The Moribund GOP.....

[percysunshine]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

.
These Catholic conservative Latinos?

Be careful what you wish for....

.

Catholic yes, conservative? Only in your wet dreams.

I guess we will find out. Like all strategic political plans that look so good on paper....

..

Please tell us all exactly how the extreme rightwing GOP plans on appealing to the growing Hispanic and Latino demographic in the future?

.
Probably by not being extreme left wing.

Please tell us about all the good things left wing politics has bestowed upon Latin American culture.

Venezuela might be a contemporary starting point.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

.
These Catholic conservative Latinos?

Be careful what you wish for....

.

Catholic yes, conservative? Only in your wet dreams.

I guess we will find out. Like all strategic political plans that look so good on paper....

..

Please tell us all exactly how the extreme rightwing GOP plans on appealing to the growing Hispanic and Latino demographic in the future?

.
Probably by not being extreme left wing.

Please tell us about all the good things left wing politics has bestowed upon Latin American culture.

Venezuela might be a contemporary starting point.

.

Hey, they have a lot of income equality there now. Everyone is poor and miserable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hispanic Americans aren't stupid, they know the right's hostility toward immigration is predicated on an unwarranted fear of an America becoming 'more brown.'

 

[The Rabbi]

Hispanic Americans aren't stupid, they know the right's hostility toward immigration is predicated on an unwarranted fear of an America becoming 'more brown.'

Hispanic Americans arent stupid. They know economic opportunity does not come with handouts, which is all the Dems have to offer. Dems want to pander to Hispanics, ultimately turning them into the 21st century house n1ggers of the Democratic Party

 

[percysunshine]

Hispanic Americans aren't stupid, they know the right's hostility toward immigration is predicated on an unwarranted fear of an America becoming 'more brown.'

Hispanic Americans are not stupid. They know the left wants them to live in Venezuela.

.

 

[HenryBHough]

Does any of it really matter?

The way the two major parties devote their efforts exclusively to trying to "out-progressive" each other you're screwed.

Unless, of course, you take the approach I adopted decades ago:

Confronted with election results ask but one (1, liberals) question:

"How can I profit from this?"

 

[nat4900]

Hispanic Americans aren't stupid, they know the right's hostility toward immigration is predicated on an unwarranted fear of an America becoming 'more brown.'

Although the majority of Hispanics/Latinos are here LEGALLY, they empathize with the plight of the 12 million "illegals" and they well KNOW which political party is steadfastly trying to thwart any path toward legalization of these migrants.....

In the long run, it is actually "good" that right wingers neglect to recognize this major flaw in their policies since such will bring them....in the words of Cheney in another context........"to their death throes."

 

[The Rabbi]

Hispanic Americans aren't stupid, they know the right's hostility toward immigration is predicated on an unwarranted fear of an America becoming 'more brown.'

Although the majority of Hispanics/Latinos are here LEGALLY, they empathize with the plight of the 12 million "illegals" and they well KNOW which political party is steadfastly trying to thwart any path toward legalization of these migrants.....

In the long run, it is actually "good" that right wingers neglect to recognize this major flaw in their policies since such will bring them....in the words of Cheney in another context........"to their death throes."

LOL!
Yes, the party that controls most of government is certainly in its "death throes." THe party that can put forth ONE candidate, one covered in slime and scandal, that sure is the healthy party of the future. Yeah, buddy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

Hi, nat4900 - I would like to point out some data points over the two states you mentioned.

I concur with your well-worded analysis.

Let's start with TX.

In 2009, more than 6 years ago, at my private politics blog, I made an audacious prediction : :

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond The invisible link between NE and TX....

Go read that first.

Then, there were two updates, the second of which is here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

Since then, the attempt to kill elector-splitting in NE has failed twice again.


Now, TX's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Carter +3.17
1980: Reagan +13.86 (swing = R +17.03)
1984: Reagan +27.50 (swing = R +13.64) Reagan doubled his '80 margin.
1988: Bush 41 +12.60 (swing = D +14.90)
1992: Bush 41 +3.48 (swing = D +9.12)
1996: Dole +4.93 (swing = R +1.45)
2000: Bush 43 +21.32 (swing = R +16.39)
2004: Bush 43 +22.86 (swing = R +1.54)
2008: McCain +11.75 (swing = D +11.11)
2004: Romney +15.77 (swing = R +4.02)

We can learn a lot from these numbers. They teach discernment. We see that in a cycle where a Republican won nationally, he won TX by 13 points or more. In a cycle where the Republican lost nationally, until 2012, he won TX by +12 or less. Romney went against the stream, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan pretty much sealed Texas into the Red Wall in 1980 and it is statistical fact that his 1984 margin is the high water mark for the GOP in this state in terms or prez elections. Forget the narrow margins in '92 and '96, they were both three-way races and Perot himself was from Texas.

But I think it is also fair to say that any Republican who is not breaking +10 in TX polling is likely losing nationally, according to idea that "a rising tide lifts all winning boats"

And there is more in the TX demographic than we realize:

Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population of TX has risen from 25.1 million in 2010 to almost 27 million in 2014.

white, non-latinos: 44%
Latinos: 37%
black: 12.4%
Asian: 4.3%
American Indian: 1%

Even now, non-latino whites are a plurality but no longer a majority in TX. The conventional wisdom is that many Latinos are still very, very young, but wil come within voting age by 2020.

All indicators, despite the Romney surge of 2012, is that this state is moving toward a true purple status.

And in 2016 polling, there have been four polls of Texas, all from PPP (D), Hillary vs. various GOPers. The results, going chronologically forward:

Christie -2 (Hillary +2), +9, +5, +2
Paul +4, +10
Cruz +5, +3, +7
Bush, J +3, +7, +8
Rubio -1 (Hillary +1)
Perry -8, -4, -2, +5
Huckabee +8

Now, the last poll was in 2014, so this data, although a baseline, is now too old, and I am sure the GOP margins will be better than this. But they should never have been this small to begin with.


In California, just to throw some fun into the works, there has been one and only one poll of our Union's largest state, from Emerson College, and it just came out about 2 weeks ago, with only two matchups, showing Hillary at only +6 over both Walker and Bush, Jeb, but +12 over Cruz. Emerson sometimes puts out quirky numbers, but of course, I recorded them:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_af8bba4b737642c0bd0dd88e13a90eec.pdf


Now, just as with the polls from TX, I expect the D margin to rise here quite a bit.

