Is Texas going Democratic?

As the old saying goes, the GOP could either change its immigration policy, or it could change all its other policies. W and his "genius" advisor Rove have pretty much pushed us to the latter option.

(Derek, in his above comment, expresses the underlying concern of the "wealth movement".)

If by "wealth movement", you really mean "white flight", then, yes.

I don't think it's as bad as all that. Our "wonderful" (cough, cough) governor is to blame for a lot for the bad image, but I think more it's the national Republican party people are really complaining about. Our state is not doing so badly. I for one can't wait for Kay Bailey Hutchinson to run. C-A-N-N-O-T W-A-I-T.

Oh, no, DeeAnn, Texans are getting rid of their local yokels, too. About the point elected officials start getting arrested for DUI and embezzlement, most voters want to switch parties.

Actually, I think Texas will be before California. California has a lot of scenic beauty.

And if you don't mind shelling out big bucks for a house nearby or driving for hours on end, it, too, can be yours. Otherwise, it's off to Lancaster. There's only a thin strip of land in California along the coast that can be described as beautiful and unique. The rest is either desert, over-irrigated desert or mountain. Hell, CO, AZ and other states have plenty of scenic beauty to make up for anything you lose in CA.

Unlike California, Texas doesn't have a history of a social safety net in government.

Hey, bright bulb, it's the "social safety net in government" that's breaking California. It draws social misfits like flies and forces productive citizens to either shell out more in taxes or move to other states, like AZ, NV or CO.

It is sort of surprising that Texas has voted in pretty hardcore all-Republican government for as long as it has. Large city populations tend to turn highly hostile to that regimen after a few election cycles.

And y'all Texans have had a special joy in the oil patch sorts financing and using the Texas GOP as its preferred vehicle. With all the attendant "benefits" of that.

From the Kerry percentage (38) and roughly 1% liberal/Democratic shift per year nationally in states that are growing, the Turn Blue point predicted to 2016. From the Obama percentage (44), it's 2014.

The thing you see when you dig into the data on the report -- and I hope the polling firm will post a link to the whole thing tomorrow -- is that it's not just a Hispanic thing.

Sure, it's not only a Hispanic thing, but that plays a large role in it. And once that ball gets rolling, nobody likes to be on the losing team.

Young people of all races don't like the GOP today -- in part because of the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the base.

Well, first, more "young people" are Hispanic, so you can't really separate the two phenomena so neatly. Second, if the GOP had taken border security seriously back in 2001 (I mean, we had a really good reason to do so at the time), the base wouldn't have been venting in frustration. Bush might have even had the credibility then to ask for some kind of amnesty.

As it is, the GOP neglected and, all too often, derided their base of white, married voters (who let them get away with it), and now they're paying the price.

Your Name:

My sincere apologies. I missed the gist of your post.

And y'all Texans have had a special joy in the oil patch sorts financing and using the Texas GOP as its preferred vehicle. With all the attendant "benefits" of that.

Like what?

Texas has very diversified economy. Oil plays a large role, but mainly in technology and tool production. Actual oil production is far smaller than what it used to be ages ago. Even Houston isn't nearly as oil-saturated as it was in the 70s and 80s. A lot of the recent growth industries have been high tech and manufacturing businesses fleeing places like California and the Rust Belt. Even filmmakers have been coming here.

Maybe it has something to do with the perception that the GOP is more interested in punishing gay people, coming up with esoteric and divisive litmus tests on who is a "conservative", and mocking "RINO's" instead of actually, er, y'know, governing...

I'd be more interested in the polls a year or two from now. Right now, the sordid reality of Republican rule is being compared to the dreamy promise of Democratic rule. Not a fair comparison.

I agree Pyrrho, let's do the survey after the Democrats have actually governed for a couple of years with a shrinking tax base. Hindsight is always easier than foresight.

"let's do the survey after the Democrats have actually governed for a couple of years with a shrinking tax base. Hindsight is always easier than foresight."

This reminds me of conversations I heard among Democrats and progressives after the 2000 election. Just wait until 2002 and after two years of Bush. You can see how well ignoring the elephant in the room worked for Democrats in 2002 and 2004.

