Definitely impressive.

I was guessing that it would be 35% Hispanic.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:02:37 AM UTC

4 CD's Where Obama Got Under 30%

Two of them were among the four statewide that lost population, another one had the second lowest growth.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:05:51 AM UTC

Hispanics under 18

The Hispanic growth in proportion to rest of the population is only going to accelerate. By my math Hispanics make up 48.3% of the Texan's under 18 (33.6 % of the population over 18).  

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:07:00 AM UTC

Good chance the state

Will be plurality Hispanic by the next census, no?

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:10:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Should be close

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:11:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty good chance

In 2000, it was 52% white and 32% Hispanic, a 20 point spread. In 2010, it was 45% White and 37% Hispanic, an 8 point spread. If current trends continue, we should see a Hispanic pluarity in Texas.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....

17, CA-06,  

---

by: Alibguy @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:16:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm guessing Texas White Hispanics vote like Texas Non-Hispanic White

Looking at the numbers, I infer they mirror their vote for Republican candidates closely to Non-Hispanic whites.

---

by: Kendall @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:15:22 AM UTC

And We Already Have a Lawsuit

Saw this last week:

Attorney Michael Hull of Austin, representing three North Texas voters, sued the state and a bunch of others, alleging that counting undocumented immigrants in political districts has an unfair and illegal effect on voters in districts with smaller numbers of non-citizens.

The logic goes this way: If two districts have the same populations and one has more non-citizens than the other, it takes fewer voters in that district to swing an election. Fewer citizens means fewer voters means a smaller number makes a majority. Each vote is, compared to the district with more citizens, worth more.

That's interesting, but it's probably not the main point of the lawsuit. This appears to be (insert an asterisk for uncertainty here) the first lawsuit filed on redistricting, and if the courts don't burp it back up, it means the redistricting cases in Texas could go through a bunch of judges in and around Sherman. Hull asked for a three-judge panel - that's normal in redistricting. This is also pro forma: The suit pulls in redistricting for Congress, the Legislature and the State Board of Education. A copy of the lawsuit is attached.

http://www.texastribune.org/te...

---

by: TXObserver @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:27:38 AM UTC

What is your take on the numbers listed here?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:29:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Suprising yet unsurprising

West Texas continues to loose population. A breakdown of the numbers in the last census showed that a good majority of counties in West Texas would have lost population if it hadn't been for the Hispanic growth.

http://www.texasobserver.org/f...

Steve Murdock, former State Demographer and Census Director, was predicting the Hispanic growth since about the last census.

http://www.texasobserver.org/a...

http://www.texastribune.org/te...

For number nuts we have a great numbers office with the Texas State Data Center and Office of the State Demographer.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/

The 2000-2007 Scenario for population projections was just about on point with the actual numbers.

http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/20...

in 2008, the population projection from the State Demographer's office for 2010 was 11,441,595 Anglos and 9,847,852 for Hispanics.  In addition, 2,925,751 for Blacks and 1,158,749 for Asians.

---

by: TXObserver @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:04:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for posting this data

and Yes Texas will be a big redistricting prize.  Here's how I see the map breaking hispanic wise

I personally don't see another hispanic seat in Houston rather Congressman Green will find himself in a new seat.  His current seat will be as hispanic as possible with him being in it. I suspect he might move but some ambitious hispanic legislator will take him on.

I think Travis county seat (Doggett)  will be more hispanic perhaps not 50% but close.

I guess the numbers are shouting out for another Valley seat.  I hesitated about this but I guess its evitable.  I thought the GOP might try another plan and they still may but I guess we will see one more seat in the Valley.  The Northern part of CD15 (not very hispanic) and the Nueces county (part) will form part of a seat for Farenthold to try to hold.

A new seat in the DFW area for hispanics

Concesco's CD23  & the New valley seat will be on the edge of 68% hisppanic.  They will try to find the most  republican precincts they can for CD23 & whatever number the new CD gets.

So I am thinking two new CDs that will hispanic and two new GOP seats.  Conseco will be in a 50-50 seat but if anyone can win he will.  I doubt Farenthold survives the primary in his much more republican seat.

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:37:33 AM UTC

When do we see the Hispanic share of the vote increase?

Latino share of the vote in Texas according to Exit Polls in the last 4 elections.

2010 17%
2008 20%
2006 15%
2004 20%

How high does it need to go for Democrats to start to have a shot statewide in Texas (assuming the Hispanic vote will favor the Democrats at least for a few more cycles) and how long until it gets there?

