Texas. Why?

[Adlai Stevenson]

I guess I already know the answer to this question but why is Texas so Republican on almost every level?  This election cycle, no one can say that the Democrats will win any offices.  Their gubernatorial candidate could end up with less than 20% of the vote; the Senatorial candidate will almost certainly not get over 40% and could get less than 30%.  Apart from this, I just wonder why even in competetive races like the 2002 Senate race, the Republican won 55%-43%.  I vaguely think that after 1994 the Republicans established complete one-party control of the state, and I realise that the 2002 redistricting made the Congressional delegation more Republican.  But even so, why is it there are no competetive Democrats at all?  I mean when is the next chance the party could win the Governorship or a Senate seat?  In every other Southern State, some more Republican than Texas, the Democrats are competetive: i.e., they hold a Senate seat, a Governorship, a Congressional majority or a few statewide offices.  What happened in Texas that made it so difficult for the Dems?  It seems like every electable Democrat became a member of the GOP since about the 1970s to 1990s.  Could someone just explain the whole reason for why Texas is so out of reach for the Democrats?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Texas has generally always been  a good ol' boys state, not good terroritory for the modern Democratic party that relies less on curroption and more on merit.

It also has helped the Republican party that 6 of the last 7 Republican tickets had some idiot named George Bush from Texas on the ticket.

The fact that 75% of Texans voted to ban not only gay marriage, but also civil unions, and appearantly marriage as a whole proves that Texas is a lost cause for anyone sane.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Texas has generally always been  a good ol' boys state,

It's not like that anymore; in case you hadn't noticed, the dominant part (or rather, parts) of the state are the various white collar suburbs. The reason why the Democrats struggle to compete is the fact that they have lost their rural base, and with it their organisation.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What party is the Governer of New Jersey from again? Corruption, networking and machine politics exist in all political parties. Fact of life.

Besides, the Democratic party of the post-New Deal era was far more left wing than the Democratic party of today (although there was a, smaller than most people think, genuinely conservative minority faction) and Texas contributed more than it's share towards that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Despite everything, close to three million Texans voted for John Kerry and, even post re-gerrymandering, the state sends more than just a handful of Democratic Congressmen to Washington. I don't think that abandoning three million voters is ever a good idea.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Texas has generally always been  a good ol' boys state,

It's not like that anymore; in case you hadn't noticed, the dominant part (or rather, parts) of the state are the various white collar suburbs. The reason why the Democrats struggle to compete is the fact that they have lost their rural base, and with it their organisation.
 

We have Chet Edwards, but obviously that's not enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What party is the Governer of New Jersey from again? Corruption, networking and machine politics exist in all political parties. Fact of life.

Besides, the Democratic party of the post-New Deal era was far more left wing than the Democratic party of today (although there was a, smaller than most people think, genuinely conservative minority faction) and Texas contributed more than it's share towards that.

[/quote]
Comparisions of NJ and TX fall flat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Despite everything, close to three million Texans voted for John Kerry and, even post re-gerrymandering, the state sends more than just a handful of Democratic Congressmen to Washington. I don't think that abandoning three million voters is ever a good idea.
[/quote]

Well, sure we can win certain local and Congressional races, but statewide races in Texas are a lost cause.

[Frodo]

Before I answer this question, I have one of my own that I pose to anyone in the position to answer: how liberal is the Texas Democratic Party compared to its counterparts in the Deep South? 

[WalterMitty]

Despite everything, close to three million Texans voted for John Kerry and, even post re-gerrymandering, the state sends more than just a handful of Democratic Congressmen to Washington. I don't think that abandoning three million voters is ever a good idea.

the pride of texas.

[Sam Spade]

I guess I already know the answer to this question but why is Texas so Republican on almost every level? 