Finally, Democrats got the hint and started running moderate candidates, pro-life candidates, Iraq-war vets and doing populist messages instead of Volvo liberal interests. Now, Obama is president and Democrats have 58 votes in the Senate.

Pretending that "do the same thing over and over" and alienating moderate and Hispanics voters is going to be a working formula, good luck with that.

Yeah, Tracy, Shelley and Pyrrho, you gotta believe. The Republican party is, if nothing else, a party of faith. Faith that its principles alone are true. Faith that Democrats/liberals never have a good idea. Faith that Obama can't possibly succeed. Faith that GOP still means God's Own Party. And since faith is the evidence of things unseen, I suppose it COULD be so.

One needs to be very careful when comparing Texas politically to other states because there are profound differences. The most important is that Texas has an extremely weak executive branch (mainly due to the state’s post-Reconstruction constitution). The governor actually has very few direct powers. Contrary to what many think, the governor does not directly control the executive branch and is many ways merely the first among equals of all our statewide elected officers (AG, comptroller, land commissioner, agriculture commissioner, etc.) The one big power the governor does have is the power to appoint people to the boards and commissions that oversee almost all the big agencies. However, once someone is appointed and confirmed by the Senate, the governor can’t fire him – and there have been plenty of appointees that have confounded the governor that appointed them. The only thing the governor can do is grin and bear it and wait until the person’s term expires and then not reappoint them. And any incoming governor has to live with all the appointees selected by his predecessor until their terms expire – very unlike the federal system and most other states. Governor Perry is unique in that he’s the only governor ever to serve long enough to actually appoint all his own choices to all the boards and commissions.

The real power in Texas lies with the legislature, especially in the office of the lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate (no bill can ever hope of becoming law if the light guv doesn’t want it considered). And the legislature has always been center-right, regardless of which party has been in control – Texas’ special interests don’t give a hoot about party labels, they just care about the power. So to task whether Texas is turning Democrat is to ask the wrong question; the real question is whether the state is becoming more liberal – and I don’t think we know the answer to that yet.

...and the democrats are too much into selling death for my tastes--what with their preference for abortion, doctored-assisted suicide, etc.

A big problem with the Texas GOP leadership is Governor Perry's Trans-Texas Corridor Project. There are concerned Republicans and conservatives all over the state, and yet, Perry plows forward with his plan to buy up (via eminent domain) thousands of acres of Texas farmland upon which to build a super-highway that will link ports in Mexico through the American heartland all the way to Canada. The State of Texas is not suddenly becoming more liberal; the Republicans have a real problem with the base!

In 2008, Texas went 55% McCain and 43% Obama during the *very best year for democrats* and the *very worst year for repubs.

So, this idea of Texas going democratic is definitely wishful thinking on the part of many democrats.

However, repubs should definitely be supercharging all the Red States so as to ensure the future of conservatism for a generation. The future of conservatism is the Red State Territory.

Per the 1:03 post, that was of course moi.

Perry plows forward with his plan to buy up (via eminent domain) thousands of acres of Texas farmland upon which to build a super-highway that will link ports in Mexico through the American heartland all the way to Canada. The State of Texas is not suddenly becoming more liberal; the Republicans have a real problem with the base!

I'm a little confused here as to what, exactly, the objection is to this. Okay, granted, buying thousands of acres of land via eminent domain is annoying to the landowners, I can see that, but I'm not seeing how it's a 'conservative' issue per se. (Unless it's just pissing off the population in general at Republicans.)

Is it just the size of the project? But conservatives talk a lot about doing things at the right level of the government...this really does seem to be a state-sized project. And, logically, such a road could pay for itself fairly quickly, if it was a toll road, especially if other states followed suit and linked up.

Border states always want some way to make money from the border, and they're prohibited from taxing it, but a toll-superhighway designed to run from the border to the north of the state (With presumable linkages to other states highways.) that is 95% non-Texas traffic would seem a good way to raise money. It's a 'usage fee' libertarians are always yammering about, and, as an added bonus, one mainly on non-Texans.

Is there some objection to this besides the eminent domain thing?