A bad graph for Hillary (Texas)

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

[TomC]

Source? Is there a breakdown by other demographics?

[Lief 🗽]

I'd imagine it doesn't mean a whole lot, just that Obama's base is more excited than Clinton's base, which we already knew. Those Hispanics who aren't voting now will be voting on election day. Obama's demographic is more likely to vote early. It does, however, bode well for the caucus, as the more excited you are, the more likely, all things equal, you are to vote at the caucus.

[Stranger in a strange land]

plus Hispanic turnout in Texas has always been dismal (a BIG reason why the state is as Republican as it is), and I don't see why this year should be any different.

[Verily]

Source? Is there a breakdown by other demographics?

The data for only those 15 counties are available from the state SoS's website. However, it would be somewhat misleading to put too much emphasis on them; in 2004, ~30,000 of Hidalgo County's ~40,000 votes were cast early, so there wasn't much room for the numbers to go up. (Although, if the early voting numbers are hardly going up at all there, it may be an indication that Hispanic turnout will actually be down relative to overall voter turnout in Texas--a different sort of bad news for Clinton, especially as the polls are all using a weighting scheme that assumes soaring Hispanic turnout.)

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/earlyvoting/index.shtml

[agcatter]

Collin, Denton, are northern Dallas suburban Counties.  Montgomery and FT Bend are Houston suburban counties.  Very large populations and counties voting 70 to 76% Republican in 2004.  Obviously very small Hispanic and black populations.  

Democratic numbers are far exceeding Republican numbers voting early in those counties so far.  The question becomes, who are those Republicans crossing over to vote for.  A week ago I'd have said Obama because Republicans in Texas absolutely hate Hillary with a passion.  Are they voting to put a dagger through the heart of the Clintons?  There is some evidence that many are starting to fear Obama and could now be starting to swing towards Clinton to stop him.  Who knows.  Other posters are right however.  Hispanic voting in Texas is dismal as far as turnout.

One interesting tidbit.  The night after Obama appeared in front of 20,000 people in Houston at the Toyota Center, Bill Clinton appeared in Houston at the Hofeinz Pavilion.  He barely drew 1500 people.  The old Clinton magic aint what it used to be and I believe that has come as quite a shock to Clinton Inc.

[Lief 🗽]

Collin, Denton, are northern Dallas suburban Counties.  Montgomery and FT Bend are Houston suburban counties.  Very large populations and counties voting 70 to 76% Republican in 2004.  Obviously very small Hispanic and black populations. 

Democratic numbers are far exceeding Republican numbers voting early in those counties so far.  The question becomes, who are those Republicans crossing over to vote for.  A week ago I'd have said Obama because Republicans in Texas absolutely hate Hillary with a passion.  Are they voting to put a dagger through the heart of the Clintons?  There is some evidence that many are starting to fear Obama and could now be starting to swing towards Clinton to stop him.  Who knows.  Other posters are right however.  Hispanic voting in Texas is dismal as far as turnout.

One interesting tidbit.  The night after Obama appeared in front of 20,000 people in Houston at the Toyota Center, Bill Clinton appeared in Houston at the Hofeinz Pavilion.  He barely drew 1500 people.  The old Clinton magic aint what it used to be and I believe that has come as quite a shock to Clinton Inc.

Fortunately, I think there's very little evidence that people cross-over to screw up the other party's nomination to ensure that they have a weaker candidate, especially without any sort of organization turning them out to do so.

[Alcon]

I agree - even if the amount of that increased dramatically, strategic voting would still be less than half of the GOP votes cast.  I'm unconvinced that strategic voting is anything but a near-myth.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Something to keep in mind is most far right wing die-hard Hillary haters don't even like McCain and probably see little difference between him and most Democrats (See Free Republic's commentary on this.) Yet they'd vote for him just to block Hillary, but they'd rather eliminate Hillary sooner than later. It's more worth it to them to vote for Obama to block Hillary than vote for Hillary and risk a President Hillary just so a guy they don't even like anyway has a better chance of winning.

[Alcon]

Something to keep in mind is most far right wing die-hard Hillary haters don't even like McCain and probably see little difference between him and most Democrats (See Free Republic's commentary on this.) Yet they'd vote for him just to block Hillary, but they'd rather eliminate Hillary sooner than later. It's more worth it to them to vote for Obama to block Hillary than vote for Obama and risk a President Hillary just so a guy they don't even like anyway has a better chance of winning.

Do you mean McCain there?  Because otherwise I'm totally confused.

[Verily]

I agree - even if the amount of that increased dramatically, strategic voting would still be less than half of the GOP votes cast.  I'm unconvinced that strategic voting is anything but a near-myth.