The average in California was off to the Right by 7.3 points in November, 2012. The aggregate showed Obama +15.80, he won by +23. The exit polling was also quite off, though it picked the correct winner. Reason: gross undercalculation of the Latino vote. The only pollster who nailed CA with a really good end-poll was Pepperdine, with Obama +23.

So, sometimes we see quirky polls that make us smile a little. Like in this weird 2008 poll of NY:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

(Scroll down to New York)

Quirkly Siena poll from 09/15 showing Obama only +4 over McCain in New York. Actual result: almost +26.

And for fun, California's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=6&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Ford +1.78
1980: Reagan +16.78 (swing = R +15.00)
1984: Reagan +16.25 (swing = D +0.53)
1988: Bush 41 +3.57 (swing = D +12.68)
1992: Clinton +13.39 (swing = D +9.82)
1996: Clinton +12.89 (swing = R +0.50)
2000: Gore +11.80 (swing = R +1.09)
2004: Kerry +9.95 (swing = R +1.85)
2008: Obama +24.02 (swing = D +14.07)
2012: Obama +23.09 (swing = R +0.93)


From these numbers, we can also learn a great deal. In every cycle since 1992 where the Democrat won in the NPV, he won Califonia by +12 or more. Since California went verifiably blue in 1992, only once has a Democrat won the state with less than +10. And interestingly enough, in 2004, California, which was won by +10 for Kerry, was called immediately at poll-closing time. But Hawaii, which was won by +9 for Kerry, was first called 3.5 hours later.

We also see an incumbent pattern. Look at 1984, 1996 and 2012. Those were all sucessful re-election cycles nationally and in all three cases, the winner won California with a slightly smaller margin than in the cycle before.

From from 1976 to 2012, we see Texas go from being a lean Carter (D) state to a landslide GOP state and we see California go from being a lean Ford (R) state to a landslide Democratic state.

So, yeah, unless the GOP gets serious about actually wanting to reach out to Latinos instead of just hating them, it pretty much has no chance in presidential cycles.

And perhaps this is why the GOP has been exceedingly QUIET about the re-opening of relations with Cuba, because there is a massive contingent of Florida citizens who are Latinos of Cuban descent, who are here legally and who vote. The Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for Obama in '12, giving him his +0.88 win in the Sunshine State.

Finally, of the 11 largest states in the Union:

CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13) - worth exactly 270 EV, only 2 of those states are considered solid R: TX and GA. Five are considered solid D: CA, NY, IL, PA and MI, and 4 are tossups: FL, OH, NC, VA. Three of this quadrifecta went for Obama in 2012,a ll four went for him in 2008.

The battlegrounds have truly shifted.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

Hi, nat4900 - I would like to point out some data points over the two states you mentioned.

I concur with your well-worded analysis.

Let's start with TX.

In 2009, more than 6 years ago, at my private politics blog, I made an audacious prediction : :

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond The invisible link between NE and TX....

Go read that first.

Then, there were two updates, the second of which is here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

Since then, the attempt to kill elector-splitting in NE has failed twice again.


Now, TX's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Carter +3.17
1980: Reagan +13.86 (swing = R +17.03)
1984: Reagan +27.50 (swing = R +13.64) Reagan doubled his '80 margin.
1988: Bush 41 +12.60 (swing = D +14.90)
1992: Bush 41 +3.48 (swing = D +9.12)
1996: Dole +4.93 (swing = R +1.45)
2000: Bush 43 +21.32 (swing = R +16.39)
2004: Bush 43 +22.86 (swing = R +1.54)
2008: McCain +11.75 (swing = D +11.11)
2004: Romney +15.77 (swing = R +4.02)

We can learn a lot from these numbers. They teach discernment. We see that in a cycle where a Republican won nationally, he won TX by 13 points or more. In a cycle where the Republican lost nationally, until 2012, he won TX by +12 or less. Romney went against the stream, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan pretty much sealed Texas into the Red Wall in 1980 and it is statistical fact that his 1984 margin is the high water mark for the GOP in this state in terms or prez elections. Forget the narrow margins in '92 and '96, they were both three-way races and Perot himself was from Texas.

But I think it is also fair to say that any Republican who is not breaking +10 in TX polling is likely losing nationally, according to idea that "a rising tide lifts all winning boats"

And there is more in the TX demographic than we realize:

Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population of TX has risen from 25.1 million in 2010 to almost 27 million in 2014.

white, non-latinos: 44%
Latinos: 37%
black: 12.4%
Asian: 4.3%
American Indian: 1%

Even now, non-latino whites are a plurality but no longer a majority in TX. The conventional wisdom is that many Latinos are still very, very young, but wil come within voting age by 2020.

All indicators, despite the Romney surge of 2012, is that this state is moving toward a true purple status.

And in 2016 polling, there have been four polls of Texas, all from PPP (D), Hillary vs. various GOPers. The results, going chronologically forward:

Christie -2 (Hillary +2), +9, +5, +2
Paul +4, +10
Cruz +5, +3, +7
Bush, J +3, +7, +8
Rubio -1 (Hillary +1)
Perry -8, -4, -2, +5
Huckabee +8

Now, the last poll was in 2014, so this data, although a baseline, is now too old, and I am sure the GOP margins will be better than this. But they should never have been this small to begin with.


In California, just to throw some fun into the works, there has been one and only one poll of our Union's largest state, from Emerson College, and it just came out about 2 weeks ago, with only two matchups, showing Hillary at only +6 over both Walker and Bush, Jeb, but +12 over Cruz. Emerson sometimes puts out quirky numbers, but of course, I recorded them:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_af8bba4b737642c0bd0dd88e13a90eec.pdf


Now, just as with the polls from TX, I expect the D margin to rise here quite a bit.

The average in California was off to the Right by 7.3 points in November, 2012. The aggregate showed Obama +15.80, he won by +23. The exit polling was also quite off, though it picked the correct winner. Reason: gross undercalculation of the Latino vote. The only pollster who nailed CA with a really good end-poll was Pepperdine, with Obama +23.

So, sometimes we see quirky polls that make us smile a little. Like in this weird 2008 poll of NY:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

(Scroll down to New York)

Quirkly Siena poll from 09/15 showing Obama only +4 over McCain in New York. Actual result: almost +26.