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:02:47 AM UTC

I'd Say It's Going Up

To hold at 20% from 2004 to 2008, when you had a huge jump in African-American turnout, is pretty good. And to have the share go up in 2010, over a good Dem year in 2006, is also not bad.  

But yeah, it's still low share compared to the share of the general population, and will continue to be lower since a much higher share of the Latino population is under 18 compared to the non-Latino White and African-American populations.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:18:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2010

The Hispanic percentage of the electorate jumped from 15% (in '06) to 17%, while Republicans won two very Hispanic districts, TX-23 and TX-27. If we assume Hispanics participate at the same rate statewide (that turnout isn't lower in the Valley than in Houston, for example), and compare that 17% figure to the 38% of the population that the Census says is Hispanic, then Hispanics were 45% of the voters in TX-23 and 52% in TX-27.

My point in all this is, Texas Hispanics are more conservative people than Hispanics in California, New York, or anyplace other than South Florida, really. As Hispanics start to participate at higher levels, Texas will move towards the Democrats, but not as much or as quickly as some people are suggesting. Whether it's leftover good will for George Bush, or the generally conservative climate of the state, Hispanics in Texas do not at this point vote reflexively Democratic. Dems cannot sit on their hands and watch Texas magically slide into their column as the non-white percentage goes up--they need to actively court these new voters, just as they court white voters in suburbs elsewhere.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:46:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I couldn't agree with your last line more.

It's often overlooked, but anyone who has spoken of the demographic trends that should favor the Democrats has said as much.

Anyway, while I wouldn't doubt that some Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California Hispanics, do you (a) think it's more a matter of statistics than anything else and (b) think that will last if it's not? As far as (a) is concerned, Republicans in Texas have obviously had a lot more luck than Democrats in the last two decades, and they can also read demographic trends, so they have been making overtures to capture such voters. In other words, is it more that Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California Hispanics, or more than the moderate and liberal Hispanics that might support Democrats aren't showing up? If five percent of the 2 million Hispanics who can vote but who aren't registered showed up to vote for Obama in 2008,  that would push his total to more than 69 percent instead of the 63 percent it was. It could easily be some of both, of course.

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:28:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I "phoned a friend" on this one

I've never been to Texas so I don't know the situation there at all. I actually asked a Hispanic (Republican) friend of mine who has lived in both Texas and California about this phenomenon, and while she doesn't claim to be an expert on any of this, this is what she came up with:

1. Culture: South Texas is culturally a more conservative place than California, and immigrants tend to adapt to existing cultures to a degree.

1a. Religion: The majority of Hispanics are religious people, and religion plays a far greater role in both daily political life in Texas than in California. This drives some economically moderate-to-liberal people to vote R.

2. Backing Winners: People who are new to politics like to align themselves with winners, which are the Republicans in Texas and the Democrats in California. New citizens feel they can most directly participate in the political process by identifying with the dominant party.

3. Outreach: Under both Bush and Perry, the Texas GOP has done very well with Hispanic outreach, something that has not happened in California. The lack of a SB 1070-type law or an immigration craze among white Republicans has made center and center-right Hispanics feel more comfortable with the GOP in Texas than in CA or AZ (where she thinks the Hispanic vote will be Democratic for a generation, if not more.)

I don't know how accurate this is, or whether it is a viable long-term strategy, but I appreciated her insight and thought it would be worth sharing here.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:33:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That seems pretty logical

The differences between Texas and California are huge, and that applies to the Latino populations of both states as well.

One might think that Texas would at least have more in common with Arizona politically, rather than California, but the differences between those two states are large as well.  As you mention, the AZ GOP has basically no outreach to the Hispanic community.  Whereas the TX GOP has long understood the necessity of that.  And it shows...Texas actually elects Latino Republicans, whereas in Arizona I doubt a Latino could even win a Republican primary.

Texas Republicans are extremely conservative, but most of them do seem able to talk about immigration and race sensibly, unlike some of their counterparts in other states...Arizona especially.

I wonder why that is.  Just seems like Texas doesn't seem as scared of Latinos as Arizona does.

---

by: skaje @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:58:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once Upon a Time

Texas Republicans are extremely conservative, but most of them do seem able to talk about immigration and race sensibly, unlike some of their counterparts in other states...Arizona especially.

