Democrats Can Take Texas -John Judis

[DS0816]

I'll put it this way (for now) In the future, we'll see a prevailing Democratic presidential candidate officially carry the state of Texas before we'll see a prevailing Republican presidential candidate officially carry the state of California.

[DS0816]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

[DS0816]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

In just 20 years, almost every single one of the current 65+ will be dead. Clearly, Texas politics will start to change sooner than that.

The national 65-and-older voting-age group are the ones most prominent with the Republican realigning election of 1968 [Richard Nixon]. They gave us Ronald Reagan.

They're the only voting-age group the Republicans carried in the last two elections, which started with the 2008 Democratic realigning election [Barack Obama].

There was some report about the 65-and-older group feeling more solidified in their self-identified Republican voting. That's no surprise.

As for Texas, the Democrats are going to have to build a presence in that state if they can truly win it over (in a likely Democratic presidential pickup year). One cannot just place a trust in developing trends. And to win in Texas, the Democrats are going to have to have to win over Tarrant County (Fort Worth), the reigning bellwether county for Texas. (That bellwether status is specifically for the state.)

[DS0816]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

Is there any excuse for a white southerner to vote for Kerry but not Obama other than race ?  I am old enough to vividly remember the 2004 election and how Kerry was mocked and pilloried by the Republicans.

He was seen as an out of touch french speaking, flip flopping Northeastern Liberal who didn't support the troops and was weak on the war on terror. Other than Obama being black, I can't see why he could be worse than Kerry to the typical elderly white Southerner.

Especially considering Bush was from Texas and had a home state bonus. I actually have a hard time believing those 65+ numbers are real. Do you have a citation?

Yes.

It's from the book How Barack Obama Won: A State-By-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election, by NBC News' Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser.

I'll present other numbers. (In case you think they're inaccurate.)


2004 TEXAS
18-29 (20): Democratic [Kerry] 41% | Republican [Bush] 59%
30-44 (29): Democratic [Kerry] 31% | Republican [Bush] 68%
45-64 (40): Democratic [Kerry] 37% | Republican [Bush] 62%
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48% | Republican [Bush] 52%

Atlas: Democratic [Kerry] 38.22% | Republican [Bush] 61.09%


2008 TEXAS
18-29 (16): Democratic [Obama] 54% | Republican [McCain] 45%
30-44 (31): Democratic [Obama] 46% | Republican [McCain] 52%
45-64 (39): Democratic [Obama] 41% | Republican [McCain] 58%
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32% | Republican [McCain] 66%

Atlas: Democratic [Obama] 43.63% | Republican [McCain] 55.38%

[DS0816]

That article underestimates the reactionary backwardness and racism of Texas whites. Whites in Texas are going to get even more Republican in their voting as Democrats increasingly become the brown and black party. I don't think Dems have hit a floor with Texas whites.

Try 2040, not 2020 for Democrats to start winning statewide.

Highlighted part is necessary because the racist whites in Texas are especially evident of the 65-and-older voting-age group. Though the state wasn't exit-polled for Election 2012, the difference between 65-and-older in Elections 2004 (a Republican hold of the presidency) and 2008 (a Democratic pickup of the presidency with a national margin shift of D+9.72) were as follows:

2004 TEXAS
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48%

2008 TEXAS
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32%


In 2004, John Kerry's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 4 percentage points (Bush carried them with 52%). In 2008, Barack Obama's loss of the 65-and-older voting-age group was 34 percentage points (McCain carried them with 66%).

The 65-and-older voting-age group in Texas allowed for John McCain, in 2008, to have his 11.76 percentage-points margin. And, compared to their 2004 vote, the 65-and-older Texas voters definitely did it because of racism.

Is there any excuse for a white southerner to vote for Kerry but not Obama other than race ?  I am old enough to vividly remember the 2004 election and how Kerry was mocked and pilloried by the Republicans.

He was seen as an out of touch french speaking, flip flopping Northeastern Liberal who didn't support the troops and was weak on the war on terror. Other than Obama being black, I can't see why he could be worse than Kerry to the typical elderly white Southerner.

Especially considering Bush was from Texas and had a home state bonus. I actually have a hard time believing those 65+ numbers are real. Do you have a citation?

Yes.

It's from the book How Barack Obama Won: A State-By-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election, by NBC News' Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser.

I'll present other numbers. (In case you think they're inaccurate.)


2004 TEXAS
18-29 (20): Democratic [Kerry] 41% | Republican [Bush] 59%
30-44 (29): Democratic [Kerry] 31% | Republican [Bush] 68%
45-64 (40): Democratic [Kerry] 37% | Republican [Bush] 62%
65+ (11): Democratic [Kerry] 48% | Republican [Bush] 52%

Atlas: Democratic [Kerry] 38.22% | Republican [Bush] 61.09%


2008 TEXAS
18-29 (16): Democratic [Obama] 54% | Republican [McCain] 45%
30-44 (31): Democratic [Obama] 46% | Republican [McCain] 52%
45-64 (39): Democratic [Obama] 41% | Republican [McCain] 58%
65+ (14): Democratic [Obama] 32% | Republican [McCain] 66%

Atlas: Democratic [Obama] 43.63% | Republican [McCain] 55.38%

Gimmie a break. Black Republicans have won elections in Texas by comfortable margins against white Democrats because of ideology, not race. I'd bet a higher percentage of the whites who voted for Obama did so because they cry themselves to sleep at night with white guilt than the ones who voted for McCain did so because they're "racist".

Let me guess, when a similar percentage vote for the Republican over Hillary it will be because they're evil sexists.

I won't be giving you any such break.

2008 was a wave election. Barack Obama, the Democratic pickup winner, shifted George W. Bush's R+2.46 popular-vote margin, from 2004, by D+9.72 in order to prevail by a national margin of D+7.26.

Every voting-age group in 2008 Texas shifted strongly Democratic (after all, it went from R+22.87, from 2004, to R+11.75, with 2008). The only voting-age group that shifted Republican were the 65-and-older group…and they did so by 30 g**d*** percentage points.

Given that the 65-and-older voting-age group of 2004 Texas was more Democratic than the other three voting-age groups, and that 2008 was a Democratic presidential pickup year, and that this voting-age group had a higher turnout in 2008, and that they had a ridiculous Republican shift (despite the wave against that party) … there is no explaining away why they handled their vote other than racism.