Gallup: "Texas likely to stay red for the foreseeable future"

[eric82oslo]

Gallup 2013 conclusion on voters in Texas: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167339/texan-hispanics-tilt-democratic-state-likely-stay-red.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Gallup points out a number of reasons as to why Texas is likely to stay Republican in what it calls the "foreseeable future", probably meaning something like the next 2, 3 or 4 presidential elections. Their reasoning goes like this:

1. Texas Hispanics are much less Democratic than nationwide. Their Democratic margin is 30% in the other 49 states, but only 19% in Texas.

2. Texas Hispanics have become much more Republican over the span of the last 5 years, even relative to the national trend (and even despite Romney's self-deportation comment & the hostility of the Arizona governor towards them)

3. Texas whites are way more Republican than nationwide. Their Republican margin is only 10% in the other 49 states, but a strong 35% in Texas.

4. Texas whites have become even more Republican over the span of the last 5 years, even trending harder than the national trend for whites

5. Texas whites are much more Republican than Texas Hispanics are Democratic. Texas whites are 61% Republican, while Texas Hispanics are "only" 46% Democratic. Texas Republicans lean Republican by a whooping 35% margin, while Texas Hispanics lean Democratic by "only" a 19% margin.

6. Texas whites are almost twice as likely to be registered voters than Hispanics are. In 2013, 82% of non-latino whites were registered, compared to only 43% of the state's Hispanics.

7. Texas Hispanics are much less likely to be registered voters than Hispanics nationwide. The average percentage of registered Hispanics is 50% in the other 49 states, compared to the lackluster 43% among Texas Hispanics.

8. Still, even in 2013, non-latino whites made up an impressive 64% of the entire registered voting pool. At the same time, the state's Hispanics only made up 19% of the same pool. That's an astonishing difference in whites' favor by no less than a 45% margin, meaning that for every Hispanic voter, there will be more than three non-latino white voters voting as well.


Personally, I think that last argument - that whites still make up more than a 3-1 difference in the voting pool vis-a-vis Hispanics is the most compelling argument of them all. I think Hispanics need to make up at least 35% of the voting pool before the state will become really competitive. At least as long as Texas Hispanics don't identify themselves with Democrats at a higher rate than they do now.

[windjammer]

Yes!!!! I don't want this state.

[eric82oslo]

Yes!!!! I don't want this state.

lol

The moment Texas turns, armaggedon is near, am I right?

[Unimog]

I don't think that (in our times) that is possible (and good) for one party to get the EV's of the 7 biggest states in the union.

texas is needed as a counterpart for democratic Caalifornia.

[Frodo]

It's probably for the best that we focus our attention on winning Florida as opposed to Texas, then. 

[Skill and Chance]

Agreed.  Florida and Georgia are where it's at.  Maybe Arizona after the Obama lawsuit backlash dissipates.

[Blue3]

Something very simple could easily help level the playing field in Texas... universal voter registration (and updating). Then you would just need a stronger political machine in Texas for GOTV, and bam, it will be competitive.

[eric82oslo]

Something very simple could easily help level the playing field in Texas... universal voter registration (and updating). Then you would just need a stronger political machine in Texas for GOTV, and bam, it will be competitive.

Definitely! In a political-technological sense, the US still lives in the 19th century. I mean, even a country as Chile has universal voter registration. A country that only 25 years ago was living under an infamous military dictatorship.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Something very simple could easily help level the playing field in Texas... universal voter registration (and updating). Then you would just need a stronger political machine in Texas for GOTV, and bam, it will be competitive.

It is in the political interest of a certain major party for voter turnout to be low...

[BMF1980]

Was this the same Gallup that said Romney would win the 2012 election by 7 points?  Gallup still has a lot of work to do before I trust their polls again. 

[hopper]

Was this the same Gallup that said Romney would win the 2012 election by 7 points?  Gallup still has a lot of work to do before I trust their polls again.  

No Gallup had 2 different models for the 2012 Presidential Election: The Likely Voter Model which indicated Romney was up by 3-4 points I think. I don't remember Romney being up by 7 in Gallup.

There was also the Registered Voter Model where Obama was up 49-48% which was close to the actual result of 51-47%.

[Mr. Illini]

I don't think the Dems are as close in Texas as they like to think they are.

Regardless, should Texas ever go Democrat in a non-landslide, the game is over for the GOP.

[crash1984]

I have never really bought the whole "Texas is turning blue" thing.  Once you get outside the major cities there are a lot of suburbs that not only are red but they are dark red. Any success a Democrat has in major cities is easily swallowed up by the suburbs of said city. Case in point Obama only won Harris County which includes Houston by about 975 votes. Then a lot of the suburb counties are large in their own right and also very Republican. Case in point look at Montgomery County, Texas. About 174,000 people cast votes in that county and not only did Romney win it, he did so by nearly 60 points. The same could be said for suburbs of Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio. That is just the beginning of the problem for Texas. I have not even touched on the major areas of Texas that are strong Republican.

