Why the Numbers Say Texas Stays Red

Nate Cohn, New Republic, August 12, 2013

Texas Democrats are giddy over the possibility that demographic changes might turn the Lone Star State “blue,” but the numbers suggest Texas will lean “red” for a long time.

In the last issue of The New Republic, a big graphic estimated that the combination of demographic changes, immigration reform, and higher Hispanic turnout wouldn’t turn Texas blue until the early-2030s. To win sooner, Democrats need big gains among the state’s white voters. You can see those estimates here.

This post documents how I arrived at that conclusion.

First, I projected the composition of the state’s voting eligible population. {snip}

Over the next few decades, the TSDC [Texas State Data Center] forecasts that the white share of the Texas population will decline steadily. Non-Hispanic whites will be just 29 percent of the population by 2036. Hispanics will be a majority. With numbers like that, it’s easy to see why Democrats are so optimistic.

But these projections are for the entire Texas population—not the voting eligible population of U.S. citizens over 18 years old. Unfortunately for Texas Democrats, a disproportionate share of Hispanics are under age 18 or non-citizens. As a result, the voting eligible population—U.S. citizens over age 18—is much whiter than the state’s population. According to the American Community Survey, only 26 percent of eligible voters were Hispanic in 2010.


As young Hispanics reach voting age and older Hispanics depart, the share of voting age Hispanics with U.S. citizenship should increase steadily. This projection estimates it will rise to about 82 percent by 2036. We can be modestly confident in this estimate, since almost all of 2036’s voting age Hispanics are already alive. However, it doesn’t account for two counter-veiling factors: the number of Hispanic legal permanent residents who become U.S. citizens, and the number of new Hispanic immigrants without citizenship. To date, it seems that these issues are canceling out, since the Hispanic citizenship rate has been relatively constant, but a better estimate would account for these two factors with more precision. Nonetheless, we can say with great confidence that the Hispanic share of eligible voters will remain beneath their share of the population for the foreseeable future.

Will these demographic changes be enough to put Democrats over the top? If so, when? That depends on turnout and how well Democrats can perform with given demographic groups. {snip}


The CPS [Census Current Population Survey] is the only available turnout estimate for 2012, so we’ll take it as a given. That’s fine by me, since the CPS is probably better at gauging turnout than the exit polls. But the CPS shows that the Texas electorate was extremely diverse in 2012: just 59 percent of the electorate was white. That’s pretty astonishing, since Romney won the state by 16 points. That means that Romney must have done extraordinarily well among white voters.


According to the 2008 exit polls in Texas, Obama received 98 percent of the black vote and 63 percent of Hispanics. We’ll plug-in 58 percent for “other,” the same amount Obama received nationally in 2012. If we assume Obama repeated those performances in 2012, then Obama only won 18.9 percent of white voters in Texas.

For the purposes of the projection, I plugged in that Obama did worse among blacks (93 percent) but better among Hispanics (65 percent) than 2008, since that seems reflected in the national exit polls and the county-level data. That hastens Democratic gains in Texas, since Hispanics are the growing segment of the population, but doesn’t move the estimate for white voters.


But whether Obama got 16 or 18 or 20 or 22 percent of the white vote doesn’t significantly influence the trajectory of the projection. Paradoxically, a stronger Obama performance among white voters actually slows the pace that demographic change helps Democrats. Why? If Obama received a larger share of the white voters, then he must have done worse among non-white voters, either due to lower turnout or support. If true, then Texas Democrats have even more turnout work to do, or the new, non-white, Democratic-leaning voters might be a little less Democratic than this projection assumes.

The final piece of the puzzle is turnout. If the CPS is right, and it is for the purposes of these projections, then Obama actually had a pretty good turnout in 2012. The CPS shows that 63.1 percent of blacks turned out, compared to 60.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites—the latter of which is far lower than it was in 2004. Since that’s probably not sustainable, the “status quo” projection assumes an average of 2004 and 2012 turnout. For that reason, the “status quo” projection doesn’t show the Democrats making many improvements between 2012 and 2016. In Texas last November, the Democratic turnout advantage compared to the 2004-2012 average was roughly equal to four years of demographic change. Not too bad.

On the other hand, the “improved Hispanic turnout” projection is a true best case scenario. It takes Nevada’s 2012 turnout across the board, which basically means historic black turnout, low black turnout, and a 26 percent increase in Hispanic turnout compared to Texas in 2012. Realistically, Democrats can’t pull that off, since the state’s Hispanic population is less urban. But I can’t imagine too many Democrats complaining that I didn’t give them a fair shot: this is a scenario where Democrats turnout one million new Hispanic voters by 2016, preserve Obama’s historic black turnout, and avoid resurgent Republican turnout among whites.