That was certainly true a few years ago when Bush was head of the party.  However, it's changed a lot in the last few years.  Once upon a time, Rick Noriega got a Texas version of the DREAM Act to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Now, KBH, who is seen as a moderate won't vote for the federal version.  The Texas GOP is being pushed by folks like Dan Patrick and Debbie Riddle who are very anti-immigrant.  Riddle camped out to file a SD 1070 type bill and a voter ID bill, both of which have good chances of passing.

---

by: blank @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 14:14:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I did some reading

sadly, you're right about the way things are going in Texas.  Oh, the irony of longing for the days when the GOP listened to Bush...

---

by: skaje @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 19:26:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good response.

It's interesting to think about what might the bigger factor if you compare the Hispanic vote in Texas to, say, that in Colorado, which is still friendly turf to Republicans even as it becomes easier for Democrats.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:28:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Texas versus California

2010: Bill White won Hispanics 61-38, Barbara Boxer 65-29, Jerry Brown 64-31. The national share was 60-38 Democratic.

2008: Obama won Hispanics in TX 63-35 and 74-23 in CA. His national share was 67-31.

Seems to me California is the abnormality not Texas. In the latter I still say the bigger problem is whites voting heavily Republican and low Hispanic turnout rather than share. Remember, we are not talking about winning TX by double-digits like CA but the state just becoming competitive.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 13:30:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

spot on

I might add that the GOP seems eager to promote hispanic candidates at the statewide level.  Look at NM, NV and FL this year.  

In CO a hispanic US senator resigned and was replaced by a white male US senator.  Do hispanic voters notice this? I think so.  

I expect that we will continue to see republicans advance hispanic candidates in the SW-think AZ-CA-TX.

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 13:48:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Turnout affects the share.

Like I said above, if Obama had received 100,000 more Hispanic votes in 2008, and everything else stayed the same, his portion of the Hispanic vote would have increased to over 69 percent. That's not a small figure, of course, but it's about five percent of the Hispanic voters that aren't registered and aren't showing up right now and a tiny one and a quarter percent increase from the actual voting pool.

You're right, though, that California might be on the opposite end of the extreme. The more interesting example is a state like Colorado, where Obama won 61 percent of the vote compared to McCain's 39 percent. Was there some sort of lingering good will towards McCain based on his previous work for immigration reform? Are Colorado Republicans also being smart about outreach? I'll be curious to see what the results in 2012 look like.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 13:53:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prop 187

I'll confess that I don't know how accurate this is, but I found it from links on the Prop 187 wikipedia page.

From http://www.calnews.com/archive...

Thirdly, the enthusiastic support of Proposition 187, a highly dubious effort fueled by rabid anti-Mexicans, of the state Republican Party drove away hundreds of thousands of Mexican Americans, including many who had climbed into the state's middle-class. Professor Bruce Cain of UC Berkeley reports that Mexican American men were reregistering Republican at a 50% rate before Proposition 187. That ended with Proposition 187.

This is what I recall too living in CA at the time.  CA Hispanics weren't always this Democratic.   Prop 187 changed that.  Now living in Texas, the environment around Riddle's bill in Texas (think SD 1070) and to a lesser extent the stuff in Farmers Branch seems similar to me.  

---

by: blank @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 14:24:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Prop 187

Looks pretty accurate to me. In 1993/4 I was a Political Science a major at a large Cal State campus. California was definitely purple at the time. Pete Wilson who was Governor at the time, blew up his Senate bid against Dianne Feinstein with what was supposed to be his signature issue. The proposition only served to enrage and activate a significant chunk of the population.
Word to the wise: Most of the central valley of California has over age 65 populations that are over 70% white and school age populations (>18)that are over 70% hispanic!  

---

by: hankmeister @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 17:09:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sounds Right to Me

That sounds about right to me, and I posted 3 below.  However, if I recall correctly, Mexican American men were voting around 50-50 prior to 187 in CA.  So, if Debbie Riddle gets her way, then TX Hispanics could switch pretty quickly like they did in CA.

---

by: blank @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 13:55:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Couple of Reasons

Anyway, while I wouldn't doubt that some Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California Hispanics, do you (a) think it's more a matter of statistics than anything else and (b) think that will last if it's not?

Having lived in both CA and TX, I can come up with a couple of reasons why Texas Hispanics tend to be conservative. One, generally Democrats have not spent the kind of money that they once spent to make CA solidly blue.  Bill White and Tony Sanchez did, but there has not been persistent spending.  Two, the Texas GOP hasn't had a Prop 187 disaster yet.  In fact, I vaguely recall CA Hispanics voting similarly to TX Hispanics prior to 187.