[Person Man]

Its even easier than all of that- Who pays these people? Where do all of these people meet their friends?

[TDAS04]

It would be surprising if Texas does not stay Republican for a long time.

[eric82oslo]

It would be surprising if Texas does not stay Republican for a long time.

On the other side California went from supporting their local son Reagan in 1984 by a margin of 16.24% to supporting Clinton just 8 years later, in 1992, by a margin of 13.4%. Meaning California shifted its partisan affiliation by a margin of almost 30% in just 8 years' time. Now I'm not insinuating that the same will happen in Texas of course - absolutely not - but it just goes to show how unpredictable politics can be and how fast circumstances can turn around and change. I personally wouldn't be shocked if Hillary were able to win the state in 2020, although it's more likely that she won't.

California presidential election results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California#Political_parties

[Lincoln Republican]

Texas, land of the free, home of the brave, and of those who know how to vote.

[TDAS04]

It would be surprising if Texas does not stay Republican for a long time.

On the other side California went from supporting their local son Reagan in 1984 by a margin of 16.24% to supporting Clinton just 8 years later, in 1992, by a margin of 13.4%. Meaning California shifted its partisan affiliation by a margin of almost 30% in just 8 years' time. Now I'm not insinuating that the same will happen in Texas of course - absolutely not - but it just goes to show how unpredictable politics can be and how fast circumstances can turn around and change. I personally wouldn't be shocked if Hillary were able to win the state in 2020, although it's more likely that she won't.

California presidential election results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California#Political_parties

But the country also swung about 24%.  California certainly has trended left, but it was already to the left of the national popular vote in 1984.  (+16% for Reagan in CA vs. +18% nationally).

In the near future, I only see Texas voting for the Democrat in a massive Democratic blowout nationally.  Texas whites are overwhelmingly conservative, and don't seem to be moving much.  Texas Hispanics are more conservative than Hispanics elsewhere.  Also, I don't see a large influx of liberals moving into the state that would outweigh the influx of more conservatives.

It's true that before the 1980s, Texas usually voted more Democratic than California.  However, the California electorate is more diverse, and has had the type of swing voters that would have trended left recently.  In Texas though, whites are mostly the inelastic conservative type that went from loyally voting Democrat to loyally voting GOP now.  Maybe the growing minority population could help, but I doubt it would make much of a difference anytime soon.

Arizona has more potential to flip.  Although it has a smaller Hispanic population, Arizona whites are less religious and more independent-minded than Texas whites, and Arizona is not as rigidly partisan.

[Person Man]

Or it could be that Texans are dependent on brown energy for a strong economy. Is there any difference between Texas Hispanics and National Hispanics? Though I am surprised that Dallas and Houston aren't more Democratic. However, I do expect that Texas probably has a large portion of its population in midsized towns that are very homogenous and religious, such as Wichita Falls, Amarillo and the like.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I'm going to assume, looking at that Texas county map, that Hispanics are more conservative in Dallas and Houston than in southern Texas?

[TDAS04]

Also, the majority-Hispanic city of San Antonio might have voted for Bush, or at least it was very close.

[Person Man]

Are many Hispanics in Texas just Spanish?

[Gass3268]

I'm going to assume, looking at that Texas county map, that Hispanics are more conservative in Dallas and Houston than in southern Texas?

No, Southern Texas is like 90% Hispanic while the metro areas are much smaller.

[eric82oslo]

There's an opinion piece in the New York Times today concerning Texas and its political and demographic trends called Will Cities Turn Texas Purple?: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/will-cities-turn-texas-purple.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

The author, Richard Parker, is also the author of an upcoming book named “Lone Star Nation: How Texas Will Transform America”.

I noticed a couple of misleading details there though. First, according to Latino Decisions, Texas will first become Hispanic Plurality (as in overcoming the White Plurality) in 2020, not this year as he writes. Also, Texas is projected to become Hispanic Majority first in 2039, and not in 2020 as he suggests. Other than that, it's a rather informative article.




Also, here are some interesting pages I found at Latino Decisions concerning Texas' political and demographic future:

Changing Demographics in Texas and the Politics of Immigration: http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2014/02/26/changing-demographics-in-texas-and-the-politics-of-immigration/

Changing Demographics and Immigration Politics in Texas (slideshow): http://www.latinodecisions.com/files/2913/9488/2734/Texas_Demography_and_Immigration_Politics.pdf

LatinoVoteMap.org (for 2012's Obama/Romney contest): http://www.latinovotemap.org/map/

LatinoDecisions' homepage: http://www.latinodecisions.com/

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

So did Bush win the Hispanic vote in 2004 with a plurality? Wow....