And for fun, California's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=6&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Ford +1.78
1980: Reagan +16.78 (swing = R +15.00)
1984: Reagan +16.25 (swing = D +0.53)
1988: Bush 41 +3.57 (swing = D +12.68)
1992: Clinton +13.39 (swing = D +9.82)
1996: Clinton +12.89 (swing = R +0.50)
2000: Gore +11.80 (swing = R +1.09)
2004: Kerry +9.95 (swing = R +1.85)
2008: Obama +24.02 (swing = D +14.07)
2012: Obama +23.09 (swing = R +0.93)


From these numbers, we can also learn a great deal. In every cycle since 1992 where the Democrat won in the NPV, he won Califonia by +12 or more. Since California went verifiably blue in 1992, only once has a Democrat won the state with less than +10. And interestingly enough, in 2004, California, which was won by +10 for Kerry, was called immediately at poll-closing time. But Hawaii, which was won by +9 for Kerry, was first called 3.5 hours later.

We also see an incumbent pattern. Look at 1984, 1996 and 2012. Those were all sucessful re-election cycles nationally and in all three cases, the winner won California with a slightly smaller margin than in the cycle before.

From from 1976 to 2012, we see Texas go from being a lean Carter (D) state to a landslide GOP state and we see California go from being a lean Ford (R) state to a landslide Democratic state.

So, yeah, unless the GOP gets serious about actually wanting to reach out to Latinos instead of just hating them, it pretty much has no chance in presidential cycles.

And perhaps this is why the GOP has been exceedingly QUIET about the re-opening of relations with Cuba, because there is a massive contingent of Florida citizens who are Latinos of Cuban descent, who are here legally and who vote. The Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for Obama in '12, giving him his +0.88 win in the Sunshine State.

Finally, of the 11 largest states in the Union:

CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13) - worth exactly 270 EV, only 2 of those states are considered solid R: TX and GA. Five are considered solid D: CA, NY, IL, PA and MI, and 4 are tossups: FL, OH, NC, VA. Three of this quadrifecta went for Obama in 2012,a ll four went for him in 2008.

The battlegrounds have truly shifted.

You're talking about Illinois, the state that just elected a GOP governor? PA and MI are also swing states. Note MI also has a GOP governor.
Your arrogance and stupidity are on full display.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

Hi, nat4900 - I would like to point out some data points over the two states you mentioned.

I concur with your well-worded analysis.

Let's start with TX.

In 2009, more than 6 years ago, at my private politics blog, I made an audacious prediction : :

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond The invisible link between NE and TX....

Go read that first.

Then, there were two updates, the second of which is here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

Since then, the attempt to kill elector-splitting in NE has failed twice again.


Now, TX's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Carter +3.17
1980: Reagan +13.86 (swing = R +17.03)
1984: Reagan +27.50 (swing = R +13.64) Reagan doubled his '80 margin.
1988: Bush 41 +12.60 (swing = D +14.90)
1992: Bush 41 +3.48 (swing = D +9.12)
1996: Dole +4.93 (swing = R +1.45)
2000: Bush 43 +21.32 (swing = R +16.39)
2004: Bush 43 +22.86 (swing = R +1.54)
2008: McCain +11.75 (swing = D +11.11)
2004: Romney +15.77 (swing = R +4.02)

We can learn a lot from these numbers. They teach discernment. We see that in a cycle where a Republican won nationally, he won TX by 13 points or more. In a cycle where the Republican lost nationally, until 2012, he won TX by +12 or less. Romney went against the stream, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan pretty much sealed Texas into the Red Wall in 1980 and it is statistical fact that his 1984 margin is the high water mark for the GOP in this state in terms or prez elections. Forget the narrow margins in '92 and '96, they were both three-way races and Perot himself was from Texas.

But I think it is also fair to say that any Republican who is not breaking +10 in TX polling is likely losing nationally, according to idea that "a rising tide lifts all winning boats"

And there is more in the TX demographic than we realize:

Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population of TX has risen from 25.1 million in 2010 to almost 27 million in 2014.

white, non-latinos: 44%
Latinos: 37%
black: 12.4%
Asian: 4.3%
American Indian: 1%

Even now, non-latino whites are a plurality but no longer a majority in TX. The conventional wisdom is that many Latinos are still very, very young, but wil come within voting age by 2020.

All indicators, despite the Romney surge of 2012, is that this state is moving toward a true purple status.

And in 2016 polling, there have been four polls of Texas, all from PPP (D), Hillary vs. various GOPers. The results, going chronologically forward:

Christie -2 (Hillary +2), +9, +5, +2
Paul +4, +10
Cruz +5, +3, +7
Bush, J +3, +7, +8
Rubio -1 (Hillary +1)
Perry -8, -4, -2, +5
Huckabee +8

Now, the last poll was in 2014, so this data, although a baseline, is now too old, and I am sure the GOP margins will be better than this. But they should never have been this small to begin with.


In California, just to throw some fun into the works, there has been one and only one poll of our Union's largest state, from Emerson College, and it just came out about 2 weeks ago, with only two matchups, showing Hillary at only +6 over both Walker and Bush, Jeb, but +12 over Cruz. Emerson sometimes puts out quirky numbers, but of course, I recorded them:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_af8bba4b737642c0bd0dd88e13a90eec.pdf


Now, just as with the polls from TX, I expect the D margin to rise here quite a bit.

The average in California was off to the Right by 7.3 points in November, 2012. The aggregate showed Obama +15.80, he won by +23. The exit polling was also quite off, though it picked the correct winner. Reason: gross undercalculation of the Latino vote. The only pollster who nailed CA with a really good end-poll was Pepperdine, with Obama +23.

So, sometimes we see quirky polls that make us smile a little. Like in this weird 2008 poll of NY:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

(Scroll down to New York)

Quirkly Siena poll from 09/15 showing Obama only +4 over McCain in New York. Actual result: almost +26.

And for fun, California's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=6&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Ford +1.78
1980: Reagan +16.78 (swing = R +15.00)
1984: Reagan +16.25 (swing = D +0.53)
1988: Bush 41 +3.57 (swing = D +12.68)
1992: Clinton +13.39 (swing = D +9.82)
1996: Clinton +12.89 (swing = R +0.50)
2000: Gore +11.80 (swing = R +1.09)
2004: Kerry +9.95 (swing = R +1.85)
2008: Obama +24.02 (swing = D +14.07)
2012: Obama +23.09 (swing = R +0.93)


From these numbers, we can also learn a great deal. In every cycle since 1992 where the Democrat won in the NPV, he won Califonia by +12 or more. Since California went verifiably blue in 1992, only once has a Democrat won the state with less than +10. And interestingly enough, in 2004, California, which was won by +10 for Kerry, was called immediately at poll-closing time. But Hawaii, which was won by +9 for Kerry, was first called 3.5 hours later.

