Migrating population is the key to the trend analysis

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

As per “AFRNC Chair Richard M. Nixon”:
“Bush is very popular in Texas, as is Governor Rick Perry. Their popularity has helped the GOP grow there. Bush was the first GOP governor in over 100 years.”

WRONG!

Since 1980 TX’s GOP number is higher than their national one.

In 1988,1992,1996,2000 this number was 1.95, 2.58, 7.76, and 11.30 respectively.
The consistent growth has nothing to do with this governor or that governor. It has more to do with migrating population (emigrating and immigrating).

In general, if you look only on the difference (state-national) then the trend analysis is a very good tool.

This simply isn't true in the South.  The South has become more Republican because conservative Democrats became alienated with their party and became Republican.  Also, the landscape of issues over which people choose their party has changed...more Southern voters are now voting Republican because of social issues that just weren't very important in 1980.  

It's not like there are a bunch of Republicans who all moved from New Jersey to Texas in the 80's.

If anything, Texas has become more liberal (not more Democratic) because of increased Hispanic population.  Not liberal enough to become a swing state, though.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In the south there are voters who vote Rep while their parents have voted Dem. It is not easy to find a voter who switched parties, though every one of us knows someone who did it

It is safe to assert that the main reason for the big changes in states like NH, NJ, CT, SD, MT, WY and TX is the emigration/immigration process that took place during the last 20 years.

Why is this so safe to assert?  Who the hell has immigrated to SD in the past 20 years?  Or even WY?  And most of the immigrants to TX are pretty liberal.

I'm sorry...you have no idea what you are talking about.  The people who live in South Dakota today are the SAME PEOPLE that lived there 20 years ago (or their children).

Rural voters are now much more Republican is presidential elections than they were 20 years.  The has to do with both with the issues changing and the parties changing.  But it is NOT because of immigration or emmigration.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In the south there are voters who vote Rep while their parents have voted Dem. It is not easy to find a voter who switched parties, though every one of us knows someone who did it

It is safe to assert that the main reason for the big changes in states like NH, NJ, CT, SD, MT, WY and TX is the emigration/immigration process that took place during the last 20 years.

Why is this so safe to assert?  Who the hell has immigrated to SD in the past 20 years?  Or even WY?  And most of the immigrants to TX are pretty liberal.

I'm sorry...you have no idea what you are talking about.  The people who live in South Dakota today are the SAME PEOPLE that lived there 20 years ago (or their children).

Rural voters are now much more Republican is presidential elections than they were 20 years.  The has to do with both with the issues changing and the parties changing.  But it is NOT because of immigration or emmigration.

Just to give you an example of this, look at the South Dakota exit poll from 2000, located on the web here:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/sd_epollgridPres.html

Overall, Bush won among exit poll respondents, 61-37.  The actual election result was Bush 60-38, or about +23 GOP over the national average.

However, when these SAME PEOPLE were asked who they voted for in 1996, they favored Clinton over Dole, 43-38, with Perot at 8%....about +5 GOP over the national average.  

So the EXACT SAME PEOPLE became 18% more Republican over the course of four years.  Now, I think these results are exagerrated by people's fondness for Clinton in hindsight, but it clearly shows that the people of South Dakota became have become more Republican...it is not that SD has become more Republican because it now has different people.