I actually suspect both of these might change soon.  Debbie Riddle's immigration bill, while very different from Prop 187, smells like 187 and could easily create the same alignments.  Once the Democrats have a real chance to win Texas, then the money will come.  Texas is also having a huge budget debacle as we speek, and Perry is acting pretty aloof about it.  If Democrats can place the blame at his feet, then the general population, not just Hispanics, might turn faster.

---

by: blank @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:41:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How far along is Debbie Riddle's bill?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:38:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Overshadowed

Right now the budget debate is consuming nearly all of the oxygen. (There's also a sonogram bill that is getting a slice of attention.)  While I don't know when the budget will be resolved (and here "resolved" is being used very loosely), I suspect they will get to immigration and voter ID.

For those who don't know what Debbie Riddle's bill is, it is essentially Texas's version of SB 1070.

---

by: blank @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 14:03:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Next week's releases

WA, OR, NV, UT, CO, MO, AL.

http://2010.census.gov/2010cen...

The West finally gets some love next week.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: MinnesotaMike @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:09:11 AM UTC

HUGE disconnect between actual population and the electorate......

The 2008 exit poll showed an electorate that was 63% white, and only 20% Hispanic, compared to a census that says the population is 18 points less white and 18 points more Hispanic.  In 2010 it was even worse, 67% white and only 17% Hispanic.  The black vote actually recorded in exit polls a couple points above census both times, at 13%, with Asians 2-3 points below census.  Of course some Hispanics are white and might have identified as such in an exit poll, and we don't know how much of the disconnect comes from that.  But I bet Hispanic whites aren't a huge percentage in the census.

I imagine a large percentage of non-white Hispanics are documented or undocumented immigrants.  Only when their children, including in the case undocumented immigrants their American-born children, reach their early 30s will we see an electorate that is only plurality white.

Texas Republicans have done a remarkable job os turnign the white vote so one-sidedly Republican that non-white vote growth hasn't made a dent in elections.  But Republicans finally have hit a wall, I don't they're not going to be able to make Texas like Mississippi or Alabama where the white vote for statewide Democrats can go down as low as the teens.  Obama got 26% of the white vote in Texas, and Kerry got 25% the previous Presidential, so that's pretty much the floor--basically about the same as in Georgia.

I think by 2024 or so, another dozen years, we'll start seeing Texas a tough hold for Republicans in Presidentials; it could even by 2020, but I bet the electorate changes more slowly than that.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:24:57 AM UTC

Yeah, I've been saying 15-20 years

Unlike Virginia and Florida, Texas is still firmly in the confederacy (to borrow from Chuck Todd).

---

by: andgarden @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 02:32:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting thoughts.

I suspect a lot of the reason that Democrats have a higher floor (if around 25 percent of the white vote is in fact a floor) because of the more cosmopolitan urban areas. I also suspect that they have a bit of room to grow from where they are now. Perhaps it's not enough to bring them over 50 percent statewide, but if Houston, Dallas, Austin, and the other big cities are attracting a lot of yuppie-like transplants or breeding them on their own, how long before the Democrats scoop them up? If it can happen in Atlanta or Charlotte, why not any of the big cities in Texas?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:03:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do think 25% is a real floor......

You're talking about white Texans willing to vote for a Massachusetts liberal followed by a liberal black guy from Chicago with a "funny" name that even includes Hussein!  Whatever percentage of white Texans choose to vote for those guys against credible Republican opponents, will vote Democratic every time.

The nonwhite vote in Texas went 75-25 for Obama, the exact reverse.

If the 3-to-1 break holds both ways, that means a 50-50 electorate, i.e., half white and half nonwhite, is required to make Texas a tossup.  With white vote share in Presidentials right now roughly census+20, but presumably likely to drop as noncitizen Hispanics are succeeded by children who are citizens and eligible to vote, my guess is that the white population share has to drop at least 10 points and closer to 15 before we get close to a 50-50 electorate.  That's at least another decade, thus I look at 2024 as a tipping point.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:48:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you think a reasonable ceiling is

for the next ten years when it comes to Democrats and the white vote in Texas?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:22:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Impossible to know since Obama performed better than any Texas Dem...

...in a statewide race in over a decade.  At least, I'm pretty sure that's true, that Obama's 44% is our total it(not white) vote share ceiling this century there.