Well, it does happen: see our own MODU who voted for Clinton in the Virginia primary. But it certainly doesn't happen to a significant extent. Even in Wisconsin, where conservative talk shows were actively calling for Republicans to vote for Clinton (no link, but it was fairly widely reported; if someone asks I'll look for one), Republicans overwhelmingly favored Obama (although slightly less than independents, so it may have had a marginal impact).

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Something to keep in mind is most far right wing die-hard Hillary haters don't even like McCain and probably see little difference between him and most Democrats (See Free Republic's commentary on this.) Yet they'd vote for him just to block Hillary, but they'd rather eliminate Hillary sooner than later. It's more worth it to them to vote for Obama to block Hillary than vote for Obama and risk a President Hillary just so a guy they don't even like anyway has a better chance of winning.

Do you mean McCain there?  Because otherwise I'm totally confused.

No, I meant Hillary. Voting for Hillary to increase McCain's chances. As I pointed out, most such people don't really care about McCain's chances, they care more about the chances of stopping Hillary.

[Alcon]

Well, it does happen: see our own MODU who voted for Clinton in the Virginia primary. But it certainly doesn't happen to a significant extent. Even in Wisconsin, where conservative talk shows were actively calling for Republicans to vote for Clinton (no link, but it was fairly widely reported; if someone asks I'll look for one), Republicans overwhelmingly favored Obama (although slightly less than independents, so it may have had a marginal impact).

Oh, I don't doubt it happens.  I guess an increase in it could hurt Obama, but I'd be surprised if Republicans didn't go >60% Obama.  And if this is any indicator, even a weak showing around 60% would be a big help.  I was saying the idea that strategic voters swinging an election in the opposite way is probably a myth.

No, I meant Hillary. Voting for Hillary to increase McCain's chances. As I pointed out, most such people don't really care about McCain's chances, they care more about the chances of stopping Hillary.

How does voting for Obama increase the chance of a President Hillary, though?

[agcatter]

I say Hillary may squeek by narowly in Texas.  I gotta tell you though, the Obama people will absolutely dominate the Texas caucuses and the way district delegate allotment is stuctured in the primary,  no way Hillary gets more than 40 or at the most 45% of the Texas delegates.  I'll bet my house on that one.  Also, I live in the Houston area.  I've seen 4 Obama ads for every one Hillary ad.

[© tweed]

agcat do you still plan to vote / caucus for Obama?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

How does voting for Obama increase the chance of a President Hillary, though?

It doesn't. The "Obama" was an edited out typo.

[Verily]

agcat do you still plan to vote / caucus for Obama?

I think he said that he had decided to vote for McCain because Clinton was finished. But I'm not certain, and he may have changed his mind.

[Alcon]

How does voting for Obama increase the chance of a President Hillary, though?

It doesn't. The "Obama" was an edited out typo.

Oh, gotchya now.  I knew something was awry there.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

I say Hillary may squeek by narowly in Texas.  I gotta tell you though, the Obama people will absolutely dominate the Texas caucuses and the way district delegate allotment is stuctured in the primary,  no way Hillary gets more than 40 or at the most 45% of the Texas delegates.  I'll bet my house on that one.  Also, I live in the Houston area.  I've seen 4 Obama ads for every one Hillary ad.

Obama generally closes, Hillary generally fades.  I think Obama will win TX, VT, and maybe OH. 

[jimrtex]

There is one less early voting day this year than in 2004, so it may be better to compare the 1st 4 days, with the 1st 3 days in 2008.  This will become more true as time goes on.

The base in some counties was abysmal in some counties in 2004.  For example in Montgomery County, turnout in the Democrat primary was 328 for the first 4 days.  That was 0.16% of the registered vote (1 in 600).  But that was understandable.  The presidential race was over by then, and in a Democratic primary, you would be lucky to have an office with one candidate running.  There was one 2-way primary in a small part of the county for state representative.  Ultimately around 3200 voters would vote in the Democratic primary or about 1.6% of all registered voters.

The Republican primary would draw about 23,000 (George Bush beat uncommitted by about a 9-1 margin) and did have 10 contested races.  In several of those races, there would be no Democratic candidate, so if you didn't vote in the Republican primary, you would not have been able to express a choice of who was elected.

The Democratic primary vote was about 11% of the November Democratic vote, while the Republican primary vote was about 23% of the November Republican vote.  So you are seeing a rational decision by many Democratic voters to stay home, or independents voting in the GOP primary.

Compare this to Hidalgo County, where the Democratic primary attracted 40,000 and the GOP primary 2,300.  The Democratic primary vote was about 2/3 of the November vote, while the GOP primary vote was about 7% of the November vote.  But this is understandable.  There were 3 contested Texas House seats in the primary, as well as a congressional race that was close in Hidalgo County.  In the fall the Democrat primary winners faced no opposition.  That the Democratic primary vote is up at all in Hidalgo County is remarkable.  The GOP early voting in the county is up about 3 times, which is likely due to overall increased interest in the election.