We also see an incumbent pattern. Look at 1984, 1996 and 2012. Those were all sucessful re-election cycles nationally and in all three cases, the winner won California with a slightly smaller margin than in the cycle before.

From from 1976 to 2012, we see Texas go from being a lean Carter (D) state to a landslide GOP state and we see California go from being a lean Ford (R) state to a landslide Democratic state.

So, yeah, unless the GOP gets serious about actually wanting to reach out to Latinos instead of just hating them, it pretty much has no chance in presidential cycles.

And perhaps this is why the GOP has been exceedingly QUIET about the re-opening of relations with Cuba, because there is a massive contingent of Florida citizens who are Latinos of Cuban descent, who are here legally and who vote. The Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for Obama in '12, giving him his +0.88 win in the Sunshine State.

Finally, of the 11 largest states in the Union:

CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13) - worth exactly 270 EV, only 2 of those states are considered solid R: TX and GA. Five are considered solid D: CA, NY, IL, PA and MI, and 4 are tossups: FL, OH, NC, VA. Three of this quadrifecta went for Obama in 2012,a ll four went for him in 2008.

The battlegrounds have truly shifted.

You're talking about Illinois, the state that just elected a GOP governor? PA and MI are also swing states. Note MI also has a GOP governor.
Your arrogance and stupidity are on full display.

This issue is of presidential cycles, not state elections, idiot. Or are you so stupid to think that the MI Gub race was a presidential race? You call PA and MI swing states, but they did not swing in either 2000 or 2004, when a Republican won the White House, now did they, you stupid assed fuck.

Now, run off and play with your tonka toys.

 

[nat4900]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

Hi, nat4900 - I would like to point out some data points over the two states you mentioned.

I concur with your well-worded analysis.

Let's start with TX.

In 2009, more than 6 years ago, at my private politics blog, I made an audacious prediction : :

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond The invisible link between NE and TX....

Go read that first.

Then, there were two updates, the second of which is here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

Since then, the attempt to kill elector-splitting in NE has failed twice again.


Now, TX's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Carter +3.17
1980: Reagan +13.86 (swing = R +17.03)
1984: Reagan +27.50 (swing = R +13.64) Reagan doubled his '80 margin.
1988: Bush 41 +12.60 (swing = D +14.90)
1992: Bush 41 +3.48 (swing = D +9.12)
1996: Dole +4.93 (swing = R +1.45)
2000: Bush 43 +21.32 (swing = R +16.39)
2004: Bush 43 +22.86 (swing = R +1.54)
2008: McCain +11.75 (swing = D +11.11)
2004: Romney +15.77 (swing = R +4.02)

We can learn a lot from these numbers. They teach discernment. We see that in a cycle where a Republican won nationally, he won TX by 13 points or more. In a cycle where the Republican lost nationally, until 2012, he won TX by +12 or less. Romney went against the stream, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan pretty much sealed Texas into the Red Wall in 1980 and it is statistical fact that his 1984 margin is the high water mark for the GOP in this state in terms or prez elections. Forget the narrow margins in '92 and '96, they were both three-way races and Perot himself was from Texas.

But I think it is also fair to say that any Republican who is not breaking +10 in TX polling is likely losing nationally, according to idea that "a rising tide lifts all winning boats"

And there is more in the TX demographic than we realize:

Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population of TX has risen from 25.1 million in 2010 to almost 27 million in 2014.

white, non-latinos: 44%
Latinos: 37%
black: 12.4%
Asian: 4.3%
American Indian: 1%

Even now, non-latino whites are a plurality but no longer a majority in TX. The conventional wisdom is that many Latinos are still very, very young, but wil come within voting age by 2020.

All indicators, despite the Romney surge of 2012, is that this state is moving toward a true purple status.

And in 2016 polling, there have been four polls of Texas, all from PPP (D), Hillary vs. various GOPers. The results, going chronologically forward:

Christie -2 (Hillary +2), +9, +5, +2
Paul +4, +10
Cruz +5, +3, +7
Bush, J +3, +7, +8
Rubio -1 (Hillary +1)
Perry -8, -4, -2, +5
Huckabee +8

Now, the last poll was in 2014, so this data, although a baseline, is now too old, and I am sure the GOP margins will be better than this. But they should never have been this small to begin with.


In California, just to throw some fun into the works, there has been one and only one poll of our Union's largest state, from Emerson College, and it just came out about 2 weeks ago, with only two matchups, showing Hillary at only +6 over both Walker and Bush, Jeb, but +12 over Cruz. Emerson sometimes puts out quirky numbers, but of course, I recorded them:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_af8bba4b737642c0bd0dd88e13a90eec.pdf


Now, just as with the polls from TX, I expect the D margin to rise here quite a bit.

The average in California was off to the Right by 7.3 points in November, 2012. The aggregate showed Obama +15.80, he won by +23. The exit polling was also quite off, though it picked the correct winner. Reason: gross undercalculation of the Latino vote. The only pollster who nailed CA with a really good end-poll was Pepperdine, with Obama +23.

So, sometimes we see quirky polls that make us smile a little. Like in this weird 2008 poll of NY:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

(Scroll down to New York)

Quirkly Siena poll from 09/15 showing Obama only +4 over McCain in New York. Actual result: almost +26.

And for fun, California's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=6&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Ford +1.78
1980: Reagan +16.78 (swing = R +15.00)
1984: Reagan +16.25 (swing = D +0.53)
1988: Bush 41 +3.57 (swing = D +12.68)
1992: Clinton +13.39 (swing = D +9.82)
1996: Clinton +12.89 (swing = R +0.50)
2000: Gore +11.80 (swing = R +1.09)
2004: Kerry +9.95 (swing = R +1.85)
2008: Obama +24.02 (swing = D +14.07)
2012: Obama +23.09 (swing = R +0.93)


From these numbers, we can also learn a great deal. In every cycle since 1992 where the Democrat won in the NPV, he won Califonia by +12 or more. Since California went verifiably blue in 1992, only once has a Democrat won the state with less than +10. And interestingly enough, in 2004, California, which was won by +10 for Kerry, was called immediately at poll-closing time. But Hawaii, which was won by +9 for Kerry, was first called 3.5 hours later.

