Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
Posts: 27,547
|
 |
« on: November 18, 2008, 01:32:34 AM » |
|
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.
|
