The Future of Democrats in Texas

by: Mike Lux

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:38 PM CDT

I have been involved in national politics in one way or another for about 25 years now, and have been part of literally thousands of national discussions on political targeting. For most of that time, the state of Texas sticks out as the great oddity, the exception to all other demographic trends that seem to hold true around the rest of the country. At the beginning, people in targeting meetings are always saying things like "If you look at the demographics in Texas, it ought to be winnable." By the end of every cycle, none of us at the national level is targeting the state and the state-wide Democratic candidate loses by 10-12 points.

It wasn't always this way. In the 1960s, a President from Texas led the way in getting civil rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, and many of the other progressive reforms of that decade. Even as the rest of the south was turning to the right and the Republican Party in those years, Texas elected crusading liberal Ralph Yarborough in 1964. A couple of decades later, Democrats - including legendary populist progressive Jim Hightower - swept to power in the 1980s, culminating with Ann Richards historic victory in the 1990 Governor's race.

But that was a while ago now. The Rove-DeLay machine has been remarkably effective over the last couple of decades. Democrats have not won a gubernatorial race since Richards' victory (and they haven't won a Presidential race since Carter in 1976). Republicans have controlled both Senate seats since Lloyd Bentsen stepped down in 1993. They have had the majority in both legislative chambers since 2003. And this has all happened as the number of Hispanics in Texas has steadily, inexorably risen year after year.

I explain why that's so important, and what I think the future of Democrats in Texas looks like, in the extended entry.

Hispanic Voters Shifting to Democrats

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:59 PM CST

Some 57% of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23% align with the Republican Party -- meaning there is now a 34-percentage-point gap in partisan affiliation among Latinos. In July 2006, the same gap measured just 21 percentage points -- whereas back in 1999, it had been 33 percentage points.

Here are some of the importing bullet points.

• By 44% to 8%, Hispanic registered voters say the Democrats rather than the Republicans are the party with more concern for Latinos. However, a large slice of Latino registered voters (41%) say there is no difference between the parties.
• By 41% to 14%, Hispanic registered voters say the Democrats rather than the Republicans are the party doing the better job of dealing with illegal immigration. Some 26% say neither, and 12% say they don't know.
• Immigration has become a more important issue to Latinos since the last election. Some 79% of Hispanic registered voters now say it is an "extremely" or "very" important issue in the upcoming presidential race; up from 63% who said the same thing in June 2004. Immigration still ranks behind education, health care, the economy and crime, but it is the only issue that has risen so sharply in importance since 2004.
• Some 41% of Latino registered voters say the policies of the Bush Administration have been harmful to Hispanics, while just 16% say they have been helpful. Another third (33%) say they have had no particular effect.

Now, I know you're thinking. KT's going to point out how this relates to a certain U.S. Senate race in Texas. Wrong. I'm going to let Evan Smith of Texas Monthly do it instead.

Disengaged from actual voting decisions -- from an actual choice between actual candidates -- numbers of this kind can mean nothing. But I have a hard time seeing how they're not good news for an Hispanic Democrat running for the U.S. Senate against a Republican hard-liner on immigration in what's likely to be, even in Texas, a good Democratic year.

Steve Murdock's Leaving Texas

by: DeeceX

Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 11:10 AM CDT

If demographers were rock stars, Steve Murdock would be Eric Clapton, even though he only ever wanted to be Johnny Unitas.

The Texas Observer blog reports that Steve Murdock, the State Demographer, has been nominated to be Director of the U.S. Census. This is surely good for the Census, but bad for Texas. As Jake Bernstein points out in his post, Murdock has been a constant, if sometimes overly technical, prophet of a vastly different Texas, where Hispanics are the majority and our failure to invest in their education and empowerment turns us into a Third World state. (Texas is already -- as of 2005 -- a majority minority state, and Murdock predicts the population will be over 50% Hispanic by the 2020s.)  He's traveled the state extensively, making PowerPoint presentations to diverse groups and enlisting them in the cause of planning for a better future. He created well-researched by readable documents that explained the main points of his thesis. He even wrote a book.

As they say, demography is destiny.  It is hard to overestimate the importance of demography in politics and public policy.  It is the foundation -- who we are -- and in many ways derivative of what we will become.  Steve Mrudock played a key role in getting a wide panoply of Texans to wake up and smell the coffee.  I don't know who would replace Steve Murdock, but I hope his successor has his vision, talent and energy.