The last stand: Can the Republican Party survive without Texas??

[urbanactivist]

Let's review the 2008 Presidential Electoral map...


http://2008election.procon.org/viewr...ourceID=001953

Although the land area of the red states is quite expansive, it's no secret that the people power lies in solidly blue areas. With each election cycle, the more populous states trend towards the Democratic party (this is also proving to be the case in traditional swing states like Ohio and Missouri).

The lone exception... the one state that Republicans have been able to count on without fail since the late 1960s... Texas. With a "good ole boy" for a governor and no signs of the abatement of cheap land and a pro-business climate in the future, Texas seems to be a sure bet for the Republicans to stay vital and relevant on the national scene.

But lately, the tides have been changing. Democratic voters are slowly (but deliberately) increasing in number, and spreading their influence much farther than the RGV. Democrats in Texas have finally figured out how to organize in strong numbers. Starting with the major urban areas of Dallas, Houston Austin and San Antonio, Dems are now working overtime to register new voters (of increasingly diverse demographics) and educate the citizenry about the party's goals. Most importantly, Texas has a new class of strong Democratic politicians that have the ability to make a strong showing in the state. What this adds up to is that Texas is about to become a major swing state... much sooner than the Republican party is prepared for.

So the question is this... can the Republican party remain viable without a strong showing in Texas??

[diablo234]

No. In the future they will probably even lose Arizona and Texas because of their anti immigration stance. Virginia and North Carolina were also categorized as red states until the 2008 election partly due to the influx of northeastern transplants but also due to the fact that the GOP as of right now only caters to the hard line/neoconservative wing while ignoring the more moderate/libertarian fractions of the party.

[urbanactivist]

Here's the population figures for anyone that's wondering (Wikipedia quick estimates)...

Texas state Population: 24,326,974

Counties over 100,000 (shaded by presidential election results... blue for Obama, red for McCain). They represent a solid 2/3 of the statewide population.

Bexar: 1,392,931
Bell: 237,974
Brazoria: 241,767
Brazos: 152,415
Cameron: 335,227
Collin: 491,675
Dallas: 2,294,706
Denton: 584,238
Ector: 121,123
Ellis: 111,360
El Paso: 721,598
Fort Bend: 354,452
Galveston: 277,563
Grayson: 110,595
Gregg: 111,379
Harris: 3,693,050
Hidalgo: 569,463
Jefferson: 252,051
Johnson: 126,811
Lubbock: 242,628
McLennan: 213,517
Midland: 116,009
Montgomery: 293,768
Nueces: 313,645
Potter: 113,546
Randall: 104,312
Smith: 174,706
Tarrant: 1,446,219
Taylor: 126,555
Tom Green: 104,010
Travis: 812,280
Webb: 193,117
Wichita: 131,664
Williamson: 249,967

(compiled using the US national Election atlas: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESUL...s=48&year=2008)
So still on the Republican side, but there are definitely some inroads that have been made in 2008.

Counties to watch in the 2010 Governor's race and again in 2012...

Tarrant (Ft. Worth)... there's a lot more Democrats here than what is being indicated, and I think it's a matter of getting some good motivation for them to register and vote. Ft. Worth is certainly more conservative than Dallas, but it's starting to reveal a progressive side. I think Bill White has the ability to recruit a lot of Democrats and liberal-minded people here.

Nueces (Corpus Christi)... they only voted for McCain by a 52-48 margin in the last election. So I think by 2012 they'll be flipped.

Fort Bend (suburban Houston)... they were one of the closest suburban counties in the state to voting for Obama... 51-49 margin. Conservatives no longer have a stronghold on this area.

Hays (suburban Austin)... I didn't include it on the list, but by the 2010 census it will likely be over 100k. Again, Obama only lost here by a 51-49 margin.

[electricron]

2010 will be an off year election. Anything can happen. Obama will not be on any ballot. Will Obama supporters come to the polls next November, or will they stay at home? My gut tells me many will stay at home not having "their man" to vote for.

2012 is entirely different, assuming Obama runs and is renominated.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by electricron

2010 will be an off year election. Anything can happen. Obama will not be on any ballot. Will Obama supporters come to the polls next November, or will they stay at home? My gut tells me many will stay at home not having "their man" to vote for.

2012 is entirely different, assuming Obama runs and is renominated.

Very true, it has little correlation to 2012, but to me what's important here is that the electoral landscape is rapidly changing in Texas, and th 2010 election will be a great snapshot of that. People vote for who they want to vote for of course, but I believe that this trend will continue to strengthen in 2010.

[Policy Wonk]

The danger for the Republican party going ahead is they have aligned themselves with factions that really can't contribute any tangible sum of money while estranging those who can.

[Strange Meat]

i dunno, i think that texas will be red for the foreseeable future. it's still pretty red.

[Dan Denson]

Originally Posted by Strange Meat

i dunno, i think that texas will be red for the foreseeable future. it's still pretty red.