We also see an incumbent pattern. Look at 1984, 1996 and 2012. Those were all sucessful re-election cycles nationally and in all three cases, the winner won California with a slightly smaller margin than in the cycle before.

From from 1976 to 2012, we see Texas go from being a lean Carter (D) state to a landslide GOP state and we see California go from being a lean Ford (R) state to a landslide Democratic state.

So, yeah, unless the GOP gets serious about actually wanting to reach out to Latinos instead of just hating them, it pretty much has no chance in presidential cycles.

And perhaps this is why the GOP has been exceedingly QUIET about the re-opening of relations with Cuba, because there is a massive contingent of Florida citizens who are Latinos of Cuban descent, who are here legally and who vote. The Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for Obama in '12, giving him his +0.88 win in the Sunshine State.

Finally, of the 11 largest states in the Union:

CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13) - worth exactly 270 EV, only 2 of those states are considered solid R: TX and GA. Five are considered solid D: CA, NY, IL, PA and MI, and 4 are tossups: FL, OH, NC, VA. Three of this quadrifecta went for Obama in 2012,a ll four went for him in 2008.

The battlegrounds have truly shifted.

VERY WELL DONE, Stat !!!!

....Your recap and analysis cannot be disputed with the usual right wing "excuse" that since Texas is run by republicans, the shifting tide of demographics in that state is overwhelming. In the long run I cannot blame republicans for refuting the obvious since reality is a bitch.

In a previous post I cited the director of the Hispanic Republican coalition in TX who stated that his state is the last bastion of a republican stance toward maintaining parity in the electoral college....and losing TX can spell the end of GOP dominance in presidential runs.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

Hi, nat4900 - I would like to point out some data points over the two states you mentioned.

I concur with your well-worded analysis.

Let's start with TX.

In 2009, more than 6 years ago, at my private politics blog, I made an audacious prediction : :

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond The invisible link between NE and TX....

Go read that first.

Then, there were two updates, the second of which is here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

Since then, the attempt to kill elector-splitting in NE has failed twice again.


Now, TX's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Carter +3.17
1980: Reagan +13.86 (swing = R +17.03)
1984: Reagan +27.50 (swing = R +13.64) Reagan doubled his '80 margin.
1988: Bush 41 +12.60 (swing = D +14.90)
1992: Bush 41 +3.48 (swing = D +9.12)
1996: Dole +4.93 (swing = R +1.45)
2000: Bush 43 +21.32 (swing = R +16.39)
2004: Bush 43 +22.86 (swing = R +1.54)
2008: McCain +11.75 (swing = D +11.11)
2004: Romney +15.77 (swing = R +4.02)

We can learn a lot from these numbers. They teach discernment. We see that in a cycle where a Republican won nationally, he won TX by 13 points or more. In a cycle where the Republican lost nationally, until 2012, he won TX by +12 or less. Romney went against the stream, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan pretty much sealed Texas into the Red Wall in 1980 and it is statistical fact that his 1984 margin is the high water mark for the GOP in this state in terms or prez elections. Forget the narrow margins in '92 and '96, they were both three-way races and Perot himself was from Texas.

But I think it is also fair to say that any Republican who is not breaking +10 in TX polling is likely losing nationally, according to idea that "a rising tide lifts all winning boats"

And there is more in the TX demographic than we realize:

Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population of TX has risen from 25.1 million in 2010 to almost 27 million in 2014.

white, non-latinos: 44%
Latinos: 37%
black: 12.4%
Asian: 4.3%
American Indian: 1%

Even now, non-latino whites are a plurality but no longer a majority in TX. The conventional wisdom is that many Latinos are still very, very young, but wil come within voting age by 2020.

All indicators, despite the Romney surge of 2012, is that this state is moving toward a true purple status.

And in 2016 polling, there have been four polls of Texas, all from PPP (D), Hillary vs. various GOPers. The results, going chronologically forward:

Christie -2 (Hillary +2), +9, +5, +2
Paul +4, +10
Cruz +5, +3, +7
Bush, J +3, +7, +8
Rubio -1 (Hillary +1)
Perry -8, -4, -2, +5
Huckabee +8

Now, the last poll was in 2014, so this data, although a baseline, is now too old, and I am sure the GOP margins will be better than this. But they should never have been this small to begin with.


In California, just to throw some fun into the works, there has been one and only one poll of our Union's largest state, from Emerson College, and it just came out about 2 weeks ago, with only two matchups, showing Hillary at only +6 over both Walker and Bush, Jeb, but +12 over Cruz. Emerson sometimes puts out quirky numbers, but of course, I recorded them:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_af8bba4b737642c0bd0dd88e13a90eec.pdf


Now, just as with the polls from TX, I expect the D margin to rise here quite a bit.

The average in California was off to the Right by 7.3 points in November, 2012. The aggregate showed Obama +15.80, he won by +23. The exit polling was also quite off, though it picked the correct winner. Reason: gross undercalculation of the Latino vote. The only pollster who nailed CA with a really good end-poll was Pepperdine, with Obama +23.

So, sometimes we see quirky polls that make us smile a little. Like in this weird 2008 poll of NY:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

(Scroll down to New York)

Quirkly Siena poll from 09/15 showing Obama only +4 over McCain in New York. Actual result: almost +26.

And for fun, California's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=6&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Ford +1.78
1980: Reagan +16.78 (swing = R +15.00)
1984: Reagan +16.25 (swing = D +0.53)
1988: Bush 41 +3.57 (swing = D +12.68)
1992: Clinton +13.39 (swing = D +9.82)
1996: Clinton +12.89 (swing = R +0.50)
2000: Gore +11.80 (swing = R +1.09)
2004: Kerry +9.95 (swing = R +1.85)
2008: Obama +24.02 (swing = D +14.07)
2012: Obama +23.09 (swing = R +0.93)


From these numbers, we can also learn a great deal. In every cycle since 1992 where the Democrat won in the NPV, he won Califonia by +12 or more. Since California went verifiably blue in 1992, only once has a Democrat won the state with less than +10. And interestingly enough, in 2004, California, which was won by +10 for Kerry, was called immediately at poll-closing time. But Hawaii, which was won by +9 for Kerry, was first called 3.5 hours later.

