Trump the first Republican to win Texas Latinos. Does this delay Blexas indefinitely?

[super6646]

If there is a thread on this topic then I’ll lock it up, but otherwise I’ll keep it up. According to exit polls, trump won latinos in Texas by a 10 pt margin (54-44). This is a stunning reversal for the GOP. Just as a point of reference, Trump lost hispanics by a 2:1 margin in 2016 (64-31%).  Going further back, even Bush had failed to win latinos in 2004 (he lost them by a 50-49 margin)! Now you can decide whether or not you buy into the exit polls, but the results in the RGV paint a pretty good picture as to where this community has trended, especially in working class areas.

With these facts in mind, is the prospect of a Blexas delayed indefinitely as a result? The trend line for where Texas was going was pretty clear before this cycle, going from an R+22 state in 2000 to an R+10 by 2020. I didn’t think Texas was a reachable target for this cycle, but another election or 2 and it seemed as though the state was heading towards purple status.

With latinos being a +10 gop demographic, that trend is no more. Now ofc the Dems could reverse things and get some of these voters back, but a dem party that is largely toxic to the working class isn’t going to see those 2016 margins with latinos, and that’s what they need if Texas is going to truly become that purple or even slightly blue state.

Edit: Added a poll to the thread. Don't know why I didn't last night.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Texas is a majority minority state. If you cannot win the two largest plurality groups (whites and latinos)  then its literally impossible to win there.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Texas is a majority minority state. If you cannot win the two largest plurality groups (whites and latinos)  then its literally impossible to win there.

Personally I think TX Rs have been doing very well with the non-locked in voters every election since 2018. The D path is a lot like Arizona's — sweep or mostly win swing voters and turn out your base. TX Rs are just too capable for this to be an easy thing to do for Democrats here.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Texas is a majority minority state. If you cannot win the two largest plurality groups (whites and latinos)  then its literally impossible to win there.

Personally I think TX Rs have been doing very well with the non-locked in voters every election since 2018. The D path is a lot like Arizona's — sweep or mostly win swing voters and turn out your base. TX Rs are just too capable for this to be an easy thing to do for Democrats here.

At least in Arizona around 60ish% of the population is dominated by the Phoenix metro, so if Dems do decent there they win. Texas is much larger, so they have to do well in DFW, Houston, SA-Austin, and cannot afford to fumble the ball in any of them.

[lfromnj]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+15 in the seat so D+15 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Texas is a majority minority state. If you cannot win the two largest plurality groups (whites and latinos)  then its literally impossible to win there.

Personally I think TX Rs have been doing very well with the non-locked in voters every election since 2018. The D path is a lot like Arizona's — sweep or mostly win swing voters and turn out your base. TX Rs are just too capable for this to be an easy thing to do for Democrats here.

At least in Arizona around 60ish% of the population is dominated by the Phoenix metro, so if Dems do decent there they win. Texas is much larger, so they have to do well in DFW, Houston, SA-Austin, and cannot afford to fumble the ball in any of them.

I would say this factor makes it even worse for Dems as running in AZ only requires two tv markets - Phoenix and Tucson. TX, which votes more to the right, has more media markets and a very well oiled Republican party. This only magnifies the problems with the D position in TX.

[RBH]

looking at that 2004 Texas exit poll...

Bush winning white voters by 49 (74-25).. Kerry winning non-whites by 24 (62-38)

Bush winning Conservatives by 66 (83-17) which are 45% of the electorate. Kerry winning moderates by 3 (51-48) and liberals by 36 (68-32)

Bush winning Protestants by 38 (69-31) and Catholics by 2 (51-49)

This year it was..

Trump winning whites by 30 (64-34), Harris winning voters of color by 10 (54-44).. Trump winning conservatives 91-8 (only 41% of the electorate now), Harris winning moderates 61-37 and liberals 85-13. No religion question but I'm guessing Harris did not match Kerry's number with Texas Catholics. There was no abortion question in Texas 2004 but nationally Kerry won around 3x as many anti-abortion voters as Harris did.

