If Texas turns blue, will the White House be for Democrats?

[Harpers Ferry]

Asking whether or not Texas will Democrat is like asking if hell is going to freeze over.

The saying "when Texas turns blue" should really start catching on.

[Fortschritte]

In the foreseeable future, the state may become more of a swing state. But, over time, I believe that the GOP will either be forced to become more moderate, or they'll split into two. If either things happen, the White House won't be guaranteed for the democrats.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you really think Wendy Davis is going to win?” I asked Jenn Brown, the executive director of Battleground Texas. “I sure do,” she replied. Brown and her top staff may be the only people in Texas who think that Democrat Davis, who is running for governor, can defeat Republican Greg Abbott next week. But the larger question is whether Battleground Texas’s strategy of turning Texas Blue, which is currently married to Davis’s candidacy, can over the next two, four, or six years make Texas, which hasn’t elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994, or voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976, competitive again.

Battleground’s strategy, as it was presented to me during a recent visit to Texas, relies primarily on demographic trends within the state. Texas has already become a majority-minority state like California. According to 2013 census figures, only 44 percent of Texans are “Anglos,” or whites; 38.4 percent are Hispanic; 12.4 percent African-American; and the remainder Asian-American and native American. By 2020, Hispanics are projected by the Texas State Data Center to account for 40.5 percent of Texans and African-Americans for 11.3 percent compared to 41.1 percent of Anglos. Texas’s minorities generally favor Democrats over Republicans, but they don’t vote in as great a proportion as Anglos who have favored Republicans by similar percentages. Battleground’s strategy assumes that if it and other organizations like the Texas Organizing Project can get many more minorities, and particularly Hispanics, to the polls, then, as minorities increasingly come to outnumber Anglos, Democrats can take back the state.

Battleground’s strategy has met with skepticism in some quarters. My former colleague Nate Cohn has argued that the numbers don’t add up. Former Republican Party executive director Wayne Thorburn argues in Red State that the “Texas Democratic Party may have a more serious deficit with Anglo voters than Republicans do with Hispanics.” Indeed, there are grounds for skepticism. If you take the numbers, but keep the turnout and the degree of party support consistent with the most recent election in 2012, then it is unlikely the Democrats could achieve a majority by 2020, and perhaps not in the following decade. But if you take politics into account—if you assume that developments in both parties could alter baseline projections—then the Battleground strategy looks far more plausible.



Let’s first look at how the population figures translate into votes. While the overall number of minorities already surpass that of Anglos, the numbers of voters have not. Who votes depends on how many in each group are eligible to vote. In 2014, about 46 percent of Hispanics are eligible to vote. The rest are not citizens or are under 18. By contrast, voter eligibility among whites is in the high seventy percent and among African Americans is in the low seventy percent range. The other factor is turnout. In 2012, only about 39 percent of eligible Hispanics voted compared to a little over sixty percent of Anglos and African-Americans. So in the 2012 election, and most likely in the 2014 election, in spite of Battleground’s considerable efforts, Anglo voters, who are likely to favor Republican candidates, will outnumber minority voters.

In 2020, a presidential election year, the numbers should look different. Minorities’ population edge should have increased, and eligibility among Hispanic voters, which has been growing, should be around 50 percent. I have tallied four scenarios for 2020. They show the conditions that would finally lead to a Democratic victory in 2020. (In each of these, I am keeping black turnout and support constant, and assuming that Asian and Native American eligibility and turnout increase slightly, and support for Democrats remains at about 60 percent. To be safe, I am also using the conservative Texas State Data Center figures, which some political scientists believe understate Hispanic growth.)

Scenario one: Hispanic turnout increases to 45 percent (which is still less than the national average for Hispanic voters) and support for the Democratic presidential candidate remains at 65 percent, and only 25 percent of whites back the Democratic candidate. In that case, the Republican candidate would get almost 54 percent of the vote.

Scenario two: Hispanic turnout increases to 50 percent(which is still less than neighboring New Mexico), and support for the Democratic candidate climbs to 72 percent (which is still less than Hispanic support for Democrats in Colorado), but white support for the Democrat remains at 25 percent. In this case, the Republican squeaks by with a little over 51 percent of the vote.

Scenario three: Hispanic turnout only increases to 45 percent and support remains at 65 percent, but the Democrat gets 30 percent of the white vote. The Republican squeaks by with a little over 50 percent of the vote.

Scenario four: Hispanic turnout remains at 50 percent and support at 72 percent, but white support for the Democrat climbs to 30 percent. Then the Democrat gets 51.5 of the vote.

