Texas 2012: Only 52% of electorate white (!) - yet 59% of actual voters

[eric82oslo]

What decided the decisive victory for Romney in Texas last year, was the remarkably low registering and turnout levels among Hispanics. Despite making up an astonishing 30.3% of the electorate, Latinos unfortunately made up only 21.9% of actual voters. Whites and blacks made up a much larger percentage of actual voters than of the overall electorate, due to much higher turnout/voter registration. Like Hispanics, also Asians had low turnout, though they made up only 3.2% of the electorate. Although almost 2 million Hispanic citizens decided to vote, there were even more - 3 million Hispanics - who couldn't be bothered to vote! The amount of elegible minority voters who chose not to vote, equaled 80% of the white voters who actually turned out in the election.

Source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/targeting-texas/

Let's take a look at the actual numbers, as presented by the New York Times opinion piece above.

Texas’ electorate 2012

All: 16,062,000
White: 8,360,000 – 52%
Hispanic: 4,867,000 – 30.3%
Black: 2,144,000 – 13.35%
Asian: 506,000 – 3.15%
Others: 185,000 – 1.15%

Texas’ actual voters 2012

All: 8,643,000
White: 5,087,000 – 58.9%
Hispanic: 1,890,000 – 21.9%
Black: 1,352,000 – 15.6%
Asian: 214,000 – 2.5%
Others: 100,000 – 1.15%

Hispanic citizens who opted not to vote: 2,977,000 (!)
Hispanic, Black & Asian citizens who chose not to vote: 4,061,000


Do you think Battleground Texas, a Democratic registeration machine at full speed and a Clinton/Castro ticket combined could remedy these symptoms in time for the 2016 roll out? Personally I think so. Next time around, white citizens will for sure make up less than 50% of the electorate. The big question is if the turnout levels will remain in place, or if latino voters could get just as energized as black voters were in Mississippi and other Deep South states in 2012.

This time white voters made up 17.8% more of the voter pool than minority voters - 58.9% to 41.1%. That is even more than the margin Romney won with in Texas, which suggests that minority voters must have voted almost at the same high levels for Obama as white voters voted for Romney.* If Democrats can manage to increase the minority turnout (Hispanics & Asians) considerably up in time for 2016, I could imagine minority voters making up slightly more than half of the voter pool in Texas come 2016. In that case it would be anyone's guess who would end up as the winner of Texas' 38 electoral votes. Perhaps a Clinton/Castro ticket could do the trick in that case?

*My calculations suggests that white voters voted 80%-20% for Romney, while minority voters voted 75%-25% for Obama.

PS: Sorry if I posted this thread in the wrong subthread?

[Asian Nazi]

Hispanics are not like blacks, meaning they can actually be convinced.

That sounds pretty racist to me.

[eric82oslo]

The Hispanic part of the Texas electorate increased by 5.7% btw from 2008 till 2012. From 24.6% till 30.3% in 2012. That's an increase of more than 1.4% every single year! If the Hispanic electorate continues to increase by the same yearly percentage, it should reach 36% by 2016. That's a hell of a lot potential voters. And the white voter pool should decrease even more than the Hispanic electorate is rising, since other minority voters are increasing in their numbers as well.

2008 Source: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2011/02/Texas.pdf

Here's another uplifting thing that occurred: While the national Hispanic voter turnout decreased from 50% in 2008 to only 48% in 2012, it actually slightly increased in Texas; from 38% in 2008 to 39% in 2012! Not a Whole lot to scream up about, but it defied the national trend, and that's what's important. We know how damn young that latino population in Texas is anyways. Their participation will steadily increase as they grow older.

[illegaloperation]

Texas is 47th in voter turnout rate. This is because of very low Hispanic turnout.

What that said, even if the Hispanic in Texas has the same turnout rate as Hispanic nationwide, Texas will still be comfortable red (atlas blue).

The big difference will be that Pete Gallego's seat will a safe seat.

[eric82oslo]

What that said, even if the Hispanic in Texas has the same turnout rate as Hispanic nationwide, Texas will still be comfortable red (atlas blue).

In 2012 yes, but not necessarily in 2016. Don't forget that most Texas latinos are really young, and young voters are generally much more progressive and liberal than older voters.