We also see an incumbent pattern. Look at 1984, 1996 and 2012. Those were all sucessful re-election cycles nationally and in all three cases, the winner won California with a slightly smaller margin than in the cycle before.

From from 1976 to 2012, we see Texas go from being a lean Carter (D) state to a landslide GOP state and we see California go from being a lean Ford (R) state to a landslide Democratic state.

So, yeah, unless the GOP gets serious about actually wanting to reach out to Latinos instead of just hating them, it pretty much has no chance in presidential cycles.

And perhaps this is why the GOP has been exceedingly QUIET about the re-opening of relations with Cuba, because there is a massive contingent of Florida citizens who are Latinos of Cuban descent, who are here legally and who vote. The Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for Obama in '12, giving him his +0.88 win in the Sunshine State.

Finally, of the 11 largest states in the Union:

CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13) - worth exactly 270 EV, only 2 of those states are considered solid R: TX and GA. Five are considered solid D: CA, NY, IL, PA and MI, and 4 are tossups: FL, OH, NC, VA. Three of this quadrifecta went for Obama in 2012,a ll four went for him in 2008.

The battlegrounds have truly shifted.

VERY WELL DONE, Stat !!!!

....Your recap and analysis cannot be disputed with the usual right wing "excuse" that since Texas is run by republicans, the shifting tide of demographics in that state is overwhelming. In the long run I cannot blame republicans for refuting the obvious since reality is a bitch.

In a previous post I cited the director of the Hispanic Republican coalition in TX who stated that his state is the last bastion of a republican stance toward maintaining parity in the electoral college....and losing TX can spell the end of GOP dominance in presidential runs.

I believe that the key point in this is the extremely YOUNG Latino population in the SW, not just in TX. They are coming of voting age. And I am pretty sure they are watching the immigration debate very intensely. The sleeping bear is about to awaken, I suspect.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

Hi, nat4900 - I would like to point out some data points over the two states you mentioned.

I concur with your well-worded analysis.

Let's start with TX.

In 2009, more than 6 years ago, at my private politics blog, I made an audacious prediction : :

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond The invisible link between NE and TX....

Go read that first.

Then, there were two updates, the second of which is here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

Since then, the attempt to kill elector-splitting in NE has failed twice again.


Now, TX's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Carter +3.17
1980: Reagan +13.86 (swing = R +17.03)
1984: Reagan +27.50 (swing = R +13.64) Reagan doubled his '80 margin.
1988: Bush 41 +12.60 (swing = D +14.90)
1992: Bush 41 +3.48 (swing = D +9.12)
1996: Dole +4.93 (swing = R +1.45)
2000: Bush 43 +21.32 (swing = R +16.39)
2004: Bush 43 +22.86 (swing = R +1.54)
2008: McCain +11.75 (swing = D +11.11)
2004: Romney +15.77 (swing = R +4.02)

We can learn a lot from these numbers. They teach discernment. We see that in a cycle where a Republican won nationally, he won TX by 13 points or more. In a cycle where the Republican lost nationally, until 2012, he won TX by +12 or less. Romney went against the stream, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan pretty much sealed Texas into the Red Wall in 1980 and it is statistical fact that his 1984 margin is the high water mark for the GOP in this state in terms or prez elections. Forget the narrow margins in '92 and '96, they were both three-way races and Perot himself was from Texas.

But I think it is also fair to say that any Republican who is not breaking +10 in TX polling is likely losing nationally, according to idea that "a rising tide lifts all winning boats"

And there is more in the TX demographic than we realize:

Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population of TX has risen from 25.1 million in 2010 to almost 27 million in 2014.

white, non-latinos: 44%
Latinos: 37%
black: 12.4%
Asian: 4.3%
American Indian: 1%

Even now, non-latino whites are a plurality but no longer a majority in TX. The conventional wisdom is that many Latinos are still very, very young, but wil come within voting age by 2020.

All indicators, despite the Romney surge of 2012, is that this state is moving toward a true purple status.

And in 2016 polling, there have been four polls of Texas, all from PPP (D), Hillary vs. various GOPers. The results, going chronologically forward:

Christie -2 (Hillary +2), +9, +5, +2
Paul +4, +10
Cruz +5, +3, +7
Bush, J +3, +7, +8
Rubio -1 (Hillary +1)
Perry -8, -4, -2, +5
Huckabee +8

Now, the last poll was in 2014, so this data, although a baseline, is now too old, and I am sure the GOP margins will be better than this. But they should never have been this small to begin with.


In California, just to throw some fun into the works, there has been one and only one poll of our Union's largest state, from Emerson College, and it just came out about 2 weeks ago, with only two matchups, showing Hillary at only +6 over both Walker and Bush, Jeb, but +12 over Cruz. Emerson sometimes puts out quirky numbers, but of course, I recorded them:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_af8bba4b737642c0bd0dd88e13a90eec.pdf


Now, just as with the polls from TX, I expect the D margin to rise here quite a bit.

The average in California was off to the Right by 7.3 points in November, 2012. The aggregate showed Obama +15.80, he won by +23. The exit polling was also quite off, though it picked the correct winner. Reason: gross undercalculation of the Latino vote. The only pollster who nailed CA with a really good end-poll was Pepperdine, with Obama +23.

So, sometimes we see quirky polls that make us smile a little. Like in this weird 2008 poll of NY:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

(Scroll down to New York)

Quirkly Siena poll from 09/15 showing Obama only +4 over McCain in New York. Actual result: almost +26.

And for fun, California's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=6&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Ford +1.78
1980: Reagan +16.78 (swing = R +15.00)
1984: Reagan +16.25 (swing = D +0.53)
1988: Bush 41 +3.57 (swing = D +12.68)
1992: Clinton +13.39 (swing = D +9.82)
1996: Clinton +12.89 (swing = R +0.50)
2000: Gore +11.80 (swing = R +1.09)
2004: Kerry +9.95 (swing = R +1.85)
2008: Obama +24.02 (swing = D +14.07)
2012: Obama +23.09 (swing = R +0.93)


From these numbers, we can also learn a great deal. In every cycle since 1992 where the Democrat won in the NPV, he won Califonia by +12 or more. Since California went verifiably blue in 1992, only once has a Democrat won the state with less than +10. And interestingly enough, in 2004, California, which was won by +10 for Kerry, was called immediately at poll-closing time. But Hawaii, which was won by +9 for Kerry, was first called 3.5 hours later.

