Democrats Can Take Texas -John Judis

[Frodo]

Yes, Texas Could Turn Blue:
But demographics alone are not the answer

By John B. Judis

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DS0816]

I'll put it this way (for now) In the future, we'll see a prevailing Democratic presidential candidate officially carry the state of Texas before we'll see a prevailing Republican presidential candidate officially carry the state of California.

[BaconBacon96]

I'll put it this way (for now) In the future, we'll see a prevailing Democratic presidential candidate officially carry the state of Texas before we'll see a prevailing Republican presidential candidate officially carry the state of California.

This. It will take a while, but demographics and stuff will inevitably have an effect.

[5280]

Permanent one party control = communism

[Slander and/or Libel]

Permanent one party control = communism

UUUGGGHHH.

It won't be one party control, because eventually these trends will drive incentives in the GOP toward moderation. They'll have the incentive to become the type of party that can get ~50% of the vote again.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

[Person Man]

Permanent one party control = communism

That must be why the hipsters in Laramie are building vodka distilleries! 

[Rockefeller GOP]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Those folks voted Democrat for several decades then moved over to the GOP (gradually) in a way no one could have predicted much before the fact.  Don't be so cocky things couldn't change again in the future.

[memphis]

I suppose anything can happen eventually. There was a very long time period when it looked like the GOP would be locked out the South forever. And that changed. I don't see much progress in Texas. The Whites there are so Republican and the Hispanics don't vote much and aren't all that Democratic either. Consider Harris County. It's barely> 30% white, contains the biggest city in the state, and, of course, excludes the enormously Republican suburbs of MontCo, but was still only a tie in the 2012 election. That's what's the Dems are up against in Texas.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I suppose anything can happen eventually. There was a very long time period when it looked like the GOP would be locked out the South forever. And that changed. I don't see much progress in Texas. The Whites there are so Republican and the Hispanics don't vote much and aren't all that Democratic either. Consider Harris County. It's barely> 30% white, contains the biggest city in the state, and, of course, excludes the enormously Republican suburbs of MontCo, but was still only a tie in the 2012 election. That's what's the Dems are up against in Texas.

Yea, Texas is a rare case where Whites are more partisan in their voting behavior than the main minority group. Texas whites vote around 75-80 % Republican and Hispanics in Texas are less Democratic then the national average. They only vote around 60-65% Democratic. Democrats are going to have to wait until whites are like 25 % of the population to win which will take a long time.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Turnout in Texas is also depressingly low.

[Mechaman]

I can see that the red hack circlejerk in this board is far from dry.

* Mechaman not a Republican by any means.

[Person Man]

Turnout in Texas is also depressingly low.

Why?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Turnout in Texas is also depressingly low.

Why?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=texas+voter+turnout&l=1

[Person Man]

Turnout in Texas is also depressingly low.

Why?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=texas+voter+turnout&l=1

So, people have just resigned themselves to "the way things are"?

[Vega]

They will in 40 years or so!

[IceSpear]

They will in 40 years or so!

Yeah, let's do away with these pipe dreams for now and actually focus on winnable states in 2016: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and maybe even Arkansas.

[Person Man]

They will in 40 years or so!

Yeah, let's do away with these pipe dreams for now and actually focus on winnable states in 2016: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and maybe even Arkansas.

NC, Georgia and Arizona definitely. Indiana? I don't know. I think Missouri and Arkansas are pretty much done with Democrats. Though at this rate of demographic decline of in the numbers of fundamentalists and with the possibility of overreach in these states, there could come a time where even these state become competitive again. Then again, why do we want to campaign in states that are not growing?

[IceSpear]

They will in 40 years or so!

Yeah, let's do away with these pipe dreams for now and actually focus on winnable states in 2016: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and maybe even Arkansas.

NC, Georgia and Arizona definitely. Indiana? I don't know. I think Missouri and Arkansas are pretty much done with Democrats. Though at this rate of demographic decline of in the numbers of fundamentalists and with the possibility of overreach in these states, there could come a time where even these state become competitive again. Then again, why do we want to campaign in states that are not growing?

At this point, Arkansas is a question mark. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Hillary falters there and the Republican still wins it by double digits (however, she'd still perform much better than Obama did there of course).

I don't see why Hillary couldn't win IN/MO. Obama won IN in 2008 and came within 0.1% of winning MO, and Hillary is a better fit for them than Obama was. Obviously it would take a strong Dem year for it to happen (same for AZ/GA), but it's certainly possible.

[Person Man]

They will in 40 years or so!

Yeah, let's do away with these pipe dreams for now and actually focus on winnable states in 2016: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and maybe even Arkansas.

NC, Georgia and Arizona definitely. Indiana? I don't know. I think Missouri and Arkansas are pretty much done with Democrats. Though at this rate of demographic decline of in the numbers of fundamentalists and with the possibility of overreach in these states, there could come a time where even these state become competitive again. Then again, why do we want to campaign in states that are not growing?

At this point, Arkansas is a question mark. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Hillary falters there and the Republican still wins it by double digits (however, she'd still perform much better than Obama did there of course).

I don't see why Hillary couldn't win IN/MO. Obama won IN in 2008 and came within 0.1% of winning MO, and Hillary is a better fit for them than Obama was. Obviously it would take a strong Dem year for it to happen (same for AZ/GA), but it's certainly possible.

Personally, I think Hillary will take Missouri and Indiana from R+7 to R+4 and AR,TN,KY,WV from R+10 to R+5. If I had to guess, Hillary probably has similar regional effects as Kerry if she goes up against Jeb. She probably has a slight advantage because she probably does much better in Virginia but has fewer EVs in the Northeast.

[DS0816]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

[eric82oslo]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

In just 20 years, almost every single one of the current 65+ will be dead. Clearly, Texas politics will start to change sooner than that.

[DS0816]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

In just 20 years, almost every single one of the current 65+ will be dead. Clearly, Texas politics will start to change sooner than that.

The national 65-and-older voting-age group are the ones most prominent with the Republican realigning election of 1968 [Richard Nixon]. They gave us Ronald Reagan.

They're the only voting-age group the Republicans carried in the last two elections, which started with the 2008 Democratic realigning election [Barack Obama].

There was some report about the 65-and-older group feeling more solidified in their self-identified Republican voting. That's no surprise.

As for Texas, the Democrats are going to have to build a presence in that state if they can truly win it over (in a likely Democratic presidential pickup year). One cannot just place a trust in developing trends. And to win in Texas, the Democrats are going to have to have to win over Tarrant County (Fort Worth), the reigning bellwether county for Texas. (That bellwether status is specifically for the state.)

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

Is there any excuse for a white southerner to vote for Kerry but not Obama other than race ?  I am old enough to vividly remember the 2004 election and how Kerry was mocked and pilloried by the Republicans.

He was seen as an out of touch french speaking, flip flopping Northeastern Liberal who didn't support the troops and was weak on the war on terror. Other than Obama being black, I can't see why he could be worse than Kerry to the typical elderly white Southerner.

[IceSpear]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

Is there any excuse for a white southerner to vote for Kerry but not Obama other than race ?  I am old enough to vividly remember the 2004 election and how Kerry was mocked and pilloried by the Republicans.

He was seen as an out of touch french speaking, flip flopping Northeastern Liberal who didn't support the troops and was weak on the war on terror. Other than Obama being black, I can't see why he could be worse than Kerry to the typical elderly white Southerner.

Especially considering Bush was from Texas and had a home state bonus. I actually have a hard time believing those 65+ numbers are real. Do you have a citation?