Talk Elections

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.

It will be an unsurprising battleground methinks.

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.

No.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

:)

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...

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

()
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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Unfortunately, do to their opposition to ANY form of birth control, evangelicals continue to breed at an alarming rate, and will probably be dominating Texas for a long time. Whites 18-29 voted basically the same as the adults, so there is really very little hope here.

I don't see why not. The Democrats now seem to have a firm hold on hispanic voters (something that was not the case four years ago), which is an ever expansive demographic in Texas. If the administration's first term is successful and if Obama campaigns as strongly as he did this time around, a blue Texas isn't all that inconceivable.

I'm not sure about Texas but Arizona I'm pretty sure will turn blue in 2012.

Arizona, Montana, Georgia, the Dakotas & Missouri should all fall into place if Obama has a great term and the republicans nominate other McCain. Texas is just so dominated by southern culture that it will be tend times more difficult to win than other red states.

I'm not so sure about Georgia.  The Dakotas, Montana maybe even Arkansas are all states that Obama can win if he's a competent president.  Missouri too.

If Georgia continues to grow then the black vote + moderation of white suburbs could deliver Georgia. Arkansas is an absolute crap state that probably wouldn't vote for Obama if he was the best president since Lincoln.

Why do you say that about Arkansas?  I don't really know much about the state and I'm probably biased because I have some good friends who are from Arkansas.  I just thought that it might go blue because they have 2 democratic senators and the Arkansas democratic party appears to be very strong.  I was actually surprised to see how bad Obama did there.

Not everyone from the state is bad, and MAYBE it was the PUMA movement that resulted in Obama's hideous showing, but most of the democratic politicians down there are more conservative. Not that I have a problem with that, unlike with Harold Ford Jr. who completely sold out democratic principles and deserved to lose, but some of it probably had to do with race.

well i dont entirely disagree but Hispanics also reproduce at a alarming rate and tend not to use birth control either due to religion or poor access. so that kinda counters the evangelicals as hispanics are probably also moveing into texas at a higher rate but i dont think texas will be a battleground as early as 2012 maybe 2020.

an Alarming Rate!

Ford isn't liberal enough to head the democratic party. I would change alliances immediately to some third party if he was nominated. He's kind of like a 1996 bill clinton, which isn't really appealing to a partisan.

im a partisan and thats why i like ford id have voted for ford but not obama

Ford sold out his party to win a red state and lost. Good riddance.

running as center-left/moderate and not left-wing isn't 'selling out your party'

try again

He did not run as a moderate, he ran as a conservative democrat. We need to get rid of those.

I was examining precincts (6 in total) in the barrio neighborhoods of Houston where I lived and voted before 2003 or so today.  Two findings, somewhat interesting, but not unpredictable...

1) There was about a 6-7% swing away from Bush 2004/McCain 2008.  I expected more and this figure is actually less than the national swing.
2) In every precinct, turnout was down from 2004.  Some precincts have less registered voters, but I'm not too surprised on that as these people probably have less VEP than 2004.

I'll check some other well-known Hispanic areas in the East End and Pasadena to see if these same figures match, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

Arkansas is a great state.

Ben feeling a need to defend any aspect of Southern life in order to continue to pass of the farce of him being a moderate Democrat because he feels that when he, hypothetically, runs for office that should be his persona and he hasn't quite figured out that acting like that on an internet message board isn't going to affect him in any way, shape or form.

For one thing, I have friends in Arkansas; and I visited Little Rock a couple of years ago, and it was quite nice.

Little Rock = all of Arkansas?

Fine; my opinion of Arkansas is still very high.

High compared to what? And why is it better?

Compared to places like San Francisco and Newark.

I just found it more enjoyable overall.

I wonder when Ben will grow out of his little Southern Dem persona.

Really?

Provinciality aside, that's a very interesting comment.

You're too liberal and godless...and you aren't good ol' southern boys.

S.F. & Newark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arkansas

Yeah; I didn't like San Francisco one bit when I visited, although Alcatraz wasn't awful.

If there is an amnesty for illegals maybe in 2016.

You mean you would rather live on Alcatraz Island than in the city? :)

No ;)

     :(

Only if illegals are allowed to vote. TX is solidly Republican and will stay that way in 2012.

Newark?  Yes, it's better than it used to be (whatever that was), but...

if the GOP cannot make inroads with the Hispanic community,
(which they can, let's not forget that)

It could follow the California pattern...

GOP-GOP-GOP-Dem-GOP-GOP-GOP-GOP-GOP-GOP-Dem-Dem-Dem-Dem

Starting with '52...

The American Southwest is likely to become the General Election Battleground for the few elections.

South Plains.  The Panhandle is the part that sticks out between OK and NM.

Looking at the results it appears mainly to be a bounce-back from anomalously high Republican percentages in 2004.  The particular area has much more of a farming base than the the surrounding areas.  It is the heart of the Ogallala Aquifer.  To the east you are below the Caprock and into more of a ranching area.  To the south, you are also below the Caprock and into the Permian Basin, where oil is dominant.  To the north (in the Panhandle) your are more into wheat, ranching, feedlots, and oil.  If you look at the population map, you will see the rural counties around Lubbock are actually a bit more populated than the other rural areas in West Texas. 

This is an area of fairly recent (post-WWII) development, with many of the counties hitting their peak population in 1960 - quite late for an agricultural area.  This is because the technology to effectively irrigate did not exist in earlier times.  I think you are going to see a bit more populist voting pattern than in areas that are based on oil, cattle, or wheat.  On a populist scale, Bush is more populist than Kerry; but Obama is more populist than McCain.  Running against Texas works in New York or California or Massachusetts.  It doesn't work in Texas.

The reddest-trending county is Terry County to the SW of Lubbock.  In 2004 it was 80-20 for Bush, in 2008, it was 67-32 for McCain.  The bottom fell out of the Democratic vote in 2004 (dropping 29% from 2000), but there wasn't that much of a shift to the Republican side, which suggests that many Democrats didn't vote.  In addition 2004 had a much stronger Republican GOTV effort, as Bush wanted to make sure he won the popular vote.  In 2008, McCain was more concerned with holding on to OH, VA, NC, and FL.

In 2008, some of the Democrats voted.  Some of the Republicans stayed home.  And some of the Bush-voters switched to Obama.  Turnout was higher (as high as 1992).  But, the 2008 Democrat percentage is about the same as the 1984 Democrat percentage (Obama did as well as Mondale).

If you look further east, you will find areas that voted Democratic in 1996, but were some of the strongest Blue-trending areas.  These areas are losing lots of population, and the Democrats are literally dieing off.  You will see a similar pattern in the rural counties in east Texas.  These areas are still trending to the GOP, and there hasn't been a correction.