When will Texas become a swing state?

[Senator Sbane]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

Right...lower costs of living/pay don't have anything to do with it.

[Dgov]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

Right...lower costs of living/pay don't have anything to do with it.

Of course, which is why states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa (which all have roughly the same cost of living) are all experiencing large economic booms and population influxes comparable to Texas.

[Senator Sbane]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

Right...lower costs of living/pay don't have anything to do with it.

Of course, which is why states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa (which all have roughly the same cost of living) are all experiencing large economic booms and population influxes comparable to Texas.

Indiana is an interesting addition on to the list, wouldn't you say? It detracts from the point I think you are trying to make.

If you are trying to say that the Midwest is shrinking even in spite of low costs of living due to the gutting of manufacturing in America, then I would agree with you.

[The Head Beagle]

In response to the claim that Texas has been outperforming California in recent years, it will be useful to consider some data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis put into handy chart form by the notably non-socialistic publication The Economist:

[Beet]

In response to the claim that Texas has been outperforming California in recent years, it will be useful to consider some data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis put into handy chart form by the notably non-socialistic publication The Economist:

That's even more impressive because California is a higher income state to begin with. I generally argue that the so called woes of blue states such as New York, Illinois and California are all relative because they start out with a higher per capita income.

[phk]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

Right...lower costs of living/pay don't have anything to do with it.

Of course, which is why states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa (which all have roughly the same cost of living) are all experiencing large economic booms and population influxes comparable to Texas.

Indiana is an interesting addition on to the list, wouldn't you say? It detracts from the point I think you are trying to make.

If you are trying to say that the Midwest is shrinking even in spite of low costs of living due to the gutting of manufacturing in America, then I would agree with you.

Manufacturing output hasn't really been gutted. Just the labor previously employed.

[phk]

In response to the claim that Texas has been outperforming California in recent years, it will be useful to consider some data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis put into handy chart form by the notably non-socialistic publication The Economist:

That's even more impressive because California is a higher income state to begin with. I generally argue that the so called woes of blue states such as New York, Illinois and California are all relative because they start out with a higher per capita income.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128997.0

[Senator Sbane]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

Right...lower costs of living/pay don't have anything to do with it.

Of course, which is why states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa (which all have roughly the same cost of living) are all experiencing large economic booms and population influxes comparable to Texas.

Indiana is an interesting addition on to the list, wouldn't you say? It detracts from the point I think you are trying to make.

If you are trying to say that the Midwest is shrinking even in spite of low costs of living due to the gutting of manufacturing in America, then I would agree with you.

Manufacturing output hasn't really been gutted. Just the labor previously employed.

Sure that may be the case. It still leads to high unemployment and doesn't detract from my point though. 

[phk]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

Right...lower costs of living/pay don't have anything to do with it.

Of course, which is why states like Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa (which all have roughly the same cost of living) are all experiencing large economic booms and population influxes comparable to Texas.

Indiana is an interesting addition on to the list, wouldn't you say? It detracts from the point I think you are trying to make.

If you are trying to say that the Midwest is shrinking even in spite of low costs of living due to the gutting of manufacturing in America, then I would agree with you.

Manufacturing output hasn't really been gutted. Just the labor previously employed.

Sure that may be the case. It still leads to high unemployment and doesn't detract from my point though.  

I ran a crude regression on net domestic migration from 2000-2009 and using a 2006 cost of living index as a measure of average (bad on my part, but that data is pretty hard to come by).

The R^2s' weren't that great but they do have some correlation.

I basically yielded:

. reg  DomesticNetMigration20002009 AverageCOL

      Source |       SS       df       MS              Number of obs =      50
-------------+------------------------------           F(  1,    48) =    8.64
       Model |  1.5712e+12     1  1.5712e+12           Prob > F      =  0.0050
    Residual |  8.7312e+12    48  1.8190e+11           R-squared     =  0.1525
-------------+------------------------------           Adj R-squared =  0.1349
       Total |  1.0302e+13    49  2.1025e+11           Root MSE      =  4.3e+05

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dom~20002009 |      Coef.   Std. Err.      t    P>|t|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
  AverageCOL |  -11444.81   3894.052    -2.94   0.005    -19274.32   -3615.289
       _cons |    1188414   408547.1     2.91   0.005     366974.8     2009853

Summ

    Variable |       Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
       State |         0
Dom~20002009 |        50      832.12    458533.5   -1686583    1182974
  AverageCOL |        50     103.766    15.64643       88.5      161.3

DomesticNetMigration20002009 = 1188414 + (-11444.81*B1)

[phk]

Added GDPChange20082009 as a third variable.

