the margins would be similar to other big cities.

Speaking as a Californian whose knowledge of Texas Demographics is limited to what i can find on the Internet, I think it's more that Houston just doesn't have many Liberal Whites.  There are only a handful of White-majority districts that went for Obama in 2008, and they are almost all in Neartown and central Houston, basically.  There's no Chicago's North Side, no Manhattan Island, no West LA, etc which is why a city that is only about 30% White votes 38% Republican.  Though having heavily Republican Suburbs (North Houston is like 80% Republican from what I can tell) does certainly help.

San Antonio on the other hand, only leans Democratic because there's really not many black voters there.  When Republicans win the White vote by only a little less than they lose the Hispanic vote in a city that's about 60-40 Hispanic, elections tend to be very close.  And just by removing about 500,000 people's worth of the blackest parts of Houston (best estimates here, basically South, NW and parts of the NE), leaves the City 50-50.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2010, 07:16:13 PM »

I would say it won't become a swing state because the GOP will come to its senses and start trying to attract Latino voters again.

Am I being hopelessly optimistic?
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2010, 09:26:09 PM »

I would say it won't become a swing state because the GOP will come to its senses and start trying to attract Latino voters again.

Am I being hopelessly optimistic?

If the Republican party would start taking them seriously and campagin for their votes, they will.  Texas Hispanics supported Bush 50-49 after he committed the ultimate GOP taboo and actually tried to win their votes the old fashioned way.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2010, 04:22:08 AM »

Something one should note is that Texas cities aren't quite like those in the Northeast- they sprawl out in a ridiculously huge way. I'm way out in the Houston suburbs, but I travel less than one mile away and I'm technically in Houston, even though the whole area is comprised of wealthy white conservatives. I bet if the suburbs that comprise a surprisingly large portion of Houston and San Antonio were removed the margins would be similar to other big cities.

Speaking as a Californian whose knowledge of Texas Demographics is limited to what i can find on the Internet, I think it's more that Houston just doesn't have many Liberal Whites.  There are only a handful of White-majority districts that went for Obama in 2008, and they are almost all in Neartown and central Houston, basically.  There's no Chicago's North Side, no Manhattan Island, no West LA, etc which is why a city that is only about 30% White votes 38% Republican.  Though having heavily Republican Suburbs (North Houston is like 80% Republican from what I can tell) does certainly help.

San Antonio on the other hand, only leans Democratic because there's really not many black voters there.  When Republicans win the White vote by only a little less than they lose the Hispanic vote in a city that's about 60-40 Hispanic, elections tend to be very close.  And just by removing about 500,000 people's worth of the blackest parts of Houston (best estimates here, basically South, NW and parts of the NE), leaves the City 50-50.
Doesn't help that the older (majority) white working class areas, where Democrats do decent (though don't dominate a la Manhattan, obviously), are mostly outside the city limits.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2010, 05:15:32 PM »

I would say it won't become a swing state because the GOP will come to its senses and start trying to attract Latino voters again.

Am I being hopelessly optimistic?


Arizona is a piss-poor way to start. And attempting to instigate hate (and even hate crimes) against Muslims (their latest target) isn't going to draw more non-whites to Republicans. And, believe it or not, the GOP will lose further ground with white voters for Election 2012.

So Texas (R-11.76% margin for 2008 John McCain), as intriguing as it is to speculate on whether it may be a battleground for 2012, is gravy.
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2010, 05:44:16 PM »

how will it lose further ground with white voters?
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2010, 07:04:06 PM »

Well, given that he has a 65% Disapproval rating in the state, i don't think Texas is going to be competitive for the Democrats anytime soon.  After all, Bill White is down 9 points to Rick Perry.  Those aren't numbers that build confidence in Obama's chances in 2012
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2010, 10:19:51 PM »

Well, given that he has a 65% Disapproval rating in the state, i don't think Texas is going to be competitive for the Democrats anytime soon.  After all, Bill White is down 9 points to Rick Perry.  Those aren't numbers that build confidence in Obama's chances in 2012

You don't have a good point. A gubernatorial race in a midterm election isn't a harbinger for the next presidential election. (Side note: Rick Perry won re-election in 2006 by 9.24%. Considering the shift favoring the opposition White House party, and in a state that many believe is not possibly a potential presidential battleground, Perry should be winning this year by double his previous margin.)
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2010, 12:00:22 AM »

Around the same time that Massachusetts becomes a swing state.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 11 queries.