In other words, a Democratic presidential candidate could carry Texas in 2020 if Hispanic turnout grows, support for the Democratic candidate nears or exceeds 70 percent, and Democrats gather 30 percent of the Anglo vote. If the Democrats can’t attract more than 25 percent of the Anglo vote, then even the most energetic efforts at Hispanic mobilization won’t get their candidate across the finish line.



Raising Hispanic turnout and support for Democratic candidates obviously requires the kind of voter mobilization that Battleground and other groups are undertaking. This year, Battleground claims to have recruited 32,000 volunteers to register voters and get them to the polls. Registration in the state’s five largest counties is up two percent, even though registration often goes down between presidential and mid-term elections. But success among Hispanics also depends on building organizations that function between elections. Battleground, which is an out-of-state creation, may not be best suited for this task. “Organizations come in for the election, and then they are gone,” Jorge Montiel, the lead organizer for San Antonio’s Metro Alliance, laments.

Success in mobilizing the Hispanic vote also depends on nominating candidates in Texas (and also nationally) who can appeal to these voters. According to several Democrats I talked to, Davis hasn’t “connected” to these voters. In the primaries, she even lost several small counties to a token Hispanic opponent. She is principally known in the state for her stand on behalf of abortion rights—whereas many of Texas’s Hispanics oppose abortion. Democrats urged San Antonio’s former mayor Julian Castro, now the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to run, but he declined, probably one San Antonio political leader speculated, because he feared certain defeat.

Finally, success in increasing Hispanic support for Democrats will depend on what Republicans in Texas and nationally do. In Texas, Republican governors have steered clear of the harsh rhetoric about “illegal aliens” that proliferates among many other Republicans. Abbott boasts a Latina wife. As a result, Texas Republican candidates for state office have gotten about 40 percent of the Hispanic vote, which has virtually assured their victory. This year, the Hispanic Bush, George P. Bush, is currently running for Land Commissioner, and if he becomes a leader of party, could keep many Hispanics voting for Republicans in state races.

But there are Tea Party Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz, who decry efforts at immigration reform. In Arlington this year, a suburb of Dallas-Fort Worth, a Tea Party favorite Tony Tinderholt, who ousted a moderate incumbent in the primary, has warned that “people are going to die” to protect the border from people “with plans to do horrible disgusting things to American citizens.” If Cruz and Tea Party types take over the Texas party, then it will become easier for Democrats to win votes in high state office, which are held between presidential elections.

Texas Democrats are likely to have an easier time painting the national party and its candidates as being hostile to Hispanics. In 2012, Obama got 71 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally against Mitt Romney, who used his opposition to immigration reform to win the nomination. Last year, Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s support for immigration reform appeared to doom his presidential prospects. So even if Texas’s Republicans foil Democratic efforts to boost their Hispanic support in state elections, national Republicans might help Democrats increase Hispanic support for a Democratic presidential candidate.



In Texas, white voters have blended the anti-government ethos of the West and the deep South. Many Texas white voters began changing their party allegiance from Democrat to Republican after 1980 without changing their ideology. But Texans’ bedrock conservatism among whites has been mitigated by in-migration from less Republican states and by the development of what Ruy Teixeira and I called “ideopolises”—large metro areas dominated by professionals who produce ideas. By garnering support in the Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso metro areas, the Democrats might be able to get the 30 percent or more of the vote they need in presidential elections, and eventually the 35 percent they need in state elections.

In these metro areas, Texas Democrats can attract the same white voters who boosted Democrat hopes in states like Virginia and North Carolina: younger voters, who came of age after the Reagan-Bush era, professionals, and women. Davis’s candidacy has probably helped among these voters. In a late September poll that showed Davis behind Abbott by fourteen points, she still had an edge among women and voters 18 to 44, while getting trounced among male and older voters. (In the same poll, Davis only get 50 percent of Hispanic vote.) Mustafa Tameez, a Houston Democratic consultant, says that the Texas state legislature’s lurch to the right, which spawned Davis’s candidacy, will win over many of these voters. “The urban vote and women are the key to Democrats winning Texas,” Tameez says.

Texas Democrats’ ability to win over white voters will also depend on what happens to the national party. Obama remains deeply unpopular in Texas—identified with whatever failures white Texans ascribe to the federal government. There were no exit polls in the 2012 election, but Nate Cohn has estimated that Obama only got 20 percent of the white vote. Whites need to feel comfortable voting for a candidate identified with the national party. Tameez and other Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton, who defeated Obama in the 2008 Texas primary, will fare far better among the state’s Anglos than Obama did. But even if they nominate a candidate more palatable to urban whites, the Democrats may have to wait until 2020 to have a good shot at winning Texas in a presidential vote.