[eric82oslo]

An opinion piece written by Eva Longoria and Gilberto Hinojosa, the newly elected chairman of the Texas Democratic party:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read all of it here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/83081.html

[eric82oslo]

^ Eva Longoria.  -- an opinion piece written by EVA LONGORIA. You are proud to quote that article?

Hispanics in Texas are not as Democratic as the national average.

Nationally, they voted 73% - 27% for Obama. But in Texas, it was something around 35%-65%. When Bush ran, it was over 50%.

You're assuming all Hispanics in Texas are Democrats lying in wait when that may not be true. With the right candidate and the right message, Hispanics can vote for the GOP.

1) Mexicans are usually more liberal than other Hispanic nationalities, such as the Cubans.
2) Texas Hispanics are the youngest Hispanic group in the nation, some say the average Texas latino is no older than 19 years. Young voters are in general much, much more liberal than older voters, especially on social issues.
3) The Democratic party in Texas has been more or less dormant for close to 20 years now, no wonder why many latinos in the state haven't seen much reason for supporting the party then, right? Without a bit of basic information, you don't get far. However, during the past 6-12 months, something has started to change in Texas, most prominently with the launch of Battleground Texas, which scared the hell out of several prominent Texas Republican leaders, particularily Greg Abott. Jeb Bush stated in a speech last year that he was sure that Texas would be competitive in 2016 and that he even expected Texas to go blue in the near future.
4) Eva Longoria was one of the Obama campaign's co-chairs, and held a very uplifting speech at the Charlotte convention. Why shouldn't I be proud of her? Just because she's pretty and a famous actress?

[ElectionsGuy]

Honestly, you people are too hyped up. Stop living in a fantasy world where democrats rule the world and get 70%+ Hispanic every single time. There are two types of stubborn voters who likely don't change their vote:

1. Black voters
2. Southern White voters

Texas has both, while Asian and Hispanic voters are much more flexible. STOP assuming Hispanics are only democrats, they can turn more republican too. Texas will decisively vote republican again in 2016, no matter how confident your opinion articles may be, or no matter how Hispanics show up. It will take a while for the democratic party in Texas to take over the state. It's a matter of waiting time.

[Nichlemn]

I'd like to see a plausible scenario in which Texas is the tipping point state in 2016.

[Flake]

I am positive if Hillary chooses a Texas person, such as Julian Castro, or Wendy Davis, they could turn Texas blue (red for atlas). Now for hispanics, because they are much more liberal than the U.S. electorate. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/when-labels-dont-fit-hispanics-and-their-views-of-identity/ if this is true, and the statistics that the guy from Sweden says (sorry sir or madame I forgot your username and I don't want to retype all of this) then if battleground Texas turns out the electorate it will be a HUGE win for democrats, a tight one, but a huge blow to republicans that could let them win the presidency for years.

[barfbag]

I am positive if Hillary chooses a Texas person, such as Julian Castro, or Wendy Davis, they could turn Texas blue (red for atlas). Now for hispanics, because they are much more liberal than the U.S. electorate. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/when-labels-dont-fit-hispanics-and-their-views-of-identity/ if this is true, and the statistics that the guy from Sweden says (sorry sir or madame I forgot your username and I don't want to retype all of this) then if battleground Texas turns out the electorate it will be a HUGE win for democrats, a tight one, but a huge blow to republicans that could let them win the presidency for years.

Like Edwards helping Kerry in 2004. I know Democrats are the party of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but have the drugs given them a false perception of what's going on? Democrats are no more going to rule the world than Republicans were going to after the 2002 midterm elections. Start watching and listening to the conservative side of things like talk radio and Fox News and you'll learn there's more out there than socialism and abortions.

[BaldEagle1991]

But in Texas, it was something around 35%-65%. When Bush ran, it was over 50%.

It was actually pretty close to that, Hispanics voted 69-68% Obama.

As for someone is from the state, I can see this happening. But not in 2016, perhaps in the 2020's. That right there is the decade to watch for Texas.

[Non Swing Voter]

But in Texas, it was something around 35%-65%. When Bush ran, it was over 50%.

It was actually pretty close to that, Hispanics voted 69-68% Obama.

As for someone is from the state, I can see this happening. But not in 2016, perhaps in the 2020's. That right there is the decade to watch for Texas.