Democratic party base died out and the state Democratic party is really, really incompetant.  The rural losses are the key, but the growth of the ultra-Republican suburbs made the rural areas inconsequential quite a while ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can say they won't and they won't.  Not at the statewide level anyway in 2006.  They could gain a few seats in the state leg., maybe one or two in the State Senate (they're more likely to lose seats there)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Running against Kay Bailey is not anyone's fault.  She's somewhat of a legend in the state and pretty much indestructible.

Chris Bell is a idiot, which I said quite long ago.  Nothing new.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it wasn't really that competitive.  Kirk won the parts of the state he should have won (inner cities and South Texas) and Cornyn won the parts of the state he should have won (suburbs and other rural areas).

Simple fact in Texas is that in mostly post-1980 and always post-1994, DFW and Houston suburbs>anything else Democrats can muster.  The shift of Hispanics to the Republicans is what cemented this situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't until 1998 in terms of state offices, 2000 in terms of the State Senate and 2002 in terms of the State Legislature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correction: 2003

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the national party is too left for Texas, the Texas Democratic party has allowed itself to be controlled too much by Austin, and most of their good candidates left for the Republican party a long time ago or have no desire to run for state office.  The only ones who could win statewide (like a Henry Cuellar or John Sharp) would be crucified by jfern and others like him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the best chance to steal the Governorship, imo.  If Strayhorn or Kinky win in 2006, the Republicans will be united in 2010 to try and oust them behind one of their strong backbench members.  If Perry wins, I doubt he runs in 2010 and you get an open contest anyway, where a Democrat does stand a better chance to win, but there are few who could as I said before.

Cornyn's up for reelection in 2008, but being a Presidential year and all, I think he's pretty much safe.  Hutchinson's not up again until 2012, maybe then.  2014 is the better opportunity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read Al's post.  It's the best explanation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I sort of mentioned this above.

[Sam Spade]

Texas Democrats do not succeed because of low voter turnout.  I hear it's around 30%or so.  It is a state of high minority population that usually votes Democrat.  If they all voted, the Texas Republican Party would likely fade away.  Like most southern states, the Democrats lost ground years ago as they began to embrace civil rights.  It was then that Republicans turned their back on Abe Lincoln, and found a foot in the door to Southern politics.

30% or so?  VAP or RV? 

Maybe in midterm national elections with low turnout (35%-36% VAP nationally), the Texas VAP% is around or under 30%.  The amount of RV% turning out is still at about 50%.

The average of the last three national Presidential elections turnout in Texas is VAP is 45% or so and the RV% is about 60%, btw.

But that's what happens when you have a high illegal citizen number, as do most border states.  The illegal population in Texas is probably about 10%-15% of the VAP, so you have to take this into account.  Texas is about on par with other Mexican border states in this area and in the area of VAP/RV turning out to vote.

And now since Republicans seem to be getting upwards of 40% of the Hispanic vote in statewide and national contests, I really don't see where these masses of untapped minority voters live.  The Democratic party in Texas could certainly do a better job of outreach and could probably improve turnout a bit in their most favorable inner-city areas, but to only about 1%-2% of difference. 

And they keep destroying themselves unless they start shaping their platform more to Hispanic needs.  The Republican party has done a incredible job of shifting Hispanic votes in Texas in the last 20-25 years in rural and suburban areas by emphasizing conservative social values and adopting liberal spending patterns on education.

I lived for a good long while in a inner-city Hispanic area and even though these voters are reflexively Democrat in local races and should be in national races and are liberal in many economic issues, the continued leftward shift of Democrats in the social spectrum is alienating them more and more, driving them towards the "Independent" voting bloc more every election.  They're also becoming Pentecostals or fundies on the religious front, aligning them more and more with their white brethren, especially in places like east Texas (where I've watched this happen more and more every year).

The black vote no longer has much power in Texas, except in the inner cities of Houston and Dallas.  And it will continue to decline every year.

[Sam Spade]

Texas actually has more registered Dems than Repubs, and Repubs need independents if they want to win statewide.