Those huge efforts would make a difference, combining with demographic change to reduce the white share of the electorate from 59 percent in 2012 to 53.6 percent in 2016. That cuts the GOP’s margin down to 12.9 points—about as well as Obama did in 2008. But without more support from Texas whites, Democrats aren’t getting over the top for a long time.

It shouldn’t be too surprising that Democrats will need gains among white voters to win Texas. The Democratic rebound in Virginia and North Carolina was greatly assisted by demographic change and higher black turnout, but it also required an influx of northern moderates and liberals to northern Virginia or the Research Triangle. According to the exits, Obama won 38 percent of the white vote in Virginia last November, compared to Kerry’s 32 percent. In North Carolina, the exits say Obama won 31 percent of the white vote, up from Kerry’s 27 percent. Without those gains among whites, Obama narrowly loses Virginia and North Carolina isn’t exactly competitive.

So far, there aren’t signs of a pro-Democratic trend among white voters in Texas. In fact, Obama’s performance among Texas whites last November was historically bad: Probably the worst in the history of the party. {snip}

While one might expect migration to help Democrats in the suburbs, it hasn’t happened yet. It’s pretty clear that the whites moving to Dallas and Houston aren’t the secular Democratic-leaners from the Northeast piling into Virginia and North Carolina, but deeply conservative and Evangelical Republicans from the Midwest and South. {snip}

The best argument for a Democratic rebound among white voters is the possibility that another Democrat, particularly a white one, might have more appeal among Texas whites. But a white Democrat wouldn’t do as well among blacks, and another Republican could easily do better among Hispanics. {snip}

The point isn’t that Democrats can’t do better among Texas whites. Maybe the next wave of young Texans will get more Democratic. Maybe the next wave of migrants will be more Democratic. Maybe Democrats will nominate a relatively conservative southerner. It’s all possible. The point is that they must if they intend to win any time soon. The growing Hispanic share of the population won’t be enough. {snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • I live in Texas.
    How many illegal aliens have entered Texas under G.W. Bush, then Rick “adios mofo” Perry?

    • Stentorian_Commentator

      The GOP has brought this nation to the brink of demographic dissolution, especially the Bushes and Perry. With friends like these . . . .

  • If Obama only got 19% of the votes of Texas whites, this means that 80% of Texas whites had to vote Romney, leaving a single percent for the third party dorks. The exit polling that V-Dare relies on says 76% of TX whites voted Romney. So that’s pretty close, the difference might be statistical noise.

    What this analysis, even as good as it is, misses, and what the “Blue Texas” gluttons miss, is that there is the possibility that Texas whites could get even more monolithic over time, but that’s drawing on some assumptions that might not happen.

    Losing Texas will still happen, but not as soon as the gluttons think it will.

    • So CAL Snowman

      Who is more insane, California liberals or East Coast liberals? I would vote for California liberals because I think they are STUPID and insane. The whole damn state has been overrun by mexicans and they just can’t stop wallowing in mexiacn fecal matter and calling it gold. At least the East Coast is still kind of White.

      • I looked it up, about 21% of Texas voters in 2012 were Hispanic, the same as California. This means that Texas and California have the same percentage of Hispanic voters during high turnout cycles. The difference is that the white people in Texas and the white people in California are different.

        • KittyAmerica

          That’s it and when the city goes majority non-white as in San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley, democrats win.

  • Jesse James

    What we say in Georgia is: Vote Right, Vote White, Vote Republican.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      I hate the Republicans but there is a local law-and-order type White Republican running for mayor here and I think I’ll do some volunteer work.

      That Aussie lad’s brutal murder in Oklahoma, in a nice neighborhood, is impelling me. The black Dem mayor of my town is a corrupt farce and I think we still have the chance to take the city back.

      • There was a story on RCP today about Republicans doing way better downballot than upballot, and that voters are far more approving of downballot Republicans than upballot.

        Why is this so?

        1. Gerrymandering. I’ve explained that a hundred times before here.

        2. Media. The media will devote a lot of attention to upballot, especially upballot elections that matter (President, Senate), and that tints those results bluer than average.

        3. Republican Barnacle Class. The Karl Roverrated type parasites don’t have any incentive to spoil downballot races with their dirty money and putrid influence, so the typical Republican candidate in downballot races is far more likeable and populist and in-tune with the grass roots than the typical Republican candidate for the Presidency or U.S. Senate seats, who tend to the elitist-establishmentarian.