Why do you think that? Not that you're wrong (I don't know). But it would be good to know why you're making the conclusion that the state will be red for the foreseeable future.

[TonyAnderson]

I don't think it's wise to use 2008's election results for future predicting, as it was really a historic and unprecedented moment. Plus, everyone seemed sick of Bush. And with the troubles in the economy, and increasing debt, fiscal awareness seems to be an increasing issue, which bodes better for republicans.

[llamaorama]

My guess is demographics. As time goes on Texas is becoming less rural, less white, and less big oil. It's going to have a similar human and economic makeup to California.

This does not mean it will necessarily turn blue as in west coast liberal, but nothing stays the same forever.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

I don't think it's wise to use 2008's election results for future predicting, as it was really a historic and unprecedented moment. Plus, everyone seemed sick of Bush. And with the troubles in the economy, and increasing debt, fiscal awareness seems to be an increasing issue, which bodes better for republicans.

I agree with you... to a point. The 2008 election energized segment of voters that don't normally vote. Some of them will probably never vote again, but particularly for the younger generation, it changed their view of politics for the rest of their lives. Because we elected the first minority president, I am of the belief that we have changed the voting population... more minorities will be voting in future elections now.

[new.slang]

i think it will remain red. the people who move there from the north are probably, for the most part, republicans. Democrats from the north probably move to more liberal states like florida, nc, colorado or california.

and i think there's a good chance obama won't win the 2012 election. It depends on who the republicans pick. If its an old man (like mccain) or palin i say highly unlikely. But if its a 50 year old conservative republican theres a good chance (not centre right like mccain)

[NorthScottsdale]

I think there is a good chance that Arizona will become a major swing state as well, as we stand to gain 2 more electoral seats in the 2010 census, and is steadily becoming more liberal as the Phoenix area grows. The main reason that John McCain won AZ by such a large margin in 08 is because McCain is an Arizona senator, and everyone loves him here..

[Dan Denson]

Originally Posted by new.slang

i think it will remain red. the people who move there from the north are probably, for the most part, republicans. Democrats from the north probably move to more liberal states like florida, nc, colorado or california.

and i think there's a good chance obama won't win the 2012 election. It depends on who the republicans pick. If its an old man (like mccain) or palin i say highly unlikely. But if its a 50 year old conservative republican theres a good chance (not centre right like mccain)

I haven't seen any evidence that people moving here from the north are for the most part Republicans. People moving here are coming for the jobs, and they don't care whose red and whose blue. It's probably a mixed bag.

[sammo]

hilarious thread! should have been:

"Last call: Can the Democrat Party Survive?"

or
"Can the Democrat Party Survive B.O.?"

or
"Can the United States of America Survive B.O. -& the Demoncrats?"

but seriously, can the democrats survive without illegal immigrants? -or "undocumented migrants"?

Can the Democrats survive without either of their (and i mean "their" -they run them) most dysfunctional states, california or new york?

for the record, i think both the DNC & GOP suck. one because it's been hi-jacked, radicalized & marginalized by its far left base (socialists) and the other bums that were trashed for being too comfy and beholden to big business interests. and governing like Liberals.

how can you all have elected such an 'unknown quantity'?
no foriegn policy to speak of, just drops the healthcare bill, spending out of control, so many broken promises regarding transparency or pork spending, socializing banks and auto makers, etc. with super majorities in the house and senate, their biggest opponent is the american citizen. how sinister/left.
this admin. has run out of ideas. another 'job summit'? more bailouts? i feel like i'm watching a very predictable greek tragic comedy. one year in, this 'most popular', noble prize laureate (lol) prez has the fastest dropping poll numbers in recorded history! i don't think he would last a month under the perpetual media/hollywood scrutiny of the former hillbilly. looks like buyer's remorse to me.


americans would make for a great magic show audience. "hey folks, look at the plane overhead..."
hint: you're focusing on the wrong hand.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by sammo

hilarious thread! should have been:

"Last call: Can the Democrat Party Survive?"

or
"Can the Democrat Party Survive B.O.?"

or
"Can the United States of America Survive B.O. -& the Demoncrats?"

but seriously, can the democrats survive without illegal immigrants? -or "undocumented migrants"?

Can the Democrats survive without either of their (and i mean "their" -they run them) most dysfunctional states, california or new york?

for the record, i think both the DNC & GOP suck. one because it's been hi-jacked, radicalized & marginalized by its far left base (socialists) and the other bums that were trashed for being too comfy and beholden to big business interests. and governing like Liberals.

how can you all have elected such an 'unknown quantity'?
no foriegn policy to speak of, just drops the healthcare bill, spending out of control, so many broken promises regarding transparency or pork spending, socializing banks and auto makers, etc. with super majorities in the house and senate, their biggest opponent is the american citizen. how sinister/left.
this admin. has run out of ideas. another 'job summit'? more bailouts? i feel like i'm watching a very predictable greek tragic comedy. one year in, this 'most popular', noble prize laureate (lol) prez has the fastest dropping poll numbers in recorded history! i don't think he would last a month under the perpetual media/hollywood scrutiny of the former hillbilly. looks like buyer's remorse to me.


americans would make for a great magic show audience. "hey folks, look at the plane overhead..."
hint: you're focusing on the wrong hand.