White Texans have been locked in with virtually no elasticity.  I would therefore proceed with the assumption it will stay that way until an actual election proves otherwise.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 15:34:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we've probably hit out floor, too.

That said, our ceiling is probably pretty low, but since Obama didn't really contest the state in 2008, it's hard to say how low. I wonder how much improvement there would be simply by taking the state as seriously as, say, Wisconsin, let alone Ohio or Virginia. It would take an absolute implosion to reach 50 percent of the white vote, but maybe 35 percent?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:13:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depends on who the Repubs run.

If it's Sarah Palin, I could see 35%.  

---

by: markhanna @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:16:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Definitely the cities

The areas most rapidly turning blue in Texas are the cities, and even the conservative suburbs are softening as well.  Obama improved upon Kerry by over 20% in some of those red suburban districts.  And as for the urban ones in central Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, we're starting to max our numbers, running up the totals.  Of course, a good amount of this change was Bush no longer being president, but it is still encouraging to see the same patterns happening in Texas that have happened in other states with large cities.

---

by: skaje @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:08:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which suburbs are you talking about?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:20:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Houston, Dallas suburbs mainly

Notice the huge shifts in Democratic performance in TX-03 which changed from 30-70 Kerry-Bush to 42-57 Obama-McCain, TX-07 which went from 31-69 to 41-58, TX-10 which went from 34-67 to 44-55, TX-21 which went from 31-69 to 41-58, and TX-24 which went from 32-68 to 44-55.  Those are all massive swings.  And all suburban GOP districts.

---

by: skaje @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 07:12:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great analysis, as always

Interestingly, user b.j. recently linked to a Texas Observer article that also suggested 2024 would be the tipping point year. I think that sounds about right.  

---

by: markhanna @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:12:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surprised the Black population % remained the same

I figured the large influx of blacks from New Orleans into Houston after Katrina as well as Blacks moving to Texas to seek better jobs (or any jobs at all). I mean, where did Illinois blacks go? Their population % actually decreased there.

---

by: Kendall @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 03:22:56 AM UTC

Maybe Mississippi?

I remember a thread/diary on Alabama and Mississippi a few weeks ago on how the black populations there were increasing at a higher rate than the white populations were. Some of this could be attributed to refugees from Louisiana, where the black population dropped after the hurricane.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:23:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

.

The black population saw 0.0% change between 2000 and 2010. Dropped after Katrina, but has had the same amount of influx since.  

21, Conservative Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood) TX-10 (Home) TX-23 (School);   DKos: wwmiv.

---

by: wmayes @ Sat Feb 19, 2011 at 06:02:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anyone Notice?

Anyone notice how off the Census estimates where for Houston and Dallas, in particular?  If I remember the numbers correctly, they overestimated Houston proper by about 150,000 and Dallas by about 100,000.  In fact, the rate of growth for Houston was less than half of what was predicted for the 2000-2009 estimate period.

---

by: MIvotee @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 04:08:56 AM UTC

A map! A map!! My Kingdom for a map!!!

Damn, I'm from Texas, but I definitely have not committed the districts to memory. So looking over these tables, I can only guess for half of them, if they are Deep East Texas Pineywoods or suburban Metroplex or the High Plains or what. (Can't we, uh, not me -- I lack all such skillz -- but you, somebody, please!) imbed a map of districts to help make better sense of all this excellent analysis?

---

by: WoodyNYC @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 05:04:32 AM UTC

Try

here.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

---

by: borodino21 @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 06:01:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think 2016 might be too soon

You have Latino's share of the vote boosting up to 36%, they were only 20% in 2008. It's probably not going to rise that high in eight years.

I agree with DCCyclone up above - 2024 seems like a more realistic date.  

---

by: markhanna @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:11:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, meant to post the above on a lower thread

---

by: markhanna @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:19:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Texas

Interesting dialogue.  Great insights, as far as Texas Hispanics being more conservative than in other areas.  In the big cities in the Northeast, the Irish, Italians and other immigrant groups were Catholic and voted Democratic, but their children and grandchildren moved out to the suburbs and became Republicans, a lot of the time.  Certainly Hispanics, who are also Catholic, would also seem to take the same path.

After the 2008 election, the obituaries were being written for the GOP, and after only 2 years, it all turned around,  (Of course, after 2004, the obituaries were being written for the Democrats.)  This time in history reminds me a lot of the late 1940's and early 1950', when the House and Senate flipped fairly often.  