Also there's some sample size noise, but 7% of Latinos approving of Biden and then voting Trump, compared to 2% of White Texans approving of Biden and voting Trump..

Anyways... if they're voting Trump more because of the economy, like say they did, then that could bounce back a little in future years. If they're voting Trump because of abortion, that might not swing back quickly

[ProgressiveModerate]

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

How did the median state house district vote this year?

[Annatar]

It's mathematically not doable for dems to win Texas if they are losing both whites and hispanics, blacks are only 11% of the electorate in Texas and not really growing as a share.

Notable that Bush won TX by 22.9% in 2004 winning whites by 49% according to the exit polls, Trump carried whites by 31% in TX this year according to the AP exit polls, they were 62% of all voters, if Trump had matched Bush's margin, he would have won the state by 25%, more than Bush. The entire erosion in the TX margin since 2004 is due to college whites shifting left basically, but its not clear how much more they can shift.

[Steve from Lambeth]

How did the median state house district vote this year?

It would take someone with far more time on their hands than me to answer your question, but given the gerrymandering at stake and the fact that TX GOP flipped two House seats to grow their actual caucus to 88/150, it's probably safe to say that most HDs voted Republican

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

How did the median state house district vote this year?

It would take someone with far more time on their hands than me to answer your question, but given the gerrymandering at stake and the fact that TX GOP flipped two House seats to grow their actual caucus to 88/150, it's probably safe to say that most HDs voted Republican

I was thinking that a dropoff in Dem turnout would magnify the gap between the median house seat and the state as a whole in how it would vote. You might even see NV style dynamics except everything gets shifted to the right a lot.

[ProgressiveModerate]

How did the median state house district vote this year?

It would take someone with far more time on their hands than me to answer your question, but given the gerrymandering at stake and the fact that TX GOP flipped two House seats to grow their actual caucus to 88/150, it's probably safe to say that most HDs voted Republican

I was thinking that a dropoff in Dem turnout would magnify the gap between the median house seat and the state as a whole in how it would vote. You might even see NV style dynamics except everything gets shifted to the right a lot.

Yeah TX Dem political geography is insanely effective and only becoming more so - it’ll be a close call but I think the median state house district may have been to the left of the state on 2024 Pres numbers

[Agafin]

I think Texas is gone for democrats for a generation or more. Texas latinos are fully assimilating into the white population. Clinton won the texas latino vote by 58 points (75-17) in 1996 while Harris presumably lost it by 10 points (45-55) this year.

While Bush also did quite well with hispanics in Texas, it was nowhere near Trump's level and in restrospect, it is obvious that it wasn't really a transformational change. Just look at Starr County, the most latino county in the country (97% hispanic). Clinton (96) won it by 77 points (87-10). Bush (04) lost it by 48 points (26-74). Much better than Dole but not really much more than you'd expect from an incumbency boost + favorite son effect. Trump (24)? He actually won the county by 16 points (58-42). These people are now effectively voting like rural southern whites from the 1990s.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

This post makes sense to me (in that the majority of TX Latinos are in the Texas Triangle and not outstate), although Trump winning TX by double digits makes me question if TX Latinos really went for Harris around 55-45.

[super6646]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

Fair enough, but besides pointing out a single congressional district, do you two have any strong evidence to back this claim that Democrats probably won hispanic voters in the state?

If you add up the exit poll data and extrapolate it to the statewide vote, that would give Trump just under 55% of the vote and Kamilla Harris just over 43% of the vote—pretty close to the margin we actually saw. If you assume that the margin amongst Hispanics was closer to 55-45 for the Democrats, that gives you a spread of 52-46, which is way off from the actual margin.

Now perhaps white voters were undersampled in the poll, who knows? But is it unreasonable that non-hispanic whites were 54% of the electorate in a 39% non-hispanic white state?