Your post doesn't warrant a substantive response.

[urbanactivist]

Originally Posted by new.slang

i think it will remain red. the people who move there from the north are probably, for the most part, republicans. Democrats from the north probably move to more liberal states like florida, nc, colorado or california.

and i think there's a good chance obama won't win the 2012 election. It depends on who the republicans pick. If its an old man (like mccain) or palin i say highly unlikely. But if its a 50 year old conservative republican theres a good chance (not centre right like mccain)

I have to disagree with your view/ assumption here. Most new residents moving to Texas are just as diverse as the rest of the United States... it's a fare amount of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. If anything, the trend with new residents is away from either party. And yeah, Democrats (and everyone else) moving to Texas has nothing to do with party affiliation... people are moving here in droves because the state is big, cheap and has lots of jobs.

Your argument might hold some weight if you're referring to "superliberals", but again when we're talking about real life job situations, people move where they have to, and take what they can get. Part of the reason that Houston is becoming so liberal is the amount of transient population that we have here is growing, especially inside the loop.

I disagree also with the view that Republicans are proclaiming ever since Scott Brown got elected... "the nation has turned the tide and now agrees with the Republican base". WRONG. Most people just need a government that's going to give them some answers. I think on the whole we still agree with more of the Democratic agenda than we do the Republicans... it's just that when you're mired in a rough economy (especially those without a job right now), you need to turn to whoever has an answer first, and people have grown impatient. The Obama administration also bit off a bit more than it could chew this year, and they need to focus. Once we see some results, the right-wing Tea Partiers won't have a leg to stand on.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

I have to disagree with your view/ assumption here. Most new residents moving to Texas are just as diverse as the rest of the United States... it's a fare amount of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. If anything, the trend with new residents is away from either party. And yeah, Democrats (and everyone else) moving to Texas has nothing to do with party affiliation... people are moving here in droves because the state is big, cheap and has lots of jobs.

Your argument might hold some weight if you're referring to "superliberals", but again when we're talking about real life job situations, people move where they have to, and take what they can get. Part of the reason that Houston is becoming so liberal is the amount of transient population that we have here is growing, especially inside the loop.

I disagree also with the view that Republicans are proclaiming ever since Scott Brown got elected... "the nation has turned the tide and now agrees with the Republican base". WRONG. Most people just need a government that's going to give them some answers. I think on the whole we still agree with more of the Democratic agenda than we do the Republicans... it's just that when you're mired in a rough economy (especially those without a job right now), you need to turn to whoever has an answer first, and people have grown impatient. The Obama administration also bit off a bit more than it could chew this year, and they need to focus. Once we see some results, the right-wing Tea Partiers won't have a leg to stand on.

Agreed completely

Only question would be "Houston is becoming so liberal is the amount of transient population that we have here is growing." Was that a typo? Most transients don't qualify to vote without a mailing address to register at do they?

Also, "I disagree also with the view that Republicans are proclaiming ever since Scott Brown got elected..." You're right that I don't think Scott Brown's election means a whole lot of anything, and I think most Republicans realize that. That said, O'Reily and Hannity (and probably others but I avoid listening to them (the tv in my gym is stuck on Fox )) have been crowing non-stop about the massive tidal shift signalled by the Scott Brown election.

[sammo]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

Your post doesn't warrant a response.

response? i wasn't expecting one.

and do brace yourselves for the november elections when the political sciolists (not to be confused with 'socialists' -which many of them unwittingly are) will be shocked, scratching their collective heads, wondering now what the heck went wrong - ?
and it'll be days before the dust settles and the white house/press, the Teleprompter, the Times, msnbc, etc. have the anodynic talking points assembled/aligned to explain the 'catastrophe'. "is Liberalism dead?" they'll -no, we'll wonder aloud...


i'll check back in in november, dig up this thread...

God Bless America!


p.s. hey, stating my post doesn't warrant a response is a response!

[pesto]

unfortunately, much of what sammo says is pretty accurate; the polls for the Democrats are plunging faster than could be imagined considering the unassailable majorities in Congress and the good will they came in with.

Health was shockingly poorly handled and it is hard to believe that Obama really understands how the economy works. I won't talk foreign affairs because they don't usually affect elections.

And sammo is right about the future too; the new strategy (publicly announced) is to get away from issues and focus on "populism". That is very bad news for the next few years, since populism usually means cheap shots at banks, big business, the rich and a healthy dose of racial incitement.

Where I think he may be wrong is that the 2/3 of the Democrats who are not goofy and would like to keep their jobs are going to move back nearer the center. The real interest the next few months is what to do with Pelosi and other leadership that is branded with the far left/goofy image.