Of course, Texas Republican politicians understand the threat that the state’s demographic changes pose. Last year, Abbott warned that with the formation of Battleground, Texas was “coming under a new assault, an assault far more dangerous than when the leader of North Korea threatened when he said he was going to add Austin, Texas, as one of the recipients of his nuclear weapons.” Abbott and the Texas Republicans have responded to the threat with new restrictions of voting and on registering voters that are designed to make it more difficult for minorities to get to the polls. But these restrictions are double edged. They will make it more difficult to vote, but they can also provide a rallying cry for Battleground and other groups trying to get out the vote. They can give the lie to Republican claims that they are sympathetic to the state’s Hispanics and in so doing, speed the day of reckoning for Texas Republicanism.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1199 ... lue-can-it

So, basically, Texas could soon turn blue, thanks to changes in demographics. Simply increasing voter turnout a bit, to below national averages, will deliver Texas to the Democrats. Thanks to our electoral college, this could be a huge boon for Democrats.

So, let's assume Texas turns blue. Democrats would get:
- 38 Texas votes, 55 California votes, 7 Oregon votes, 12 Washington votes, 10 MN votes, 10 WI votes, 20 Illinois votes, 16 Michigan votes, 20 PA votes, 29 NY votes, 3 VT votes, 7 CT votes, 4 RI votes, 11 MA votes, 4 Maine votes, and 4 Hawaii votes.
.. That's 250 votes for Democrats.
So, Democrats would basically get 46.5% of electoral votes with ease.

If you add in the 3 Democrat-leaning swing states, that's 15 more votes for Democrats. That brings the total up to 265/538 votes. They'd only need 5 more electoral votes to win an election, which won't be too hard as they can probably pick up a state like Ohio or Virginia, maybe Florida.
Now let's say Florida turns blue(or leans blue), which is quite likely to happen. If that happens, Democrats will pretty much have the White House in the bag with little effort forever. They'd be pretty much guaranteed to get 294 electoral votes at that point.

So, what does NSG think? Could Texas turn blue? Could changing demographics mean that Democrats will hold the White House perpetually?

I think that until the Republicans move to the center and welcome minorities, LGBT, women, etc -- they'll fade into irrelevance, at least for Presidential elections. And that isn't likely to happen since the Republican Party has been moving further and further to the right, alienating anyone who isn't a white male. Or if we ditch the electoral college, which would be very difficult considering it'd need a constitutional amendment.

Texas could well turn blue. It already has strong urban blue representation. All it needs is to meet the tipping point. And some other surprising states might also be trending in the same direction. Georgia is expected to turn blue in the next few decades (for example).

[Parhe]

Wendy Davis got less of the vote than the Democrats did in 2010, so Texas won't be turning blue for a while.

Either that, or she was too liberal for those outside of Austin. Simply, Austin might be left of the main Democrat Party line politically.

Couldn't be true. Seeing as she also got Dallas and El Paso, the former which has more than double the population of Austin's Travis county.

[Burleson]

Why do you think Obama wants to give amnesty to illegal immigrants? More democratic voters in Texas and Arizona, that's why.
And the GOP does not alienate minorities. Mia Love is by no means a white man. Neither Tim Scott or Saira Blair are both white and male. The Republican Party, contrary to popular belief, is not the "party of old, white, men", we are the party of Americans that want this country to prosper. The Democratic Party is the party that has actively oppressed minorities until the 1970s, and is responsible for policies that rather than help minorities out of poverty, make it easy to be poor and jobless.

[Estado Nacional]

People have been predicting the "imminent Democratic takeover" for a while. I still remember when they said the Dems would win both Houses in this year's Midterm Elections and Obama would pull out some New Deal-ish shit and solve all of America's problems.

[Parhe]

They're too deep seeded to die. They may suffer a traumatic collapse, but they'll reform to centre within an election or two.

The only roots they have are in older or rural white males. That's not fertile land. That's goddamn near barren. Ethnic minorities haven't voted majority Republican in years. White women are a highly contested vote. Non-Evangelical groups tend toward the Democrats. They've got deep roots in loose soil.

Anglos, mainly regardless of gender and age, go Republican in Texas and Hispanics, particularly men, are becoming contested. Asians and Blacks mainly go Democrat.

[State of the Teutonic Order]

Texas will always be a conservative state. Despite Obama's attempt to fill it with as many illegals as possible, Texas will never vote Democrat. Republicans will win 2016 if we stand on principle. College students and Latinos are not as liberal as the media wants us to think. Latinos are pro-family and truly believe in the American Dream. When they start making a little more money, we'll see if they want big government to tax them to death. College students are very pragmatic. They believe in limited government and low taxes. Sure, they are not as conservative as older folks, but with age, people become more conservative. We need a true conservative in 2016, such as Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz.