[RBH]

looking at the 2024 Texas exits again, and the gender splits between non-white groups are a bit more than the gender gaps women white men and women in Texas

White men: 70-27 Trump
White women: 62-37 Trump
Black men: 77-22 Harris
Black women: 94-4 Harris
Latinos: 65-35 Trump
Latinas: 58-41 Harris

just a very normal 23/24 point gender gap

to be fair, a similar gender gap with Hispanics in their Cruz/Allard exits (62/37 Cruz with Latinos, 59-34 Allred with Latinas)

So if South Texas Hispanics, and specially men, are gonna start voting like East Texas Conservative Democrats who became Republicans in the 90s/2000s, then some of this might stick

If it's mostly a Trump thing, and Trump was way ahead of Cruz in fav/unfav numbers with TX Latinos, then...

[lfromnj]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

Fair enough, but besides pointing out a single congressional district, do you two have any strong evidence to back this claim that Democrats probably won hispanic voters in the state?

If you add up the exit poll data and extrapolate it to the statewide vote, that would give Trump just under 55% of the vote and Kamilla Harris just over 43% of the vote—pretty close to the margin we actually saw. If you assume that the margin amongst Hispanics was closer to 55-45 for the Democrats, that gives you a spread of 52-46, which is way off from the actual margin.

Now perhaps white voters were undersampled in the poll, who knows? But is it unreasonable that non-hispanic whites were 54% of the electorate in a 39% non-hispanic white state?

The proof would be precinct analysis and county analysis. How is Trump winning Texas Hispanics by ten when he’s only winning rural and small RGV counties by 20 and barely winning the big 3 ?  There’s panhandle and east Texas but they aren’t a huge fraction of the vote and the ones in Dallas are still quite heavily D as far as I can tell . San Antonio ones as well . Harris seem in between so I think are the best gauge to use .

[pbrower2a]

Perhaps we can write off democracy in the Corporate -- excuse me, United -- States of America for the next forty years. That's about how long it took for Franco to die in Spain or Commie regimes to fail in central and Balkan Europe. I expect Republicans to find ways to cull the vote so or even "safe D" states that an electorate shaped to fit their desires is rendered permanent. There might be local elections that go well for Democrats in which local Democrats are afraid of any shows of mass dissent due to some arrangement that causes the Big Bosses on K Street and Wall Street to demand harsh action.

About all that can cause a Democratic win of the Presidency in 2028 will be another very serious and ill-timed (for Republicans) recession like 2007.4 to 2009.1 or any meltdown like that beginning in 1929.4. Trump is incompetent and ideologically foolish enough to allow a speculative bubble that is the usual model for "super-prosperity" that allegedly brings a New Era in economics. The bubble does nothing to improve the economic conditions of most people, but it devours capital and ensures economic ruin to those who think to their great folly that someone else will be around to keep buying in. Then comes the time when there are no longer buyers, and man thought that they and enough sense to sell off at the right time find that they waited too long to sell.

We failed to learn the right lessons other than to change the politicians in 2008.

[Samof94]

This article sounds a lot like it could have been written in 2004.

[Skill and Chance]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

Fair enough, but besides pointing out a single congressional district, do you two have any strong evidence to back this claim that Democrats probably won hispanic voters in the state?

If you add up the exit poll data and extrapolate it to the statewide vote, that would give Trump just under 55% of the vote and Kamilla Harris just over 43% of the vote—pretty close to the margin we actually saw. If you assume that the margin amongst Hispanics was closer to 55-45 for the Democrats, that gives you a spread of 52-46, which is way off from the actual margin.

Now perhaps white voters were undersampled in the poll, who knows? But is it unreasonable that non-hispanic whites were 54% of the electorate in a 39% non-hispanic white state?

I do feel like there's a very strong desire by many here to downplay R gains in minority communities and promote that idea that instead, white people living in/adjacent to these communities swung wildly R.  However, essentially all available data supports Southern white people voting left of the 2004-16 elections most everywhere.  So R's had to make up the margins from somewhere!

[ProgressiveModerate]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

Fair enough, but besides pointing out a single congressional district, do you two have any strong evidence to back this claim that Democrats probably won hispanic voters in the state?