        This relates to a question I hear over and over from our people. How can states full of solid right thinking people and voters who have very good politicians elected on downballot races have such open borders stinkers for U.S. Senators? Both of Arizona’s, both of Tennessee’s, a certain one from South Carolina, and so on. The answer is both big money and, as Hunter Wallace puts it, the cost of the union. One sitting U.S. Senator wields 1/100th of the power of the upper chamber of the legislature of the American Federal government. Senate elections are statewide public elections, which means they’re expensive even in cheap media market states. This means that big money special interests that want something out of the Federal government that makes them even richer, such as open borders for cheap labor, will focus their money and energy on U.S. Senate races. Especially on immigration, where the Federal government has almost 100% exclusive jurisdiction. The EL CHEAPO labor lobby can buy maybe about 30 Senators and that’s enough of a firewall between immigration patriotism and the country as a whole. Take Arizona as an example: If you’re part of the plutocratic open borders traitor class, it doesn’t matter to you if the state’s Governor and legislature are full of immigration patriots, or if the state passes one immigration patriot referendum ballot measure or law after another, because the Feds will step in and say no. You are very interested, however, in the people who are U.S. Senators from Arizona. So you’re going to move Heaven and Earth to make sure that only open borders traitors are able to win Senate elections from that state. Even if they have to lie through their teeth while campaigning. And this is how you get John McCain and Jeff Flake. This is why the open borders treason lobby devotes so much time to the Presidency, because any President that is one of their whores can simply refuse to enforce immigration law, and since they bought off enough of the Senate, any impeachment that the House might bring for the President wouldn’t make it through the Senate.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Good stuff. Gotta go but talk later. Like I said, hate the republican party but hate the democrats worse right now.

          In this case, we still have a decent city to save, though it’s sliding noticeably since our first black mayor was elected (and charged with DUI on the morning he won the race – what’s that tell ya, eh?)

          Google “Steve Benjamin”…

          I’m looking at supporting Larry Sypolt.

          Gotta make a decision and do something, you know?

        • Puggg

          While the back benches, if you will, are full of good people, they’re going to find that matriculating toward the front and up the political ladder is going to be a really tough slog, precisely because the “barnacles” and “parasites” and “plutocrats” don’t want immigration patriots winning such important positions. I’m not saying it’s not worth the effort, but I wouldn’t write anything into down ballot being so good as an indicator of the future up ballot being as good. What might happen as much as anything that the good people who are good down ballot will start turning traitor when the go up ballot in order to please the money machine.

        • Jesse James

          Both Georgia’s Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isackson, have a strong leaning towards cheap labor pro-immigration legislation but so far FURIOUS Georgia Republicans have stayed on their ass to keep them “on side” for American workers and tax payers. The problem is like most farm states we have a very strong agri-business lobby that is pushing for endless supplies of cheap immigrant labor. So we find the voice of rich agri-business farmers who you could expect normally to be conservative pushing for an open immigration policy. This of course is a near exact economic and moral parallel with the importation of African slaves in the 18th and 19th century. A select few make outrageous short term profits while sticking the rest of us with the social costs of importing primitive non-white low skilled labor. We face higher unemployment, lower wages, chaotic schools, increased crime and an overwhelmed medical and welfare system all for the profit of a small elite. I fear that somewhere down the line we will once again face a war caused by the self centered manipulations of the elite but paid in blood by the common man. My ancestors called it “a rich man’s war but a poor man’s fight”.

          • There’s another example: Georgia. But for pressure, Chambliss and Isackson would have been yes votes on Gang Bangers of Eight. We know in their “hearts” they’re amnesty and open borders. Meanwhile, Georgia’s Republican Congressional delegation is mostly good, and its Governor is good, on immigration. It’s yet another example of what I said: The EL CHEAPO labor lobby really focuses on Senate seats.

    • din_do_nuffins

      Your Republicans will swing blue when the money shows up.

      • So CAL Snowman

        They already have

    • So CAL Snowman

      The Republicans are worse than the Democrats. At least Democrats have the good manners to stab us in the heart. The Republicans specialize in stabbing us in the back. Republican “conservatives” are only good at conserving the gains made by the Democrats.

      • White Mom in WDC

        Exactly. There is no two party system only The Party. Republicans are quiet re: amnesty et al because they want more slaves. They want workers’ rights gone. They are two sides of the same coin.

    • MBlanc46

      Two out of three.

