Democrats CAN capture Texas.

[retromike22]

"In the last election, white voters cast 74% of the ballots. But they make up about 66% of the population. Black voters represent about the same share of the vote (13%) as they do the population (12%). Asians, meanwhile, are modestly underrepresented in the electorate (2% of voters; 4% of population). And Hispanics are severely underrepresented (just 9% of voters compared with 15% of population)."

-National Political Magazine


Anyway I was interested about that low Hispanic turnout rate. And then I was thinking about Texas. Texas has a reputation for being a strongly Republican state. But in 2000 and 2004, the Republican nominee was from Texas.

In 2008, McCain won by 10 points.... so that should mean it's staying Republican, right? Not really. What I decided to do was to take the 2008 Texas voting result by race, and modify it so that the 20% of Hispanic voters voted at their 35% of Texas' population rate. I did the same to the other racial groups. Basically, I assumed that every race would turn out at level equal to their population percentage.  The percentage for each candidate that each race voted for stayed the same, of course.

I did the math and... had Hispanics turned out at rate representative of their population in Texas, McCain would have won 49% to Obama's 47%. A 2 PERCENT DIFFERENCE.

[Lunar]

People vote at their socioeconomic status and some minorities, like African-Americans, already vote at higher levels than what their white socioeconomic peers vote (meaning an African-American plumber making $65,000 or whatever a year will be more likely to vote than his white counterpart making the same amount).

And I don't know why they'd start voting their numbers all of a sudden.  Doesn't the census attempt to count illegals too?

I mean, look at the polls for all adults vs. likely voters.  One is reality and one is not.  The reason why the fictional one gives a rosier picture for Democrats isn't really all attributed to minorities either...

/ramble

[The Mikado]

A good chunk of Texas' Hispanic population isn't eligible to vote due to lacking citizenship, so the will naturally vote at a considerably smaller rate than their share of the population.

[Lief 🗽]

Once Barack Obama passes the amnesty bill, Democrats will get a few hundred thousand more votes, at least, in presidential elections. They usually don't split that hard towards Democrats in state elections.

[Tender Branson]

I could see a Moderate (Southern) White Democrat in a tight race with a Non-Texan Republican, but only in the unlikely event of him/her getting 40% of Whites.

Remember that Obama only narrowed the gap in TX because of a high trend toward him among Blacks and Latinos. Obama only received 1% more support among Whites than Kerry, despite a 2% swing nationally. I expect future Democratic candidates to be in the 30-35% range when it comes to Whites. But he/she shouldn't be too conservative to piss of Blacks or Hispanics.

So let's assume the following 2 scenarios (more liberal & more conservative Democrat) for let's say the 2016 or 2020 elections:

60% Whites (30% for the Democrat)
22% Hispanics (60% for the Democrat)
13% Blacks (90% for the Democrat)
5% Others (60% for the Democrat)

The Democrat receives about 46% of the vote statewide.

62% Whites (35% for the Democrat)
21% Hispanics (55% for the Democrat)
12% Blacks (85% for the Democrat)
5% Others (55% for the Democrat)

The Democrat receives about 46% of the vote statewide.

As you can see TX is far away from becoming competetive ...

[Person Man]

Who says that the Whites will remain overwhelming Republican... Obama carried the White vote in Colorado.

[The Ex-Factor]

^ Southern whites say that they will remain overwhelming Republican. I wouldn't bet against 'em.

[Padfoot]

^ Southern whites say that they will remain overwhelming Republican. I wouldn't bet against 'em.

True, but Texas is becoming increasing less "Southern" and more "urban."  The counties containing Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio all voting for Obama could represent a new direction for the state.  The situation is perhaps similar to the Atlantic Coast where rural white voters are losing their electoral pull and being overpowered by urban and suburban whites who are decidedly more moderate and/or liberal.  Plus, the Texas House has shifted dramatically towards the Democrats over the past 6 years and after the most recent election, they're only a few seats away from the majority.

[Person Man]

^ Southern whites say that they will remain overwhelming Republican. I wouldn't bet against 'em.