The Democrats (and I am one), we can't just wait for the Republicans to screw up and hope the voters come back to them.  I can easily foresee the House and Senate flipping a few more times over the next few election cycles.  Ultimately, what we all want is leadership, and I really don't see either side doing such a great job.  They just sit and wait for the other party to mess up.                    

I do know that people (especially independent voters) will ultimately vote for someone who works hard and basically tries to do a decent job, regardless of party affiliation.  Texas Dems have to offer an alternative, they can't just sit and wait for more babies to come along.  

---

by: gerard @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 06:25:40 AM UTC

The GE in 2012 in TX is going to be...

a lot closer than we think. Obama will probably not win TX in 2012, but just as Kerry softened up CO in 2004 for a win in 2008, Obama will really soften up TX in 2012 for a DEM win in 2016 and beyond.

When the hispanic portion of the population goes over 42%, then with 12% black and 4% asian - then this state becomes a blue state.

Let's assume among voters in 2016 that the breakdown would be so:

White: 51% (44% of state population)
Hispanic: 36% (42% of state population)
Black: 9% (12% of state population)
Asian: 3% (4.5% of state population)
other: 1% (including american indian)

If the DEM presidential candidate nails 70% of the non-white vote, then that is 34.3%. This means that in order to get over 50% overall, the DEM candidate needs only 30.9% of the white vote to get there. Obama already got 31% of the white vote in 2008.

Obama lost TX in 2008 by 11.76%. Alone, the increase in the hispanic population since then, if it will be reflected in registered voters who get out there and vote, will reduce that margin to as little as 4%. Mark my words, TX becomes one of the next swing states in the Union. Not in 2012, but in 2016 and beyond.

---

by: bonncaruso @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 07:29:44 AM UTC

The text at the bottom was not....

supposed to look as if it was stricken through. I used minus (-) marks for the margins....

---

by: bonncaruso @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 07:31:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2016 seems too soon

You have Latino share jumping to 35% in 2016 from only 20% in 2008. That seems like too big of jump. I think DCCyclone is more accurate when he says 2024.  

---

by: markhanna @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:18:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Helpful Links

You can find the true Anglo percent here http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/red...

Also, the map (with deviations) which was requested upthread is here
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/red...

Finally, all things Texas redistricting are here
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/red...

---

by: blank @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 14:35:59 PM UTC

Not sure where to fit this in so

here goes.  There has been alot of talk about long term trends not only on this thread but others here.

I can remember as a teenager when the 18 year olds got the right to vote.  The young people back then were so liberal and democratic because of cultural issues / Vietnam war.  Plus the older folks were still clinging to their New Deal ties to the democratic party. Plus the AA voters were just now registering in significant numbers in the South and hispanics were starting to appear in some states.  So in the early 1970's political sciences were predicting a multi generational boom for the democrat party.  After the 1974 elections people spectulated as to whether the GOP party might go the way of the whigs.  

That generation of college kids from 1964 to 1974 had to been the most liberal until say perhaps the 2008 18-21 bloc.

So how did that 40 year projection work out in 1971?  I guess we  had the most conservative period of Presidents (1981 to 2009) since before TR plus more people identify themselves as republicans now.  If I recall correctly it was +10D in 1971.

So I get a little leery when I read about people projecting long term political trends.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:14:44 PM UTC

Nothing is guaranteed, but

the country is becoming less white in all of the right places--big states with lots of congressional seats and Electoral votes. In many of such places, the white people seem to be trending Democratic, at best, or at worst, not remaining very loyal to Republicans. And in some places, the Republicans are doing their best to shove the non-white voters firmly over to the Democrats. We have to campaign and mobilize such voters as well as nominate good candidates, but we're getting an increasingly rich template to work with.

Put it this way: there's a reason that the politically smart Republicans are trying to make a big play for non-white voters. They know that if they don't, their chances of remaining a viable party are pretty damn limited.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

---

by: b.j. @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 18:27:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree and disagree.

It's definitely true, in my opinion, that the demographics -> Republican Party is doomed! meme is overplayed.

On the other hand, I wouldn't say that we're living in an era of Republican dominance. Republicans have lost the popular vote in four out of the past five presidential elections.

I know I'm picking and choosing my numbers. But you can't say it's a Republican era with those numbers.

http://mypolitikal.com/

---

by: Inoljt @ Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 22:24:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]