We also see an incumbent pattern. Look at 1984, 1996 and 2012. Those were all sucessful re-election cycles nationally and in all three cases, the winner won California with a slightly smaller margin than in the cycle before.

From from 1976 to 2012, we see Texas go from being a lean Carter (D) state to a landslide GOP state and we see California go from being a lean Ford (R) state to a landslide Democratic state.

So, yeah, unless the GOP gets serious about actually wanting to reach out to Latinos instead of just hating them, it pretty much has no chance in presidential cycles.

And perhaps this is why the GOP has been exceedingly QUIET about the re-opening of relations with Cuba, because there is a massive contingent of Florida citizens who are Latinos of Cuban descent, who are here legally and who vote. The Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for Obama in '12, giving him his +0.88 win in the Sunshine State.

Finally, of the 11 largest states in the Union:

CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13) - worth exactly 270 EV, only 2 of those states are considered solid R: TX and GA. Five are considered solid D: CA, NY, IL, PA and MI, and 4 are tossups: FL, OH, NC, VA. Three of this quadrifecta went for Obama in 2012,a ll four went for him in 2008.

The battlegrounds have truly shifted.

VERY WELL DONE, Stat !!!!

....Your recap and analysis cannot be disputed with the usual right wing "excuse" that since Texas is run by republicans, the shifting tide of demographics in that state is overwhelming. In the long run I cannot blame republicans for refuting the obvious since reality is a bitch.

In a previous post I cited the director of the Hispanic Republican coalition in TX who stated that his state is the last bastion of a republican stance toward maintaining parity in the electoral college....and losing TX can spell the end of GOP dominance in presidential runs.

LOL! A circle jerk of incompetents and boobs.
Yeah a state entirely run by Republicans is sure to go Democrat any day now. Just ask Gov. Wendy Davis.
Yes, Republicans refuted the obvious---Texas isnt going Democrat in your lifetime.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just to refresh our collective memory, the two states with the most electoral votes are California (55) and Texas (39).....Of these two, we all know that California is as blue as the mood of right wingers regarding their aspirations to regain the WH.....

But to add to the GOPers' misery, is the real fact that Texas' Hispanic/Latino population is now at about 44%..............and based on demographic data, by 2020 the state of Texas' white population will be in the minority , while Hispanics will be in the majority by 2036.

Unless the GOP leadership stops its xenophobic attitudes toward Hispanics/Latinos and begins to truly embrace the causes and needs of this wave of ethnic migrants (and not just make lame attempts to have the likes of a Cruz or Rubio trying to come off as caring for such migrants).....the Republican party will slowly perish into irrelevance.

Hi, nat4900 - I would like to point out some data points over the two states you mentioned.

I concur with your well-worded analysis.

Let's start with TX.

In 2009, more than 6 years ago, at my private politics blog, I made an audacious prediction : :

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond The invisible link between NE and TX....

Go read that first.

Then, there were two updates, the second of which is here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

Since then, the attempt to kill elector-splitting in NE has failed twice again.


Now, TX's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=48&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Carter +3.17
1980: Reagan +13.86 (swing = R +17.03)
1984: Reagan +27.50 (swing = R +13.64) Reagan doubled his '80 margin.
1988: Bush 41 +12.60 (swing = D +14.90)
1992: Bush 41 +3.48 (swing = D +9.12)
1996: Dole +4.93 (swing = R +1.45)
2000: Bush 43 +21.32 (swing = R +16.39)
2004: Bush 43 +22.86 (swing = R +1.54)
2008: McCain +11.75 (swing = D +11.11)
2004: Romney +15.77 (swing = R +4.02)

We can learn a lot from these numbers. They teach discernment. We see that in a cycle where a Republican won nationally, he won TX by 13 points or more. In a cycle where the Republican lost nationally, until 2012, he won TX by +12 or less. Romney went against the stream, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan pretty much sealed Texas into the Red Wall in 1980 and it is statistical fact that his 1984 margin is the high water mark for the GOP in this state in terms or prez elections. Forget the narrow margins in '92 and '96, they were both three-way races and Perot himself was from Texas.

But I think it is also fair to say that any Republican who is not breaking +10 in TX polling is likely losing nationally, according to idea that "a rising tide lifts all winning boats"

And there is more in the TX demographic than we realize:

Texas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

The population of TX has risen from 25.1 million in 2010 to almost 27 million in 2014.

white, non-latinos: 44%
Latinos: 37%
black: 12.4%
Asian: 4.3%
American Indian: 1%

Even now, non-latino whites are a plurality but no longer a majority in TX. The conventional wisdom is that many Latinos are still very, very young, but wil come within voting age by 2020.

All indicators, despite the Romney surge of 2012, is that this state is moving toward a true purple status.

And in 2016 polling, there have been four polls of Texas, all from PPP (D), Hillary vs. various GOPers. The results, going chronologically forward:

Christie -2 (Hillary +2), +9, +5, +2
Paul +4, +10
Cruz +5, +3, +7
Bush, J +3, +7, +8
Rubio -1 (Hillary +1)
Perry -8, -4, -2, +5
Huckabee +8

Now, the last poll was in 2014, so this data, although a baseline, is now too old, and I am sure the GOP margins will be better than this. But they should never have been this small to begin with.


In California, just to throw some fun into the works, there has been one and only one poll of our Union's largest state, from Emerson College, and it just came out about 2 weeks ago, with only two matchups, showing Hillary at only +6 over both Walker and Bush, Jeb, but +12 over Cruz. Emerson sometimes puts out quirky numbers, but of course, I recorded them:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_af8bba4b737642c0bd0dd88e13a90eec.pdf


Now, just as with the polls from TX, I expect the D margin to rise here quite a bit.

The average in California was off to the Right by 7.3 points in November, 2012. The aggregate showed Obama +15.80, he won by +23. The exit polling was also quite off, though it picked the correct winner. Reason: gross undercalculation of the Latino vote. The only pollster who nailed CA with a really good end-poll was Pepperdine, with Obama +23.

So, sometimes we see quirky polls that make us smile a little. Like in this weird 2008 poll of NY:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

(Scroll down to New York)

Quirkly Siena poll from 09/15 showing Obama only +4 over McCain in New York. Actual result: almost +26.