If you add up the exit poll data and extrapolate it to the statewide vote, that would give Trump just under 55% of the vote and Kamilla Harris just over 43% of the vote—pretty close to the margin we actually saw. If you assume that the margin amongst Hispanics was closer to 55-45 for the Democrats, that gives you a spread of 52-46, which is way off from the actual margin.

Now perhaps white voters were undersampled in the poll, who knows? But is it unreasonable that non-hispanic whites were 54% of the electorate in a 39% non-hispanic white state?

I do feel like there's a very strong desire by many here to downplay R gains in minority communities and promote that idea that instead, white people living in/adjacent to these communities swung wildly R.  However, essentially all available data supports Southern white people voting left of the 2000-16 elections most everywhere.  So R's had to make up the margins from somewhere!

It's not downplaying things - the fact is most heavily Hispanic communities in TX still voted Dem, often by fairly large (albeit historically small) margins - the only places where Hispanics clearly voted outright R is in one region of the state that is low turnout and has an overall low population.

Nearly half of voting eligible Hispanics in TX live in 6 Counties where precinct results clearly indicate they voted Harris by notable margins: Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Travis, Hays, and Bexar, plus you have places like El Paso where they still voted for Harris even if not by a very large margin.

While Trump almost certainly won the Hispanic in Counties like Hidalgo and Webb, he only barely carried them.

Perhaps TX Hispanics were within 10% statewide, but it's very unlikely Trump won them let alone won them by 10%.

[lfromnj]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

Fair enough, but besides pointing out a single congressional district, do you two have any strong evidence to back this claim that Democrats probably won hispanic voters in the state?

If you add up the exit poll data and extrapolate it to the statewide vote, that would give Trump just under 55% of the vote and Kamilla Harris just over 43% of the vote—pretty close to the margin we actually saw. If you assume that the margin amongst Hispanics was closer to 55-45 for the Democrats, that gives you a spread of 52-46, which is way off from the actual margin.

Now perhaps white voters were undersampled in the poll, who knows? But is it unreasonable that non-hispanic whites were 54% of the electorate in a 39% non-hispanic white state?

I do feel like there's a very strong desire by many here to downplay R gains in minority communities and promote that idea that instead, white people living in/adjacent to these communities swung wildly R.  However, essentially all available data supports Southern white people voting left of the 2004-16 elections most everywhere.  So R's had to make up the margins from somewhere!

I'm not downplaying the gains. They are absolutely massive gains. The issue is people don't understand the baseline from where the gains came from. TX 29th was Clinton +50 points !. It's now only in the upper teens for Harris.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

Fair enough, but besides pointing out a single congressional district, do you two have any strong evidence to back this claim that Democrats probably won hispanic voters in the state?

If you add up the exit poll data and extrapolate it to the statewide vote, that would give Trump just under 55% of the vote and Kamilla Harris just over 43% of the vote—pretty close to the margin we actually saw. If you assume that the margin amongst Hispanics was closer to 55-45 for the Democrats, that gives you a spread of 52-46, which is way off from the actual margin.

Now perhaps white voters were undersampled in the poll, who knows? But is it unreasonable that non-hispanic whites were 54% of the electorate in a 39% non-hispanic white state?

I do feel like there's a very strong desire by many here to downplay R gains in minority communities and promote that idea that instead, white people living in/adjacent to these communities swung wildly R.  However, essentially all available data supports Southern white people voting left of the 2004-16 elections most everywhere.  So R's had to make up the margins from somewhere!

I'm not downplaying the gains. They are absolutely massive gains. The issue is people don't understand the baseline from where the gains came from. TX 29th was Clinton +50 points !. It's now only in the upper teens for Harris.