. reg  DomesticNetMigration20002009 AverageCOL GDPChange20082009

      Source |       SS       df       MS              Number of obs =      50
-------------+------------------------------           F(  2,    47) =    4.29
       Model |  1.5892e+12     2  7.9460e+11           Prob > F      =  0.0195
    Residual |  8.7132e+12    47  1.8539e+11           R-squared     =  0.1543
-------------+------------------------------           Adj R-squared =  0.1183
       Total |  1.0302e+13    49  2.1025e+11           Root MSE      =  4.3e+05

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dom~20002009 |      Coef.   Std. Err.      t    P>|t|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
  AverageCOL |  -11613.92   3968.589    -2.93   0.005    -19597.69   -3630.149
GDP~20082009 |  -7792.759   25039.33    -0.31   0.757    -58165.39    42579.87
       _cons |    1196315   413226.3     2.90   0.006     365010.7     2027619
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. reg  DomesticNetMigration20002009 GDPChange20082009

      Source |       SS       df       MS              Number of obs =      50
-------------+------------------------------           F(  1,    48) =    0.01
       Model |  1.5126e+09     1  1.5126e+09           Prob > F      =  0.9334
    Residual |  1.0301e+13    48  2.1460e+11           R-squared     =  0.0001
-------------+------------------------------           Adj R-squared = -0.0207
       Total |  1.0302e+13    49  2.1025e+11           Root MSE      =  4.6e+05

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dom~20002009 |      Coef.   Std. Err.      t    P>|t|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
GDP~20082009 |   2240.464   26686.39     0.08   0.933    -51416.12    55897.04
       _cons |   3605.814   73372.53     0.05   0.961    -143919.5    151131.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. reg  AverageCOL GDPChange20082009

      Source |       SS       df       MS              Number of obs =      50
-------------+------------------------------           F(  1,    48) =    0.92
       Model |  224.893475     1  224.893475           Prob > F      =  0.3430
    Residual |  11770.8386    48  245.225804           R-squared     =  0.0187
-------------+------------------------------           Adj R-squared = -0.0017
       Total |  11995.7321    49  244.810859           Root MSE      =   15.66

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  AverageCOL |      Coef.   Std. Err.      t    P>|t|     [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
GDP~20082009 |  -.8638963   .9021033    -0.96   0.343    -2.677697     .949904
       _cons |   102.6965   2.480276    41.41   0.000     97.70957    107.6834
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Old Europe]

When will Texas become a swing state?

… 2012.

That is so comically bad, it's going in the Hackery Goldmine.

In 2006, wouldn't have most people laughed off the idea that Obama is going to win Virginia and Indiana only two years later?

At this point, I certainly wouldn't bet a dime on Texas going Democratic in '12. I'm just saying that things sometimes change rather quickly and dramatic.

[Communists For McCain]

When will Texas become a swing state?

… 2012.

That is so comically bad, it's going in the Hackery Goldmine.

In 2006, wouldn't have most people laughed off the idea that Obama is going to win Virginia and Indiana only two years later?

At this point, I certainly wouldn't bet a dime on Texas going Democratic in '12. I'm just saying that things sometimes change rather quickly and dramatic.

I have to agree with Old Europe on this one.  I mean if the internet existed in 1982 how many of us would take predictions that Reagan would win Rhode Island without the presence of a strong third party candidate seriously?

[albaleman]

When will Texas become a swing state?

… 2012.

That is so comically bad, it's going in the Hackery Goldmine.

In 2006, wouldn't have most people laughed off the idea that Obama is going to win Virginia and Indiana only two years later?

At this point, I certainly wouldn't bet a dime on Texas going Democratic in '12. I'm just saying that things sometimes change rather quickly and dramatic.

I have to agree with Old Europe on this one.  I mean if the internet existed in 1982 how many of us would take predictions that Reagan would win Rhode Island without the presence of a strong third party candidate seriously?

The question is not whether Texas will vote Democratic in 2012, which is possible if the economy gets SIGNIFICANTLY better and/or the Republicans nominate a nut like Palin. The question is, when will it become a swing state? That will take much longer.

[Sibboleth]

Texas elects people nuttier than Palin all the time.

[albaleman]

Texas elects people nuttier than Palin all the time.

Still, in a big anti-Palin landslide, there's a respectable chance it could go Democratic.

[5280/East California]

Man, you guys are way off topic in this thread. It has nothing to do with Palin, and somebody decides to bring her in.  Wow, all bunch of DEM hackjobs.

[albaleman]

Man, you guys are way off topic in this thread. It has nothing to do with Palin, and somebody decides to bring her in.  Wow, all bunch of DEM hackjobs.

