Day 43: Texas

[Joe Republic]

I'm too lazy (and tired) to introduce it, so let's just discuss Texas.

[DanielX]

Notable in having major metropolitan areas that are supermajority Republican. Especially Dallas-Fort Worth.

Interestingly enough, until 1990 or so Texas was strongly Democrat on a state and local level; in the eighties it was a lot like West Virginia today (ticket-splitting and al).

Texas just shot past New York and is now the second-most-populous state in the Union after California. Like Florida, North Carolina, and much of the Southwest, it's a big growth state, although I'm willing to bet large areas of the interior west of Texas are shrinking.

[minionofmidas]

I noticed that in 2004, rural areas trended Rep but the major metros trended Dem*. Of course Austin trended heavily Dem, but that's largely because it had been Nader's best major-city result.

*Houston and Dallas. Not San Antone and El Paso.

[memphis]

Hispanics in Texas split almost exactly between Bush and Kerry. This is surprising because Hispanics nationwide broke heavily Democratic.  Urban areas are only trending Dem because so many Republicans are moving to the 'burbs. I don't think the Democrats have a prayer in Texas. This is a great example of how the winner-take-all method of allocating electoral votes disenfranchises millions of people.

[Sam Spade]

I noticed that in 2004, rural areas trended Rep but the major metros trended Dem*. Of course Austin trended heavily Dem, but that's largely because it had been Nader's best major-city result.

*Houston and Dallas. Not San Antone and El Paso.

Bexar County (San Antonio) and El Paso (El Paso) trended Republican because of the massive Hispanic Republican trend in Texas in 2004.  Even my old CD in urban Houston (62% Hispanic) trended 5% Republican in 2004.  The Hispanic shift is what allowed Bush his margin in 2004, as he lost some white Democrats and moderates who had supported him in 2000.

Fact is, that the old-line suburbs have trended Democrat a bit in Texas, but probably less than anywhere else in the nation.

The Austin trend is very palpable, but honestly it doesn't surprise me.  I was surprised that Travis County voted for Bush in 2000, even with Nader, but this reflected an overall positive feeling that Texas Democrats had towards Bush that clearly did not last until 2004.

The Houston/Dallas numbers are deceptive.  Even though the Bush supermajorities in suburban Dallas (Collin and Denton counties) decreased in percentages, Republicans still received about 20,000 more votes per county than they did in 2000, as the population in those counties increased dramatically and their share of the statewide vote increased also.  Dallas County proper showed a Democrat shift, but the gain in votes there for Democrats equalled the loss for Democrats in the suburban counties.  It was basically a tit-for-tat there.

The same thing happened in Brazoria/Montgomery/Fort Bend counties vs. Houston (Harris County) also to a lesser extent. 

What's interesting about Houston is that it is located at the southern end of Harris County and early suburban development went towards Fort Bend County.

This means that a good part of Fort Bend County is more old-line suburbs than a good part of Harris County, which is a large county and extends fat to the north, where many new exurbs are being built in places like Tomball. 

This explains the very small shift in Harris County towards Democrats and the much larger shift in Fort Bend County.

[Sam Spade]

Hispanics in Texas split almost exactly between Bush and Kerry. This is surprising because Hispanics nationwide broke heavily Democratic.  Urban areas are only trending Dem because so many Republicans are moving to the 'burbs. I don't think the Democrats have a prayer in Texas. This is a great example of how the winner-take-all method of allocating electoral votes disenfranchises millions of people.

What's interesting is that the Hispanic movement to Republicans in Texas is occuring most strongly in Republican areas, but is also occuring in urban areas.  I leave my own CD as an example of this.

The explanation behind this is the leftward trend of the Democratic party post-1996 in Texas and post-2000 nationwide. 

Hispanics in Texas are decently liberal economically (especially towards education and social welfare programs), but supportive of free trade interestingly.  However, they are fairly conservative socially, strongly pro-gun rights, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, etc.

Democrats will not succeed in Texas again until they understand the Hispanic voter in this state and modify their positions accordingly.

[MaC]

[haiku]Votes Republican.
Has done so for a long time.
Democrats lose here.[/haiku]

[Alcon]

Texas is not a very interesting state politically other than how Hispanics are trending - whites are Republicans, blacks are Democrats, and Hispanics are Democrats near the border, and Republicans elsewhere.  Oversimplification, of course, but it seems that it's basically how it goes.

Oh, by the way, I just noticed something funny on the CNN survey.  Kerry won suburban voters 68%-32%.  Haha!  Right.

[MaC]

Oh, by the way, I just noticed something funny on the CNN survey.  Kerry won suburban voters 68%-32%.  Haha!  Right.

come on Alcon, the Clinton News Network?

