ciuld texas be a supeising 'battleground' in 2012?

[WalterMitty]

the demograhics look horrible for the future of the gop in texas.  an ever-growing latino polulation.  new residents moving in to the state. the aging of the west texas rural dwellers.  etc ect.

[Blazers93]

It will be an unsurprising battleground methinks.

[Wiz in Wis]

I remember a thread where we discussed which of Texas' largest counties, minus Travis, would flip to Obama... the consensus was that both Bexar and Harris were a bridge to far, but that Obama would win Dallas by a few points. 

That Obama won all of them, and improved dramatically in the suburbs of all 3 metro areas makes me think that 2012 might be interesting.

[JSojourner]

No.

[Stranger in a strange land]

No, but sometime in the 2020s it will be.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I remember a thread where we discussed which of Texas' largest counties, minus Travis, would flip to Obama... the consensus was that both Bexar and Harris were a bridge to far, but that Obama would win Dallas by a few points. 

That Obama won all of them, and improved dramatically in the suburbs of all 3 metro areas makes me think that 2012 might be interesting.

Obama did very well in metropolitan areas just about everywhere. I'd be careful about drawing too many conclusions about wider trends in a given state from that (or most other Obama-related patterns, frankly) and I'd be even more careful about using this metropolitan swing to predict anything.

What's rather telling about Texas is the fact that Obama lost the state by a tad under a million votes, despite winning four out of the five most populous counties in the state. The ugly ethnic polarisation is something for another day.

[Ronnie]

Actually, McCain didn't do all that bad there.  It trended only 1.9 points Democratic, which is impressive due to Bush's home state advantage.

Unless Obama wins by a *significantly* larger margin nationally in 2012, it should stay red.

[Workers' Friend]

Actually, McCain didn't do all that bad there.  It trended only 1.9 points Democratic, which is impressive due to Bush's home state advantage.

Unless Obama wins by a *significantly* larger margin nationally in 2012, it should stay red.

Red, don't you mean Blue?

[Ronnie]

Actually, McCain didn't do all that bad there.  It trended only 1.9 points Democratic, which is impressive due to Bush's home state advantage.

Unless Obama wins by a *significantly* larger margin nationally in 2012, it should stay red.

Red, don't you mean Blue?

In the media, when people say red, it means Republican.

[Workers' Friend]

Actually, McCain didn't do all that bad there.  It trended only 1.9 points Democratic, which is impressive due to Bush's home state advantage.

Unless Obama wins by a *significantly* larger margin nationally in 2012, it should stay red.

Red, don't you mean Blue?

In the media, when people say red, it means Republican.

Oh yeah, they are dumbasses anyway.

[Lief 🗽]

Depends whether or not we get that amnesty passed...

[Lunar]

If Obama enjoys a similar cash advantage as he did in this election, I expect him to make a push in Texas.  Texas's population is growing strongly in the youth and minority and white-collar departments.

[phk]

Depends on how Obama does from now till election season and who runs, etc.

[Verily]

Not in 2012. Maybe by 2016, almost certainly at least on the fringe of competitive states by 2020, think Missouri in 2004 (but that assumes relative stability in demographic change, which is a dangerous assumption to make for 12 years hence).

Obama might make a push there anyway if he's very popular. But it should be at least ten points more Republican than the nation in 2012, which means Obama could win it in a landslide, but it certainly wouldn't be a battleground.

[Padfoot]

For all the talk about how Texas is supposedly trending towards the Democrats I see little evidence of this theory in the state's electoral history.  The last Democrat to win Texas was Carter in '76 with 51% of the vote.  Since then, the Democratic candidates have randomly bounced around between 36%-43% of the vote.  Not exactly what I would call a trend in their favor.

I suppose it should be noted that Obama improved on Kerry's total here by nearly 700,000 votes while McCain lost about 60,000 Bush voters.  However this could simply be part of an expected correction after two elections with a hometown favorite atop the ticket. 

[Sam Spade]

Ah, Texas.  Less complicated than it looks...

Lest I kind of repeat what Al said, and it is tempting, a good Texas analysis divides into rather simple categories, as usual.

A general point (personal analysis with the exit polls): The black % of actual voters was naturally higher (from 12% to 13%) and Obama won nearly all of their votes.  The Asian % went up 1%.  Latino % stayed the same.  White % went down 2%.  Based on a little actual vote analysis, this exit poll view of the Texas electorate looks right.

Anyway, the black shift, both in terms of raw numbers and actual votes, actually accounts for all of the swing from Bush 2004 against the national mean (see my analysis in the other thread).  Everything else, therefore, can be analyzed against the 9% swing in the national vote.

1) According to the exit poll, the Latino vote shifted 15% towards the Democrat from 2004.  That pretty much fits exactly with actual vote analysis.  However, I still believe that this exit poll, much like 2004, overestimates Republican performance among Latinos.  In 2004, the exit poll put Bush at 49%, when it was more like 45%.  In 2008, the exit poll put McCain at 35%, when it looks to me to be more like 30%.