    • Jesse James

      Thanks for the feedback guys and for the most part I am with you 100%, I also hate the Republican party, especially at the national level. What you need to understand is the position we are in here in Georgia. We have a hostile anti-white federal government and a black controlled central Atlanta core esp. Fulton, Dekalb and Clayton counties. Marxist pro-black forces with Obama at the helm want to enforce regionalism which is effect would mean the tax enslavement of whites to fund rampant corruption by the black elite of Atlanta AND ridiculous wealth transfers from middle class and poor whites directly to blacks and mostly Mexican Hispanic’s through multi-organizational and multi-level welfare mechanisms. There is a reason that the core of the old Confederate states have a white electorate that pretty much votes together – we are surrounded by hostile blacks and in thrall to a hostile alien federal government that hates us. So yes the Republicans have taken us for granted and betrayed us over and over but we have managed to find some protection from our local and state level Republican officials. We still have strong gun rights to protect ourselves from the savages and we have a state Republican party that has managed to gerrymander the black vote into a manageable structure. So although the Republican party in Georgia still leaves MUCH to be desired they will have to do until a real white party comes along….and I believe that it will as the blatant anti-white position of the federal government continues to be revealed and the hatred of the black mob becomes more and more clear. Until then brothers and sisters, “Deo Vindice!”

  • din_do_nuffins

    This is utter gibberish. A typical BRA-MSM distraction tactic of making you think the problem is so far away that you shouldn’t think it is even a problem.
    The FedGov will invade Texas with “dreamer” ballot box stuffers, and it will turn blue in 2016.

    Anyone who cries “voter fraud” will be arrested under a bill of attainders for criminalized White privilege and hate crimes against humanity.

    See what FedGov has been doing to the True the Vote folks- repeated tax audits and endless “investigations”.

    Freedom Failed, i.e. Diversity Again.

  • Spartacus

    Did Republicans do a better job at securing the border than Democrats ? If the answer is no, then I don’t think it matters which one of them wins or loses.

  • exLibtard

    What is critically important for Democrats to have a permanent majority not just in Texas, but in the whole nation, is that a) Whites don’t begin to consistently vote as a bloc for the GOP and b) White Hispanics (Europeans, Castizos, and some Mestizos) don’t culturally integrate into White America.

    The Census Bureau projected that by 2042, the U.S. will be minority-majority, but if you look at their projections, the U.S. will be 75% White. European American Whites + Hispanic American Whites could form a solid coalition and our basic racial self-interests could be protected.

    • storibund

      Whites don’t begin to consistently vote as a bloc for the GOP

      No worries, dems; the RNC has evidently made its #1 priority ensuring that this doesn’t happen.

      • exLibtard

        It’s unfortunate that the GOP has failed to, at least implicitly, rally White America. Whether they do it or not may not matter much. We Whites will increasingly see our political interests in the GOP as the de facto White party. The GOP can take the necessary steps to speed up this process, but I believe it will happen no matter what is done on the part of the party’s leadership.

    • pcmustgo

      So few Hispanics are actually white though. Many self-identified “white hispanics” who check “white” on the census form are mestizo, american-indian and just clueless about it. Apparently America gained 12 million “whites” the last time the census was taken and a good chunk were just brown mexicans who view themselves as white, and are confused about what race they are outside of “hispanic”.

      Very, very, very few of the hispanics I have known in life were fully white or even passed as white. They exist but are rare.

      • tremendouscoast

        People from Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are overwhelmingly white. I am of Puerto Rican ancestry and no one would guess me as anything but white.

        • IstvanIN

          I have known plenty of white Puerto Ricans. The worst thing the government did was create the Hispanic category. I mean, really, are Marco Rubio and Ricky Martin really “people of color”?

        • jeffaral

          The vast majority of them are non-Whites,, especially Chilians.

          • tremendouscoast

            Argentina is 87% white, Uruguay is 88%, Chile is around 50% (depending on the source) and Puerto Rico is 75% according to the 2010 US Census.
            Yes, I am well aware that there are many Puerto Ricans who consider themselves white (including this author) and have a small admixture of mulatto or amerindian ancestry.

    • pcmustgo

      Some will indeed mix in and become “white” through inter-marriage. I’ve known many half hispanics in my life. They seem to identify with the Latino side though for affirmative action purposes. Most of the half white/half hispanics I knew and met passed for white, even if not being fully white and having tiny amounts of black/amer-ind in their genetic make-up.

      • Sick of it

        Depends on your definition of white. A lot of the features are pretty noticeable at 1/8 and sometimes at 1/16.

  • Jefferson

    That is why the liberal elites hate White Texans. They are thinking why can’t these inbred country rednecks in the Lone Star state vote just like the diversity loving SWPL snobs in Massachusetts for example.