In an odd way it's facts like this that could give Dems a tiny bit of optimism - the state has still trended pretty hard left relative to 2008/2012 *despite* R's massive gains with Hispanics and non-whites in general, and I just struggle to see Rs continuing to get 15%+ rightwards shifts amongst non-whites cycle after cycle, whereas Dem gains in suburbs should generally continue until migration patterns substantially change.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump didn't win Texas Latinos and definitely not by 10 points. If I had to guess Harris County Latinos are probably where Texas Latinos as a whole vote . (RGV/ and other counties vote to the right while Dallas/San Antonio are more left wing) TX 29th still voted Harris +18. It is 15% black and 8% white though. The whites would definitely be a significant portion of the total vote, maybe 2 or 3 of those are 8 are downtown swing votes but the remaining 5% in Pasadena are quite R. Blacks should be pretty heavily D though and probably net more votes for Dems than whites did for R's If I had to guess Hispanics voted D+10 in the seat so D+10 statewide? Trump still did better with TX Latinos than Bush though.

I have thoughts on this

First as another poster already pointed out, Harris almost certainly won TX Hispanics albiet by a far smaller margin than any recent Dems.

However, I think the 14% margin Trump won by was also because of other factors - it seems like turnout was disproportionately down in Dem areas from 2020 for instance, and in many ways this electorate resembled something closer to 2022 than 2020.

It definitely is a concern for Dems though given Hispanics are the 2nd largest group in the state and I think this is true up and down the ballot - if Rs start sweeping all the South TX state House districts it makes it pretty hard to see Dems winning the legislature this decade.

It’s also unclear to what extent Trump’s nonwhite numbers in TX represent the norm going forwards vs a unique strength to him. In 2012 for instance Romney had a very strong performance and swung the TX metros right because of his absurdly strong showing with college educated whites, but that only ended up being a one cycle thing. Also Allred generally held up better with non-whites and put up the best Dem performer ever in many of these suburban communities.

Finally if you look at the swing map, especially at the precinct level - the underlying trends that have benefited Dems (growth) are still there - it’s not a coincidence Kaufman County is the fastest growing County in the state and shifted 6% left despite the national circumstances and having a fairly large nonwhite population.

And relative to 2008/2012 TX has still had one of the stronger swings/trends to the left of the nation.

I think Blue TX is less likely heading into 2028 than I would’ve thought pre-election, but I don’t think it’s done either.

TLDR: Hard to tell to what extent Trump’s 2024 performance here is representative of future TX elections/electorates - this result seems like a perfect storm of things going right for TX Rs.

Fair enough, but besides pointing out a single congressional district, do you two have any strong evidence to back this claim that Democrats probably won hispanic voters in the state?

If you add up the exit poll data and extrapolate it to the statewide vote, that would give Trump just under 55% of the vote and Kamilla Harris just over 43% of the vote—pretty close to the margin we actually saw. If you assume that the margin amongst Hispanics was closer to 55-45 for the Democrats, that gives you a spread of 52-46, which is way off from the actual margin.

Now perhaps white voters were undersampled in the poll, who knows? But is it unreasonable that non-hispanic whites were 54% of the electorate in a 39% non-hispanic white state?

I do feel like there's a very strong desire by many here to downplay R gains in minority communities and promote that idea that instead, white people living in/adjacent to these communities swung wildly R.  However, essentially all available data supports Southern white people voting left of the 2004-16 elections most everywhere.  So R's had to make up the margins from somewhere!

I'm not downplaying the gains. They are absolutely massive gains. The issue is people don't understand the baseline from where the gains came from. TX 29th was Clinton +50 points !. It's now only in the upper teens for Harris.

In an odd way it's facts like this that could give Dems a tiny bit of optimism - the state has still trended pretty hard left relative to 2008/2012 *despite* R's massive gains with Hispanics and non-whites in general, and I just struggle to see Rs continuing to get 15%+ rightwards shifts amongst non-whites cycle after cycle, whereas Dem gains in suburbs should generally continue until migration patterns substantially change.

The thing though is that it was expected by 2032, the Dems would no longer need the Rust belt as Texas would become a pure tossup.

With Texas no longer on at the very least the same path, the Dems will still need the rust belt to win