True, but Texas is becoming increasing less "Southern" and more "urban."  The counties containing Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio all voting for Obama could represent a new direction for the state.  The situation is perhaps similar to the Atlantic Coast where rural white voters are losing their electoral pull and being overpowered by urban and suburban whites who are decidedly more moderate and/or liberal.  Plus, the Texas House has shifted dramatically towards the Democrats over the past 6 years and after the most recent election, they're only a few seats away from the majority.

Bingo!

[Lief 🗽]

Suburban whites in Texas are hardly moderate though. They elected Tom Delay, remember.

[Holmes]

It's not the latinos. Democrats just have a white issue down there.

[Padfoot]

Suburban whites in Texas are hardly moderate though. They elected Tom Delay, remember.

Its not a blanket claim.  Suburban and urban whites in Texas didn't suddenly wake up one morning and decide to change their political philosophies.  Its a slow moving trend influenced heavily by domestic migration into the state.

[pragmatic liberal]

Texas will probably be a competitive or even Dem-leaning state eventually. But a lot can happen.

If Obama has approval ratings in the mid-to-upper-50s in 2012 (a big if) and wins a correspondingly large landslide, I could see Texas flipping, but barely.

It'll be a few cycles though before Texas is actually a competitive state in a competitive election.

Also, keep in mind that part of the issue with Texas is that it's so expensive to compete there. Obama could have made an effort for the state (remember, there were good GE polling numbers for Clinton and Obama around the time of the time of the Texas Primary), but he likely wouldn't have done anything but narrow the gap a few points while still losing the state. And competing there would have drained resources from better opportunities like North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana.

[ag]

Once Barack Obama passes the amnesty bill, Democrats will get a few hundred thousand more votes, at least, in presidential elections. They usually don't split that hard towards Democrats in state elections.

Even if a real "amnesty" bill were to be passed, it wouldn't change anything for, at least, a couple of election cycles. Don't forget: not a single bill ever proposed was even giving anyone immediate greencards. At most what an "amnesty" would offer would be a chance to apply for a greencard after a fairly torturous process. Suppopse, an "immediate gc" bill passes tomorrow (not happening, obviously), it would still require the newly legalized migrants to apply for the gc (nobody ever gets that automatically without applying).  Of course, for most people application isn't a one-day thing: one needs to figure out what to do, one has to assemble documents (which many people lack), etc., etc.

Under the most ideal circumstances, it would take a few months to a year to set up the system, another year for most people to apply and then a few years for the bulk of those eligible to get it (knowing the US immigration authorities, average of 2-3 years between an application and an actual greencard sounds like a realistically most efficient best-case scenario). So, perhaps, 4 years after the bill is passed most people actually get their gcs. Of course, a gc doesn't get anyone the right to vote. One needs 5 years of residence w/ gc to apply for citizenship. Once again, whenever the relevant agencies need to process lots of people they get hopelessly backlogged. Another 2-3 years from application to the swearing in, on average, sounds like a reasonable processing time (optimistic, if you ask me).

To sum up, if the "amnesty" bill were to be passed tomorrow, none of its beneficiaries would vote in 2012 and virtually none in 2016. By 2020 they'd start showing up on voter rolls - though I'd be shocked if even half of them make it by then. Realistically, under the greatest fast-tracking imaginable, most people would start voting around 2024. Of course, all that assuming the bill is passed NOW - of course, no such bill is even proposed (or has been proposed), and no such bill is likely to pass. Even then, 16 years is a long, long time in politics - chances are, the electoral map changes substantially before that for unrelated reasons.

[Person Man]

...if anything, Texas could simply remain republican in even elections out of the need for the Republican Party to maintain its status as a viable opposition party with a chance of reforming their government in the decades to come.

[pbrower2a]

Texas votes for Obama only in an Eisenhower-scale electoral blowout or something more severe to the GOP (on the scale of LBJ in 1964). The Latino population is young, and as an electorate it is growing fast. But that electorate isn't large enough to keep Texas from being one of the most conservative-leaning States.

I describe Texas as a political mass as "Kansas grafted onto Florida"... Kansas being one of the most conservative States in the Union and Florida close to the national average. Should Florida go to Obama by 10-15% in 2012, so likely goes Texas. But that is asking a lot.