2) The German/white cosmopolitan vote in Texas appears to have swung along with the national average.  When I made my earlier comments about Harris and Dallas (but Harris especially), it was with the idea that the white cosmopolitan vote would show less flexibility in swing, as they have historically in the past.  In this election, they didn't, not at all.  Whether this is an "Obama 2008" thing or something to note in the future remains to be seen.  Kind of like what Al said (heading "metropolitan")

It should also be noted that Cornyn ran about 2%-3% better than McCain in these areas while having the same relative overall % (he ran behind in almost all other groups).  What that means I really don't know.

3) Non-German, non-cosmopolitan whites voted against Obama almost uniformly.  Sure, they voted heavily for Bush in 2000 and 2004.  But the remaining Democrats there (and there are quite a few, especially in east Texas) deserted him.  Kind of like the rest of the areas that surround those areas.  This shift pretty much, as far as I can figure, counteracted the Hispanic vote shift.

It should also be noted that we tend to think of these areas as *rural*.  A subset of this vote are the non-cosmopolitan Texas suburbs, located in Brazoria, Galveston, Montgomery, portions of Harris, Ellis and Kaufman counties (the places that immediately come to mind).

Key Points:  Long term, if the Latino vote becomes more populous (and reliable in showing up, for one, which they still didn't really do in this election) and Republicans continue hemmoraging white cosmopolitan suburban votes, then their hold on statewide office will greatly weaken. 

You see, Republicans will continue their stranglehold for the next 10 years (regardless of amnesty or whatever) if they can continue to get 35%+ of the Hispanic vote or keep white cosmopolitan Texas even at present levels (keeping it at Cornyn levels would make their position even stronger).  Lose both of these, and it's curtains long-term.  Well, if they Democrats run a candidate who can perform well among rural Democratic whites and these two groups, it's curtains short-term.

McCain's performance actually disguises this slightly because of the non-German, non-cosmopolitan white, historically Democratic vote collapse (hello, race).  Of course, maybe this isn't the real present-day barometer for the white cosmopolitan vote or the Hispanic vote.  Maybe the Cornyn level is correct.  Or maybe the 2006 version is more accurate, where Republicans statewide seemingly pulled about 35%-40% of the Latinos and more of the white cosmopolitan vote.

[Lunar]

...cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....non-cosmopolitan....
non-cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....
non-cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....

[Sam Spade]

...cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....non-cosmopolitan....
non-cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....
non-cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....cosmopolitan....

Ugh...  Sex and the City type reminder (dear god how I hate that show).

Unfortunately, there's really no better way to separate the non-German white groups.  And the Germans (and the bourgeoisie Hispanics) often mix into the cosmopolitan white suburbs, which makes it more difficult in some circumstances (not in this election).  For some reason, the rest of the white population doesn't...

[they don't love you like i love you]

Worth noting Obama did better in Texas than Kerry did in North Carolina or Indiana in 2004.

[Lief 🗽]

2008 Trend Map

What's the deal with the counties around Lubbock (the pink splotch in the panhandle)? Is it just random? Because it sticks out against all the rural counties nearby. No Germans up there, and as far as I know, not a significant black population. There are some Hispanics, but no more than in the surrounding areas that trended McCain.

[Nym90]

Lubbock is a college town, and Obama did extremely well in college towns (and Kerry had already done quite well in them, so the even further very strong swing was surprising in that regard). The "media market" theory of swings that Al has talked about may explain the outlying areas, though I don't see why it'd apply specifically here since I'm assuming there were no ads run here at all (maybe Lubbock commuters in those outlying areas? Exurban sprawl to a certain extent?).

Obviously step one for Democrats in becoming competitive in Texas is starting to consistently win, and win by significant margins, in Dallas, Harris, and Bexar counties. Step two will be making the counties surrounding each of them at least reasonably competitive (either that, or find a candidate who can get rural Texas back, but Obama ain't the guy for that strategy). Will certainly be interesting to see if the big counties continue to swing Democratic; if this is more than just a fluke it does have long term implications.

If you look at Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina, this is a large part of what allowed Obama to win those states. In the past, Marion county, IN (Indianapolis) was a Republican county or at least no more than a swing area; now it's solidly Democratic (again, will be interesting to see if this is a fluke or a semi-permanent shift, if it's the latter, it's bad news for the GOP). Mecklunburg and Wake Counties in NC and Nova and the Norfolk area in Virginia are likewise largely responsible for Obama wins in those states; if these areas continue to be or even swing further Democratic, Republicans are in big trouble. That's a big if, though.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

It probably won't be a battleground state in 2012, however I do expect it to be one as early as 2016 or 2020.

[Matt Damon™]

texas is turning into a swing state gradually but thats more for the 2020 or 2024 elections than the 2012 or 2016 ones

[ChrisFromNJ]

Not a battleground, but a state Obama has a chance to win by the slightest margins if he wins the 2012 popular vote by double digits.

[MK]

All depends on who the Gop decides to run with come 2012.