Replies

I must apologise for taking so long to get back to everybody. Life is so busy, you know.

Thank you everyone for what seems to be a mostly positive response to my Texas analysis. Thanks for the pointers, too.

I see that, as usual, there are a few die-hard pessimists about the future of Texas (or Tejas, as they call it) in our midst. One guy made the point that California was “exhibit A” to which he needs to read my analysis to why that is not accurate. Another guy even made the facetious claim that within 8 or 10 years Texas will be “solidly democratic”. I’d like to present the question to these people who are all ready to concede Texas to the democrats: Show me the statistics to back this up.

At best, Texas will become more competitive for the democrats, but by no means “solidly democratic”. Let me give you an example. Texas’ neighbour to the east is New Mexico, which has the highest Hispanic population (by percentage) of any state in the United States. Just over 42% of the population is Hispanic, while under 45% is non-Hispanic white, according to the 2000 Census. To complicate matters for the GOP, about 10% of the population is American Indian, which is a heavily democratic populace (think Tim Johnson in South Dakota). And believe me, New Mexico’s Latinos vote.

Exit polling in recent years has shown that between 55 and 60% of the electorate is white (significantly lower than Texas), and the Hispanic electorate has ranged between 28-36% (significantly higher than Texas), and the Indians and blacks have ranged roughly 8 or 12%.

So, this means that the New Mexico GOP must not only be dead, but suffering from rigor mortis, right? With a Hispanic population virtually equal with the white population means that New Mexico must make Rhode Island look like a Republican bastion, right?

As a matter of fact, no. It’s all a matter of doing your math, folks. To start with, which may surprise you, New Mexico whites are not nearly as Republican as Texan whites, yet the GOP is still very competitive there. Republicans average about 55 or 60% of the state’s white vote, about 10 or 15 points below the GOP average in Texas. For instance, in 2000 the electorate was 59% white, 32% Hispanic, and 9% other. It’s estimated that GW Bush took only 58% of the white vote, but he still came within less than 400 votes to winning the state (48%-48% tie). In fact, from what I’ve heard, when a few sample recounts were taken, Bush kept closing the gap. But, to not be hypocritical in light of Florida, the Bush campaign refused to request a recount in New Mexico, which could have given him the state. New Mexico is still very winnable for Republicans. If Bush had received 70% of the New Mexico white vote, he would have won hands down.

In this past election, democrats won a big victory in the gubernatorial race, but the state GOP is still glowing from their sweep in the federal elections. A Republican US Senator was re-elected with 65% of the vote, and they comfortably maintained their 2-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation, in spite of both races appearing competitive. One of these districts is 43% Hispanic and the other is 47%. The GOP also managed to win a statewide office or two, in spite of democrat star Bill Richardson carrying his party to victory. And, from what I hear, the democrats made no gains in the state house of representatives (which is democratic-controlled with a good-sized GOP minority). Thus, the GOP still has a strong presence in the state, even though there’s a much larger and more daunting percentage of Hispanics than in California.

In summary, New Mexico’s whites are more liberal, for sure, than Texas whites, but the GOP, gets what it can and then creates a coalition with non-white voters and has done remarkably well in the state’s recent political history.

So, please, folks, show some common sense and faith, those of you who believe Texas is about to become another Massachussetts.

Once again, thanks to everyone for taking the time to read my work.