There is no party registration in Texas, so I don't know where you're getting this from.  2004 exit polls (for what they're worth, I know) had Party ID @ R 43% (+1% from 2000), D 32% (-8% from 2000) and I 24% (+7% from 2000)

Chris Bell is, repeat after me, one of the worst candidates, period, that anyone could nominate for anything.  I lived in Houston during the period where he ran for city council (successfully), mayor (unsuccessfully), House (successfully and then unsuccessfully).  He only has appeal to white liberals in inner-city Houston (they do exist).  He has zero appeal to Democratic minorities, especially blacks, and will only get their votes in this election because their is no minority candidate on the ballot and he has a D by his name.

One other thing that I would add.  Texas is already much more like a 55-45 GOP state than a 60-40 GOP state and has been.  That being said, it is fairly stable for now (and has been since the mid-1990s).  Even in the Dole disaster of 1996, he still won the state by 5%, while Clinton was winning nationwide by 9%, a margin of 14% total.  The Bush margin has been more like around 20% from margin of national victory, but I would still place the Bush effect at roughly 3%-5% (I think there has been a tiny shift towards the GOP in presidential contests only)

I have said countless times on this forum that the race to measure partisanness in Texas is the Cornyn-Kirk race of 2002, an open Senate seat, with two clear representatives of the bases of both parties (without a Bush factor to take into account).  That race was 55%-43%. 

Whilst I do agree with you in terms of the "too much power for one party" theory, I simply don't see it coming into effect, yet.  As jimrtex has pointed out countless times, it is very hard to campaign against incumbents in state Senate seats because of the ground to cover in campaigning and the money to make a viable campaign. (only 31 Senate seats as opposed to 32 CDs).  State House is much easier and changes could happen quicker there, but still a lot of seats are uncontested right now.  Anyway, we'll see this fall.

Anyway, my main point is this in what the future could be in Texas, looking at what I've noticed in Texas in the past 20 years or so:  I have noticed that we continue to see GOP degradation in the inner suburbs of Texas big cities, much like in other major urban areas, though less so than outside of the South.

Dallas is pretty easy to figure out.  Houston is actually mainly Fort Bend County, but a lot of this has to do with the no-zoning Houston policy.  Austin is predictable, but the shift is less rational, as it moved the other way in the 1990s, San Antonio less than the other cities above.

Rural white areas moved from voting Democrat to Republican about 10 years ago (east Texas) or much longer ago (the rest).  Black vote has not changed, though vote numbers have decreased.

What has kept vote margins stable over the past 10 years is the following:  Growth of exurbs (particularly into Mont. Co and Brazoria in Houston), Fort Worth (for Dallas), Williamson Co. (for Austin, though less so, once again).  Degradation of Democratic Hispanic voters in rural South Texas and urban areas in Houston and Dallas.  The Bush effect skews this way too much, but it is still occurring, just look at the election results.  Note (and this is important):  The move is towards ID as Independent, rather than Democratic.  More important:  This vote effect is much stronger in Presidential contests than in local ones.  Most of the Hispanics who ID as Indys vote locally Democratic; I lived in these neighborhoods in my many years in Texas and saw this quite clearly develop, even though it's very slow.

What this should mean for the next 10-20 years is that Republicans will fair much better in Presidential contests than they will in statewide contests and vice versa, unless the statewide Republican does exceptionally well with Hispanics or the national Democrat does exceptionally well with Hispanics.

The future success of the Republican and Democratic party in Texas depends on Hispanics more than anything else (which is sort of obvious).  But it also depends on the way Hispanic voters identify themselves.  The Democrats will have greater future success if they keep Hispanics indentifying and voting Democrat on all levels of government; the Republicans will have greater future success if they move Hispanics from indentifying and voting Democrat at all levels to gauging more as Indys on both the national level and then the state level.

So, that's the long and short of it, in the analysis of the past, with regards to what I see for the future, taking into account the Bush factor and looking over a long enough period of time to give some other factors time to flesh out.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Sam Spade was kinda correct

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Can we please stop bumping 15 year-old threads for the sake of reliving the glory days of the Bush era in Texas?