[© tweed]

Oh, by the way, I just noticed something funny on the CNN survey.  Kerry won suburban voters 68%-32%.  Haha!  Right.

The really can't be anywhere near true.  While glacing at the maps of 2004 on this site, Bush won the most populated counties in Texas (albeit by relatively small margins) and the surrounding areas, which are the areas likely to be classified as suburbs.

[Alcon]

Oh, by the way, I just noticed something funny on the CNN survey.  Kerry won suburban voters 68%-32%.  Haha!  Right.

The really can't be anywhere near true.  While glacing at the maps of 2004 on this site, Bush won the most populated counties in Texas (albeit by relatively small margins) and the surrounding areas, which are the areas likely to be classified as suburbs.

OK, this is strange:



Huh?

[© tweed]

It HAS to be a typo.  Too bad CNN is too big a company to contact and ask.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Oh, by the way, I just noticed something funny on the CNN survey.  Kerry won suburban voters 68%-32%.  Haha!  Right.

The really can't be anywhere near true.  While glacing at the maps of 2004 on this site, Bush won the most populated counties in Texas (albeit by relatively small margins) and the surrounding areas, which are the areas likely to be classified as suburbs.

OK, this is strange:



Huh?

I think they accidentally switched the 68/32 thing in the suburbs around.

As for the other weird numbers, I think this is what happened: "Big cities" probably include Lubbock, Abilene, and Amarillo (all very Republican). "Suburbs" and "small towns" probably includes a lot of the small municipalities around Brownsville/McAllen and elsewhere in southern Texas (generally Democratic). Lubbock, Abilene, and Amarillo simply don't have many suburbs.

[Cashcow]

I think they accidentally switched the 68/32 thing in the suburbs around.

But that wouldn't make sense either. Bush won Texas with only 61% of the vote.

[Alcon]

It's not a typo.

My math makes the urban/suburban/rural numbers add up to 60.32%-39.04%.

Maybe Urban and Suburban were switched?  That still doesn't follow, though.  It's no way small towns were closer than big cities.

[MaC]

Durrr!  Alcon is a reeetard again!

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

[Sam Spade]

What are they defining as "urban" and suburban"? 

There are very few true "urban" areas in Texas in the most accurate sense of the word.

[jimrtex]

There are very few true "urban" areas in Texas in the most accurate sense of the word.

Where do you think Urban Cowboy was about?

[minionofmidas]

There are very few true "urban" areas in Texas in the most accurate sense of the word.

Where do you think Urban Cowboy was about?

A suburban area.

No seriously - yeah Sam I recognize all that about suburban growth.
As to the CNN I have no idea what happened there. Maybe their classification of "suburban" is downtown Austin.
 

[minionofmidas]

The Houston/Dallas numbers are deceptive.  Even though the Bush supermajorities in suburban Dallas (Collin and Denton counties) decreased in percentages, Republicans still received about 20,000 more votes per county than they did in 2000, as the population in those counties increased dramatically and their share of the statewide vote increased also.  Dallas County proper showed a Democrat shift, but the gain in votes there for Democrats equalled the loss for Democrats in the suburban counties.  It was basically a tit-for-tat there.

The same thing happened in Brazoria/Montgomery/Fort Bend counties vs. Houston (Harris County) also to a lesser extent. 

Just analyzing the raw numbers...
In 2000, Dems got 21.9% of their Texan vote in Dallas, Collin, Denton, and Tarrant Cos (Tarrant - and Galveston - trended Rep, not Dem, but I wanted to get a tad closer to including the actual metro areas) and 21.7% in Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston and Montgomery Counties.
In 2004, the respective figures are 23.7% and 21.8%.
For the Reps, it's (2000) 22.1% and 19.3% and (2004) 22.3% and 18.7%.
For the overall major party vote, it's 22.9% (from 22.0%, so Dallas is growing faster than the state) and 19.9% (from 20.3%, so Houston is actually relatively declining)
The Dem's share of the major party vote increased from 38.8% to 39.9% in the four Dallas area counties and, much less markedly, from 41.9% to 42.2% in the four Houston area counties.
It should be pointed out that the Rep numerical lead in both areas did increase, by about 30K votes (in an increase of over 300K) in Dallas and a bit over 20K votes (in an increase of about 200K) in Houston.
Nonetheless, yes that's definitely trending - or maybe just swinging, who knows? - more Democrat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Generally speaking what people here call trends are just swings anyway

[minionofmidas]

Generally speaking what people here call trends are just swings anyway

Yeah, I took heed of that.