No, what I'm saying is that, if Palin is nominated and/or the economy gets much better, Texas could vote for the Dems. That doesn't make it a swing state.

[Thomas D]

2020. Or there abouts.

[Sam Spade]

This thread is fast becoming one of the more amusing joke threads on this forum.  Keep it going.

[freepcrusher]

Texas is an interesting state to look at. I have many things to say about it

1. There seems to be an imaginary line between Baptist and Catholics. I would say it is the 31st parallel which runs through Round Rock. If the area south of Round Rock was a state, Obama would probably get 50-52 percent. The reason Obama did well in those areas is because of the amount of Catholics there who tend to be more democratic. If the area north of Round Rock was a state, McCain wins about 61 percent. Baptists, on the other hand, tend to be a lot more republican than Catholics.

2. There is a strange phenomenon between rural and urban. Jimmy Carter won Texas by 3-4 points in 1976, but lost Harris County by 5 points and Dallas County by 13-14 points. He made up for it by getting over 60 percent in many of the rural counties. The situation is different now. Obama won Dallas County by 15 points and Harris by 2 points, but struggled to get 35 or even 30 percent in many of the rural areas.

3. Texas is the Republican equivalent of Vermont. Vermont is a state that used to be solidly republican and Texas used to be solidly democrat. But there was something that caused Vermont to turn democratic, just as there was something that turned Texas republican. In that case, Texas is a reactionary conservative state just as Vermont is a reactionary liberal state.

4. Most of the suburban counties (like Collin County) are off limits. People in Plano or Frisco make people in Orange County look liberal. But there are a few suburban areas where democrats will eventually win. Fort Bend County is very diverse with many whites, blacks (especially in Missouri City), Hispanics, and Asians/Indians. Obama and White lost it by less than 5 percent and will be the first suburban county to go Democrat. Hays and Williamson are both surrounded by Austin. Williamson may be a little harder to turn democrat, but Hays I can see turning democrat by the end of the decade. It was Kerry's best suburban county in 04.

[Applezz]

It's pretty simple. A lot of it has to do with the political atmosphere. According in a Rasmussen Reports poll in September 2010, 61% of the state disapproves of Obama. RR is pretty accurate in recent years. 61% is in the range of Bush 04 despite the fact that it was his home son. McCain got 55% in a year Obama got 53% nationwide. Had Obama got 60% nationwide, he probably would have carried Texas. If McCain won the election nationwide, with a better performance than Bush in 04, he deff would have gotten over 60% in Texas. Assuming the Hispanic trend continues with Democrats getting over 60% of the hispanic vote, I would say maybe in two-three decades Texas would get similar results with the nationwide electorate. For example, if a Democrat wins nationwide with 51%, he/she would win Texas. It's like how Obama won Virginia with 53%, same percentage as nationwide.

[Communists For McCain]

Texas is an interesting state to look at. I have many things to say about it

1. There seems to be an imaginary line between Baptist and Catholics. I would say it is the 31st parallel which runs through Round Rock. If the area south of Round Rock was a state, Obama would probably get 50-52 percent. The reason Obama did well in those areas is because of the amount of Catholics there who tend to be more democratic. If the area north of Round Rock was a state, McCain wins about 61 percent. Baptists, on the other hand, tend to be a lot more republican than Catholics.

2. There is a strange phenomenon between rural and urban. Jimmy Carter won Texas by 3-4 points in 1976, but lost Harris County by 5 points and Dallas County by 13-14 points. He made up for it by getting over 60 percent in many of the rural counties. The situation is different now. Obama won Dallas County by 15 points and Harris by 2 points, but struggled to get 35 or even 30 percent in many of the rural areas.

3. Texas is the Republican equivalent of Vermont. Vermont is a state that used to be solidly republican and Texas used to be solidly democrat. But there was something that caused Vermont to turn democratic, just as there was something that turned Texas republican. In that case, Texas is a reactionary conservative state just as Vermont is a reactionary liberal state.

4. Most of the suburban counties (like Collin County) are off limits. People in Plano or Frisco make people in Orange County look liberal. But there are a few suburban areas where democrats will eventually win. Fort Bend County is very diverse with many whites, blacks (especially in Missouri City), Hispanics, and Asians/Indians. Obama and White lost it by less than 5 percent and will be the first suburban county to go Democrat. Hays and Williamson are both surrounded by Austin. Williamson may be a little harder to turn democrat, but Hays I can see turning democrat by the end of the decade. It was Kerry's best suburban county in 04.

Great analysis.
Welcome to the forum (granted it's your 54th post but I am pretty ignorant when it comes to meeting newbs).