And for fun, California's electoral history since 1976:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=6&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1976: Ford +1.78
1980: Reagan +16.78 (swing = R +15.00)
1984: Reagan +16.25 (swing = D +0.53)
1988: Bush 41 +3.57 (swing = D +12.68)
1992: Clinton +13.39 (swing = D +9.82)
1996: Clinton +12.89 (swing = R +0.50)
2000: Gore +11.80 (swing = R +1.09)
2004: Kerry +9.95 (swing = R +1.85)
2008: Obama +24.02 (swing = D +14.07)
2012: Obama +23.09 (swing = R +0.93)


From these numbers, we can also learn a great deal. In every cycle since 1992 where the Democrat won in the NPV, he won Califonia by +12 or more. Since California went verifiably blue in 1992, only once has a Democrat won the state with less than +10. And interestingly enough, in 2004, California, which was won by +10 for Kerry, was called immediately at poll-closing time. But Hawaii, which was won by +9 for Kerry, was first called 3.5 hours later.

We also see an incumbent pattern. Look at 1984, 1996 and 2012. Those were all sucessful re-election cycles nationally and in all three cases, the winner won California with a slightly smaller margin than in the cycle before.

From from 1976 to 2012, we see Texas go from being a lean Carter (D) state to a landslide GOP state and we see California go from being a lean Ford (R) state to a landslide Democratic state.

So, yeah, unless the GOP gets serious about actually wanting to reach out to Latinos instead of just hating them, it pretty much has no chance in presidential cycles.

And perhaps this is why the GOP has been exceedingly QUIET about the re-opening of relations with Cuba, because there is a massive contingent of Florida citizens who are Latinos of Cuban descent, who are here legally and who vote. The Cuban Latino vote swung wildly for Obama in '12, giving him his +0.88 win in the Sunshine State.

Finally, of the 11 largest states in the Union:

CA (55), TX (38), NY (29), FL (29), IL (20), PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13) - worth exactly 270 EV, only 2 of those states are considered solid R: TX and GA. Five are considered solid D: CA, NY, IL, PA and MI, and 4 are tossups: FL, OH, NC, VA. Three of this quadrifecta went for Obama in 2012,a ll four went for him in 2008.

The battlegrounds have truly shifted.

VERY WELL DONE, Stat !!!!

....Your recap and analysis cannot be disputed with the usual right wing "excuse" that since Texas is run by republicans, the shifting tide of demographics in that state is overwhelming. In the long run I cannot blame republicans for refuting the obvious since reality is a bitch.

In a previous post I cited the director of the Hispanic Republican coalition in TX who stated that his state is the last bastion of a republican stance toward maintaining parity in the electoral college....and losing TX can spell the end of GOP dominance in presidential runs.

LOL! A circle jerk of incompetents and boobs.
Yeah a state entirely run by Republicans is sure to go Democrat any day now. Just ask Gov. Wendy Davis.
Yes, Republicans refuted the obvious---Texas isnt going Democrat in your lifetime.

I am going to treat you with the respect you absolutely do not deserve.

No one here said "any day now".

We are talking about trends that are occurring over years.

Do try to keep up.

 

[nat4900]

LOL! A circle jerk of incompetents and boobs.
Yeah a state entirely run by Republicans is sure to go Democrat any day now. Just ask Gov. Wendy Davis.
Yes, Republicans refuted the obvious---Texas isnt going Democrat in your lifetime.

Well, I may be getting a bit old to see Texas turn blue in my lifetime, but who knows how fast those demographics will take effect.....Its a race between my heart and young Hispanics signing up to vote.....

Here's an interesting map of Texas and note the pretty "blues" and "purples".... Obama carried the Four largest cities in TX in 2012

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I love listening to leftwing kooks, kooks who are borderline Fabian Socialists telling the GOP what they must do to come back to reality... the modern day Democrat is as out of touch with reality as pretty much anyone.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hispanic Americans aren't stupid, they know the right's hostility toward immigration is predicated on an unwarranted fear of an America becoming 'more brown.'

Although the majority of Hispanics/Latinos are here LEGALLY, they empathize with the plight of the 12 million "illegals" and they well KNOW which political party is steadfastly trying to thwart any path toward legalization of these migrants.....

In the long run, it is actually "good" that right wingers neglect to recognize this major flaw in their policies since such will bring them....in the words of Cheney in another context........"to their death throes."

The vast majority of Hispanic Americans are citizens, born in the US, whose families have been here as long as many white Americans, if not longer - and most are supporting Democratic candidates in response to the hostility they see coming from the GOP concerning immigration.

 

[nat4900]

Placing aside the right wingers on here's incredulousness, the demographics simply do not lie.....

Could the great state of Texas turn blue? That’s a question that’s been debated recently in the blogosphere, sparked by a Democratic move (“Battleground Texas”) to turn loose the data-mining and mobilization techniques that worked so well for President Obama in 2012 on the Lone Star state. Republicans, as they should, certainly seem worried.


The theory of blue Texas relies heavily on the ongoing demographic transformation of the state. Every year, there are relatively fewer white voters and relatively more minority voters, particularly Hispanics. According to recent CAP projections, white eligible voters in Texas will decline from 56 to 52 percent between 2012 and 2016, with a corresponding rise in minority voters primarily driven by Hispanics.
All else equal, this makes Texas only somewhat bluer, since the white vote in Texas remains overwhelmingly Republican. But when you expand the timeframe under consideration, the picture may look considerably darker for the GOP. In a New York Times column, Tom Edsall takes the projections out farther, relying on some work by political scientist Robert Stein. According to Edsall, these projections suggest that the white share of eligible voters could be down to 35 percent by 2025 and the Hispanic share up as high as 44 percent. If he’s right, getting to a blue Texas is no more complicated than simply waiting around for demographic change to take effect.
Here s What It ll Take To Turn Texas Blue ThinkProgress

 

[nat4900]

I love listening to leftwing kooks, kooks who are borderline Fabian Socialists telling the GOP what they must do to come back to reality... the modern day Democrat is as out of touch with reality as pretty much anyone.

Here, soggybrain....you don't have to answer on here, but just think (if possible) on your own about these 2 questions:

1. Is it true that the Hispanic/Latino population is dramatically increasing in Texas?

2. Is it also true, as trends have shown, that such Hispanic/Latino LEGAL voters usually and overwhelmingly vote for democrats?