[Parhe]

^This, although I wonder how long it will be until Kentucky and West Virginia join them in the common parlance.

Well then, so Southern No longer includes Maryland and Delaware (been through those states, they are very similar to Texas so I don't see how)? Well, at least now neither are Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Seems like a net win to me.

[Muinordgrad]

All I gotta say is that whenever a country becomes an one party state, things turn to crap pretty quickly (source: go look at North Korea). Now, I'm not saying that the us will turn into North Korea, but what I am saying is that if the GOP/Republicans in general die out, either:
A) the Democrats will split (most likely)
B) the Democrats end up becoming corporate puppets.

[Gyrenaica]

Sadly, most likely. Then hitler Clinton will come in and ruin us.

[Gauthier]

Looks like more Voter ID laws to "combat voter fraud" is going to be required.

[Greater Weselton]

If we elect a social democrat, we would have lost everything we fought for in the Cold War.

You mean democracy and liberty?

Or the right of the rich to trample on the poor?

Because last I checked, the SovUnion weren't Social Democrats, and a number of our allies were. It would seem to me that Social Democrats are no less American than, say, modern right-wing minarchism that flies in the face of years of conservative thought on the carefully applied nature of government.

But maybe I'm misinformed. Enlighten me?

The US fought for democracy and liberty against the Soviet Union. The rich don't trample on the poor in America.

[West Angola]

Sadly, most likely. Then hitler Clinton will come in and ruin us.

You understand she cannot be both a Communist AND Hitler, right?

[Greater Weselton]

If we elect a social democrat, we would have lost everything we fought for in the Cold War.

Because Social Democrat=Communist. Also "we"? In what dangerous Cold War theatre did you serve?

I am referring to the American ideal.

[Greater Weselton]

If we elect a social democrat, we would have lost everything we fought for in the Cold War.

You realize most European countries are social democracies to some degree yes? Social democracy=/=Soviet Union.

I do realize that Europe has a lot of social democracy. The USSR would be very proud of modern Europe.

[West Angola]

I am referring to the American ideal.

American ideal of...Communism? Or of Social Democracy?

[Greater Weselton]

I am referring to the American ideal.

American ideal of...Communism? Or of Social Democracy?

The American ideal of capitalism and freedom against communism plus social democracy.

[Ifreann]

Hopefully it turns Gold, for the Libertarian Party, but that obviously isn't happening.

Both because a Libertarian would not get Texas's electoral college votes, and because no news broadcaster would colour the state gold if they did.

---

Why do you think Obama wants to give amnesty to illegal immigrants? More democratic voters in Texas and Arizona, that's why.
And the GOP does not alienate minorities.

Then why does Obama want to give amnesty to illegal immigrants? If the GOP doesn't alienate minorities then surely immigrants could just as easily vote Republican, no?

[Saiwania]

The only way republicans win the latino vote is by doing a 180 on immigration which they wont.

Why are Latinos so pro-immigration? I think it must be because they want to bring all of their family in from Mexico. I want to see how the Latinos like it if Africans for example, immigrated en masse to the US and voted in ways that they did not like. If the US were to become an ever Blacker country that was at the expense of Latinos and non-Blacks.

[Gauthier]

The only way republicans win the latino vote is by doing a 180 on immigration which they wont.

Why are Latinos so pro-immigration? I think it must be because they want to bring all of their family in from Mexico. I want to see how the Latinos like it if Africans for example, immigrated en masse to the US and voted in ways that they did not like. If the US were to become an ever Blacker country that was at the expense of Latinos and non-Blacks.

Oh that's right, the United States has a land border with Africa!

[The Lone Star Republics]

maybe in a long while it might, but Wendy got DESTROYED here last election. Tejanos are typically more conservative than say, California Mexican-Americans. I doubt ill see a blue Texas in my lifetime.

[Gauthier]

maybe in a long while it might, but Wendy got DESTROYED here last election. Tejanos are typically more conservative than say, California Mexican-Americans. I doubt ill see a blue Texas in my lifetime.

Maybe after a few years of Rick Perry In a Wheelchair, including continued denial of Medicare expansion people will decide voting more than just during Presidential elections matter.

[Saint Kitten]

Why do you think the GOP doesn't like Obama's immigration plan? They don't want the mere possibility of that happening. But if it does happen, the White House would most likely be an easy win for the Democrats.

[Gauthier]

Why do you think the GOP doesn't like Obama's immigration plan? They don't want the mere possibility of that happening. But if it does happen, the White House would most likely be an easy win for the Democrats.

It's amusing that they don't utilize their other great skill and pass the immigration reform then steal all the credit from Obama.