Will Obama actively campaign in Texas in 2012? Probably not. Texans often found that if they wanted to do something for the  Obama campaign through active campaigning that they had to go somewhere else -- New Mexico or Missouri -- to have an effect. Will Texas matter? Obama will win without Texas if he is at all effective as President.

 

[Psychic Octopus]

Only if Obama is god, which he hasn't been lately.

[pbrower2a]

Only if Obama is god, which he hasn't been lately.

Ronald Reagan wasn't God, either, and he won Massachusetts. Obama obviously doesn't need Texas in 2012.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obama could capture Texas in 2012, if he tries.  If it looks like a tough reelection battle, or he's facing a Texan, he probably shouldn't bother, and focus on holding OH, VA, FL, CO, etc.  If, however, it looks like he can spread the wealth, he should make Texas a priority.

If we see these demographics for Texas in 2012:

68% Whites (35% for the Democrat)
15% Hispanics (65% for the Democrat)
12% Blacks (95% for the Democrat)
5% Others (60% for the Democrat)

That leaves him with 48%.  If Obama can find a way to get a larger number of Hispanic voters, or depress white turnout, then it is possible that he can win in Texas.  At any rate, by 2020/2024 Texas should be very close for the Democrats.

[Rowan]

35% of the white vote is pretty generous considering he only won 26% this year.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

35% of the white vote is pretty generous considering he only won 26% this year.

In Texas?  I read that he got 32% of the white vote.

[Rowan]

35% of the white vote is pretty generous considering he only won 26% this year.

In Texas?  I read that he got 32% of the white vote.

CNN Exit Poll says 26%.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=TXP00p1

[Tender Branson]

Obama could capture Texas in 2012, if he tries.  If it looks like a tough reelection battle, or he's facing a Texan, he probably shouldn't bother, and focus on holding OH, VA, FL, CO, etc.  If, however, it looks like he can spread the wealth, he should make Texas a priority.

If we see these demographics for Texas in 2012:

68% Whites (35% for the Democrat)
15% Hispanics (65% for the Democrat)
12% Blacks (95% for the Democrat)
5% Others (60% for the Democrat)

That leaves him with 48%.  If Obama can find a way to get a larger number of Hispanic voters, or depress white turnout, then it is possible that he can win in Texas.  At any rate, by 2020/2024 Texas should be very close for the Democrats.

Probably he can't.

15% Hispanics is unlikey. 20-25% in 2012 is more likely. I think Obama won't be able to get more than 30% of Whites in TX (he got only 26% last year). Much will depend on his Immigration plans. Amnesty will give him 70% of Hispanics but probably drive down his share among Whites. Obama won 73.5% of Non-White Texans in 2008, meaning that he'll need a 1/3 of Whites in 2012 to win the state overall, because Non-Whites will make up 40% and he's able to win 75% of them.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

So, if we see Texas as this in 2012:

60% White (30%)
25% Hispanic (65%)
10% Black (95%)
5% Other (60%)

That gives him 47% of the vote.  If we get this:
55% White (30%)
28% Hispanic (65%)
12% Black (95%)
5% Other (60%)

This puts him at 49.1% of the vote.  Finally if we can see this:
55% White (30%)
30% Hispanic (70%)
10% Black (95%)
5% Other (60%)

That gives him 50% even.  So, he needs to find ways to decrease white turnout, while still building on his '08 %, while also increasing both non-white turnout, and his '08 % with those groups.

[Tender Branson]

So, if we see Texas as this in 2012:

60% White (30%)
25% Hispanic (65%)
10% Black (95%)
5% Other (60%)

That gives him 47% of the vote.  If we get this:
55% White (30%)
28% Hispanic (65%)
12% Black (95%)
5% Other (60%)

This puts him at 49.1% of the vote.  Finally if we can see this:
55% White (30%)
30% Hispanic (70%)
10% Black (95%)
5% Other (60%)

That gives him 50% even.  So, he needs to find ways to decrease white turnout, while still building on his '08 %, while also increasing both non-white turnout, and his '08 % with those groups.

With 20-25% Hispanics I mean 22/23% at best, not up to 30% ...