Once Texas goes from red to blue,

[HudsonGator]

it is game, set and match for the Republicans.

For Their Next Trick, Democrats Will Turn Texas into a Blue State
Robert Kessler

For Their Next Trick, Democrats Will Turn Texas into a Blue State Perhaps you've heard the Democratic Party — fresh off an electoral landslide in 2012 — has set its sights on a new goal: turning Texas into the nation's biggest swing state. Yes, gun-toting, secession-threatening Texas. But don't spit-take your kombucha just yet, because it's a completely feasible idea; here's why.

This week Politico reported Democrats were creating an organization called Battleground Texas aimed at getting traditionally Democratic minorities more engaged in the political process. It's understandable why it sounds ridiculous; Texas and its obscene 38 electoral votes have been red as a beet for years.

The key to the Democrats' success in Texas, however, is the minority vote (which is, ironically, the majority in Texas). Organizers behind Battleground Texas understand turning the Lone Star State blue could take years, saying "there's a realistic view that that will take more than one cycle." In fact, the state is seen as such a lock for the Republicans no exit polls were even conducted there in 2012. But, for several reasons, Battleground Texas' mission is completely feasible.

The Hispanic population in Texas is underrepresented politically. Spending money and time getting them more involved would have enormous consequences on the GOP's stranglehold. According to the 2010 Census, about 38 percent of Texans identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, while only 45 percent of the state is white non-Hispanic. However, using exit polls from 2008, only 20 percent of voters are Latino. This unrepresented 18 percent of the population is about 4,526,200 people. Granted, many of those 4 millon are likely ineligible to vote, but even a third of those people are enough to overpower the 1,261,719 votes Mitt Romney won Texas by in 2012.

What's more, the Hispanic population in Texas (just like the rest of the country) is growing much faster than the white population—up nearly 42 percent from 2000 to 2010.

This is to say nothing of the fact that Barack Obama managed to pull 41 percent of the vote in 2012 by essentially ignoring the state. Obama made a stop in Texas on Aug. 31, but this was to commemorate the anniversary of the end of combat in Iraq and was hardly a campaign stop. Obama visited Ft. Bliss, an Army camp located on Texas' border with New Mexico (a blue state in 2012) in El Paso County. Sixty-six percent of El Paso County residents voted for the President in 2012. Obama also stopped by San Antonio, another heavily blue area, in July. Were a candidate to pay more attention to Texas, he/she would feasibly garner more support there as well....

http://gawker.com/5979051/for-their-...o-a-blue-state

[Dreamliner]

If the dems want to turn Texas blue ... they're going in the wrong direction. They lost the state by 13% in 2008. They lost the state by 16% in 2012.

So, logically, if the dems can say they're going to turn Texas blue, then I suppose the pubs are allowed to yammer about turning California red.

[wgbgator]

2016 or even 2020 is probably a little unrealistic. Demographically it will probably happen eventually though.

[MichiGator2002]

I still find the implication that race demographics are political manifest destiny to be about the most authentically racist concept tainting American politics today. Way more than saying "Chicago".

[mastoidbone]

Not too long ago CA was a red state----things can change---
In fact, from 1952 through 1988, Republicans won every presidential election except the landslide loss of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I still find the implication that race demographics are political manifest destiny to be about the most authentically racist concept tainting American politics today. Way more than saying "Chicago".

Hispanic = not a race.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Hispanic = not a race.

Response = lacks a point. The vast and awe-inspiring majority of the Hispanic expansion in Texas is Mexican, so there really is no point wasting bandwidth on that distinction, especially considering that liberals consider each and every race of Hispanic derivation except possibly Cubans to all fit that bill of "non-Caucasians will vote how we tell them", which was sort of my point at the outset.

[gatorman_07732]

I'm sure it will be right around the time Oklahoma goes blue

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Hispanic = not a race.

Yep they are just group together like a piece of meat for a prize. Yeah yeah yeah, I know it was Nixon.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Response = lacks a point. The vast and awe-inspiring majority of the Hispanic expansion in Texas is Mexican, so there really is no point wasting bandwidth on that distinction, especially considering that liberals consider each and every race of Hispanic derivation except possibly Cubans to all fit that bill of "non-Caucasians will vote how we tell them", which was sort of my point at the outset.

Well, Mexican is not a race either.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Yep they are just group together like a piece of meat for a prize. Yeah yeah yeah, I know it was Nixon.

Like evangelicals? Or labor? Or Catholics? Or Jews? I mean, is it something new in American politics that a certain group of people are seen as a natural constituency for a particular party at a particular time based on a generic identity?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Like evangelicals? Or labor? Or Catholics? Or Jews? I mean, is it something new in American politics that a certain group of people are seen as a natural constituency for a particular party at a particular time?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say or what your point is. I understand how polititicians like to group people for their own selfish purposes but I'm not following where your going.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Like evangelicals? Or labor? Or Catholics? Or Jews? I mean, is it something new in American politics that a certain group of people are seen as a natural constituency for a particular party at a particular time based on a generic identity?

No, it's nothing new. Certain posters here are pretending to be offended by it.

[CHFG8R]

This kind of hubris - and the eternal wisdom of our founding fathers - is exactly why the (D)s will never get complete victory and why they'll be licking their wounds in 2016.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

This kind of hubris - and the eternal wisdom of our founding fathers - is exactly why the (D)s will never get complete victory and why they'll be licking their wounds in 2016.

It's similar to Karl Rove's quest to create a permanent Republican majority. It's what political parties do. It never seems to work because once one party gets too much power for too long, they screw it up and the country goes the other way.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

It's similar to Karl Rove's quest to create a permanent Republican majority. It's what political parties do. It never seems to work because once one party gets too much power for too long, they screw it up and the country goes the other way.

And our founding fathers - smart guys they were - created a system where it's almost if not completely impossible for "one side" to get all the power. Can't wait to start laughing at the (D) here in a year or so as it all starts to slip away. You know, as it did with Obama's mirror image GWB.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

And our founding fathers - smart guys they were - created a system where it's almost if not completely impossible for "one side" to get all the power. Can't wait to start laughing at the (D) here in a year or so as it all starts to slip away. You know, as it did with Obama's mirror image GWB.

I don't know that it will swing back to the Republicans in a major way any time soon. GWB and the repubs had complete control for 6 years and screwed it up pretty good. The country rejected it in 2006 and 2008.

Obama/Dems had control only for 2 years. And the repubs in Congress, with their primary objective being to obstruct anything and everything proposed by Obama without offering any kind of realistic alternative, are doing their best to make sure they don't gain more seats or the presidency.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

2016 or even 2020 is probably a little unrealistic. Demographically it will probably happen eventually though.

Exactly.

Look at the numbers from the last election, Obama got 74% of the Hispanic vote. As the numbers of Hispanics continues to grow in States like Texas, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Well, Mexican is not a race either.

People need to hire Mark Harmon to go around headlsapping people, for exactly moments like this. Is perception reality? Can I will a Gibbs-slap into existence as a nonverbal response to pointless semantic parsimony?

Person are not pinkish = person are vote democrat when told. That is the prevailing sentiment to which I refer, the quite racist one for my taste.

[DaveFla]

Just wait till the government $ handouts end... Then we'll see.