  • the GOP has betrayed us. Go vote Dem, force them to abandon multiculti. At least the dems try to tax the rich a little and did do something on healthcare

    • And 100% of their Senators voted for the Gang Bangers of Eight Bill.

    • That is exactly what I plan on doing. This version of the Republican Party must die and join the thousands of new Channon Christiansons, Eve Carsons, Emily Haddocks, and (dare I say it) Chris Lanes who will be permanently embracing the darkness that is diversity for eternity.

      I can’t vote for Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio, or Marine Le Pen, but NO republican will get my vote unless they make these three names seem like liberal democrats.

      • IstvanIN

        You sound like me and Gov. Chris Christie. I am planning to vote for Barbara Buono in the next election, not because I like her but because I don’t like him and his lack of love for this country. His handpicked successor to Senator Lautenberg voted for amnesty. He refuses to support the Republican candidate in the upcoming special election. My goodness, if Corey Booker is ever outed Christie will probably be implicated as his “body man”. Sad thing is I have to admit he is the best elected governor we have had in over 20 years.

        • Epiminondas

          Doesn’t say a lot for NJ, does it?

          • IstvanIN

            It does, although Christie finally endorsed Lonegan today.

    • MBlanc46

      That’s an interesting concept, anyway. I doubt that it has much chance of succeeding.

  • Romulus

    So Texas will get a reprieve until 2036. Great! Sarcasm. We need children. That is the only cure for Americas population decline. Miscegenation with all non whites and tribe traitors must come to a halt. Anytime our women go off the reservation they are subject to conversion and liberal brainwashing . Think jihad Jane. The same thing has happened when saxons,Vikings and celts breed with tribe males. The children practice tribe culture and the woman becomes indoctrinated.

    • IstvanIN

      I agree we need children, but the fact remains there are already way more of them than of us, as long as they keep pouring over the border we are only pushing off the inevitable. Rather like Capt. Smith asking for more buckets for the Titanic. We also need to retake our territory so they children have a place to grow up.

      • Romulus

        I agree Istvan. Im in need of a respite. Since joining the discussions only so many months ago, im beginning to feel that we’re covering the same territory repetitively. Certainly, we need the message out to the widest audience possible and yet, I need more action. I want some true nationwide pushback. Jeffersons famous quote might be necessary. Im thinking of the whole western world and the global problems as well. We intricately connected to the rest of the humans. Trying to extricate America to save it’s founding people and culture from the rest of the worlds tendrils will be that much harder without the numbers we need. Then if we try to do the old fashioned way, some others may cause problems for America. We still have the military for now, but there working on fixing that too. I just need a mental break for a bit. Digesting non stop bad news can wear a person down after awhile.

  • Ella

    Trust me, you cannot out breed them. The median for Whites is 42 and the average Latinos is about 25 yrs of age. So we’re growing old like Europe. To mention Texas is already a minority-majority State so it’ll be liberal soon with mass immigration and other citizens leaving their high tax State.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Perhaps we should encourage Whites to breed like others, crash the system with welfare, and then fight it out over what’s left with our enemies.

      Heck, if a bunch of welfare entitlement seekers are going to crash the system anyway, why not speed it up and have a few soldiers ready when the war comes?

      I mean, seriously, lets breed like flies until something breaks, get the ugliness over, and maybe one day move on?

      • Ella

        I don’t like to ask personal questions. Do you have any children to comment about how many White people should have to repopulate? We cannot qualify for benefits due to having Anglo names in which govt. will check our background finances. Many Whites stop having children because of real economic, energy and time costs. We have a higher investment in our children. Some people would have to birth 6-10 children before they can qualify for government assistance. I know we should “play the game,” because the system will collapse anyways. Having this many kids today would be miserable both on the husband and wife.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          I was only being half serious. Half…

  • Tacitus1

    My state is 40% minority yet still one the most red of red states. It seems odd that blue states are often 98% white. It should tell you something about who is naive. It once saw a picture of MLK on a college wall in New England. No doubt if King has actually visited this town in the same manner that he “visited” Birmingham that his picture would not be on that wall. There is just something about urinating on the streets and targeting businesses that leaves a foul taste in one’s mouth.

    • Not odd. It’s a combination of Patterson’s First Axiom and the Sailer Correlation. Both settled social science. And we mustn’t be against science.

      • Tacitus1

        OK please enlighten me on Patterson’s Axiom . Thanks

  • Jenkem Huffington

    This is implying, perhaps, that Republicans are any different from the Democrats apart from rhetoric?
    Pardon me if I no longer believe in this left-right Punch and Judy show. At the very top these people are all the same and folks that get involved in political office higher than dog-catcher soon learn to go along to get along.