So basically, the Republican party (as it stands now) has 8 years until it's completely irrelevant?

[Person Man]

I think the question is why turnout is so low in Texas. If its because people think that Texas is going red no matter what, then contesting Texas will be like contesting Virginia, Florida or Colorado. If its because Hispanics don't vote because they know Republicans don't like them but they are not ready to vote Democratic, then there's a reason why Republicans can't be touched. So it might just come back to square one- who can win debates.

[opebo]

Do you think Battleground Texas, a Democratic registeration machine at full speed and a Clinton/Castro ticket combined could remedy these symptoms in time for the 2016 roll out?

No. You don't think Republicans are doing something to counter this effort? The GOP party in Texas is powerful and efficient.

2012 was just a bad year for the GOP with minorities. You forget Bush got 44% of Hispanics nationwide. When he ran for governor of Texas, he was pulling >50% of the Hispanic vote.

Hispanics are not like blacks, meaning they can actually be convinced.

Sure, it is possible you can slow the bleeding, but you're not going to turn them around. They're very likely to become more and more heavily Democrat - there's a tipping point in minority communities (and not just racial minorities, youth voters are a 'voting minority', and in most regions they are hugely D).  Essentially the meme that the GOP is against them is not only highly accepted but growing in acceptance among all non-white communities, and even among non-old whites.

[Person Man]

Do you think Battleground Texas, a Democratic registeration machine at full speed and a Clinton/Castro ticket combined could remedy these symptoms in time for the 2016 roll out?

No. You don't think Republicans are doing something to counter this effort? The GOP party in Texas is powerful and efficient.

2012 was just a bad year for the GOP with minorities. You forget Bush got 44% of Hispanics nationwide. When he ran for governor of Texas, he was pulling >50% of the Hispanic vote.

Hispanics are not like blacks, meaning they can actually be convinced.

Sure, it is possible you can slow the bleeding, but you're not going to turn them around. They're very likely to become more and more heavily Democrat - there's a tipping point in minority communities (and not just racial minorities, youth voters are a 'voting minority', and in most regions they are hugely D).  Essentially the meme that the GOP is against them is not only highly accepted but growing in acceptance among all non-white communities, and even among non-old whites.

Yeah, but there's always abortion. And "it could have been you" keeps that issue alive even amongst relatively liberal audiences.

[opebo]

Yeah, but there's always abortion. And "it could have been you" keeps that issue alive even amongst relatively liberal audiences.

I think that is an issue very unlikely to sway people to vote for people they perceive as their enemies or as 'hating' them.  It works fine with working class whites who are (or think they are) culturally similar to their masters, but I don't think it will work with racially oppressed minorities.  Certainly hasn't worked with blacks.

[Person Man]

Yeah, but there's always abortion. And "it could have been you" keeps that issue alive even amongst relatively liberal audiences.

I think that is an issue very unlikely to sway people to vote for people they perceive as their enemies or as 'hating' them.  It works fine with working class whites who are (or think they are) culturally similar to their masters, but I don't think it will work with racially oppressed minorities.  Certainly hasn't worked with blacks.

Did it win W the election in 2004 with Hispanics?

[barfbag]

But in Texas, it was something around 35%-65%. When Bush ran, it was over 50%.

It was actually pretty close to that, Hispanics voted 69-68% Obama.

As for someone is from the state, I can see this happening. But not in 2016, perhaps in the 2020's. That right there is the decade to watch for Texas.

So basically, the Republican party (as it stands now) has 8 years until it's completely irrelevant?

Stop the wishful liberal thinking. Trends change and so does the party in the white house. Traditionally we have 8 years of Republicans followed by 8 years of Democrats.

[Person Man]

^ Technically, Bush didn't "win" the Hispanic vote in 2004.

He did extremely well for a GOP candidate, but he still lost 44-55%, an 11% margin. It was still a loss.

In 2000, he lost handily, around 35-62%; it was a similar loss that McCain suffered in 2008.

Perhaps Bush did well with Hispanics because Kerry was so bad? Or maybe they have an incumbent fetish? Maybe they are hawks who supported the Iraq war?

I don't know...

Well, he did well enough to make it very difficult for the Democrats. Maybe they are pro-incumbent but they were also probably lured in by the W's attempts to "let little guys in on the action" and his moderate stance on Hispanic race relations.