Texas Results Map

Nick Beaudrot has your Texas primary results map. Basically, Clinton won the vast majority of the state's land area, but Obama did well in the more densely populated areas and kept it close. Clinton, meanwhile, absolutely crushed him in the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande Valley areas.

Nick sees evidence in this that Democrats ought to be taking Rick Noriega's chances against Rick Perry more seriously. I'll believe a Democrat's winning statewide in Texas when I see it, but I suppose crazier things have happened. Meanwhile, the growth of the Texas non-white population is kind of a looming timebomb for the GOP electoral college map. If Texas were to start voting like New Mexico, the Republicans would be in a world of pain.

Comments

Psst... Rick Perry's our governor. Rick Noriega is running for Senate against John Cornyn.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | March 6, 2008 3:36 PM

This isn't Nam, Smokey. There are rules!

Posted by max | March 6, 2008 3:36 PM

The Ohio map looks similar.

Hillary makes a big stink about Obama winning red states. But what's interesting is that Clinton wins the red areas of states. In other words, in both Ohio and Texas, Clinton wins big in Limbaugh territory.

Obama needs to make an effort to go into more rural areas - specifically now in Pennsylvania and North Carolina - and appeal to voters there. He won't win those areas but he may close the margin which will only help him in the general.

Posted by Craig | March 6, 2008 3:37 PM

If we nominate Obama, and the African-American community votes in huge numbers, and we don't nominate Clinton, which means we don't light a fuse under the religious right who is holding their noses at McCain, then absolutely Noriega can take down Cornyn, who is likely the worst Senator in these United States.

The most important question is whether we nominate Obama, and turn out our base, or nominate Clinton, and turn out theirs.

Posted by Curtis | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM

Does it not bear mentioning that according to the latest projections Obama won Texas in terms of delegates?

Posted by Bragan | March 6, 2008 3:41 PM

An Obama / Some Hispanic ( Richardson? ) ticket?

Posted by Duncan Kinder | March 6, 2008 3:47 PM

Survey USA just did a massive poll-all-50-states for GE matchups, and had Obama losing in Texas by 1 point and Hillary losing by 7. So it's clear that Texas is in play, at least if Obama's running.
A few tidbits from that poll: 15 states flip depending on whether or not Obama or Hillary are running. But both candidates eke out a narrow EV victory. Strangely enough, SUSA's poll has both Obama and Hillary winning Ohio by 10 points over McCain. I know that primary results don't always match very well if GE results, but you'd think there'd be some difference in a state that Hillary won by 10 points in.

Posted by Mike | March 6, 2008 3:48 PM

Curtis,

You're willing to argure that Cornyn's worse than Infhofe? Wow.

Posted by Shawn | March 6, 2008 3:53 PM

you'd think there'd be some difference in a state that Hillary won by 10 points in.

Why would you think that? Most Democrats like both candidates. Obama won Illinois huge but I would expect Clinton to take it easily in a general.

Additionally, I know that nobody really wants to take this seriously, but anecdotal evidence points to lots of Republican cross-over voting for Hillary.

So, no surprise to this Ohioan that both take the state easily.

Posted by Craig | March 6, 2008 3:55 PM

Problem, Mike, is that Hillary won because she won the base, but the base will go to Obama before they go to McCain, generally speaking. Some percentage of white working class voters would go to McCain because they won't vote for a black person, but this is offset by some percentage of independents who would vote for Obama but would go to McCain if Hillary is the nominee.

I don't see why people don't understand that it's simple math in November. Obama is Hillary + 1. Either one wins Democrats, Obama wins independents as well. Game over, thanks for playing.

Posted by TH | March 6, 2008 3:56 PM

In other words, in both Ohio and Texas, Clinton wins big in Limbaugh territory.

Right. Same thing in Missouri, and I reckon in Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, New Mexico, etc. I'd like to see more analysis on this. I acknowledge a nominee Obama will spike African-American and young people turnout, but I keep having the feeling that it is Clinton who's the stronger general election candidate once the Republicans have brought down Obama's favorability numbers because of her ability to, you know, do well amongst cohorts and in areas that usually give Democrats trouble. Sure, Obama will do well in Kansas City or Little Rock, but any Democrat wins those places. But how will he fare in rural Missouri or Arkansas?

Posted by Jasper | March 6, 2008 3:58 PM

Inhofe's far worse; he's an active reactionary, rather than empty-suited Cornyn, who's just a passive enabler.

By the way, if you connect the whites and purples north-south through the middle of the state, that's I-35; very, very, very few people live west of it by more than 50 miles, although it would represent about two-thirds of our land mass.

Posted by norbizness | March 6, 2008 3:59 PM

But how will he fare in rural Missouri or Arkansas?

The same as any Democrat. Poorly.

If he turns out more AA's in urban centers, then he'll more than make up for the losses in those rural areas (which are sparsely populated). Put someone like Jim Webb or Wesley Clark on the ticket and let them go to the rural areas. Game set match.

Posted by Craig | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM

norbizness writes: "Inhofe's far worse; he's an active reactionary, rather than empty-suited Cornyn, who's just a passive enabler."

Inhofe is the current Shit Standard for legislators. No question.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | March 6, 2008 4:05 PM

Meanwhile, the growth of the Texas non-white population is kind of a looming timebomb for the GOP electoral college map. If Texas were to start voting like New Mexico, the Republicans would be in a world of pain.

It bears mentioning that this is only because of the ridiculous electoral college, which, admittedly, isn't going away anytime soon.

Posted by mk | March 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Now imagine if more people didn't think he was a Manchurian candidate hand-picked by bin Laden himself to destroy America from the inside out.

Posted by ZednCu | March 6, 2008 4:12 PM

Uh-oh, another one of those maps where black means Obama won and black means Clinton won.

Posted by John Cohen | March 6, 2008 4:13 PM

Cornyn is your basic, middle aged frat boy jerkoff from Texas. I don't think it really matters whose worse when they're all pretty bad.

Posted by ligedog | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM

A note here: these counties are huge. The counties in the Hill Country where Obama won are sometimes more than two hours away. It's not the Austin metro area any more than Las Vegas is in the LA metro area.

The reason to believe in Noriega is because polls have had Clinton and Obama down by between 4 and 9 points. And Obama is down because McCain does will among Latinos, but you can campaign against his abandoning immigration reform. Senate candidates tend to outpace the top of the ticket by 3-6 points.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 6, 2008 4:36 PM

The main takeaway here should be that the Presidential candidate doesn't need to win a red state to help down-ticket candidates, but it helps if s/he can at least get close.

Our well-thought-of local red state pols should, and usually do, run well ahead of the Dem Presidential candidate. But if the Prez nominee loses 40-60 and the local guy does better but loses, 47-53, that isn't much consolation.

But if Obama can lose Texas only 45-55, then Rick Noriega has a real shot at getting 50%+1.

And that's a big reason why I want Obama to be our nominee. How either does as President will depend to a large extent on how many Dem Senators there are. So which one is going to help lift the boats of more Dem Senate candidates in contested states?

It sure looks like Obama to me, and it doesn't even look close.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 6, 2008 4:39 PM

Fair enough. I amend my remarks to say "One of the worst ...." And certainly the worst representative I have in the legislative branch of the government.

Posted by Curtis | March 6, 2008 4:59 PM

If Texas were to start voting like New Mexico, the Republicans would be in a world of pain.

Why do you think their so gung ho about building walls on the Rio Grande?

I mean besides the racism.

Posted by stand | March 6, 2008 4:59 PM

Texas is changing Matt, and fairly rapidly. Democrats are getting close to taking back the state legislature. They may well do so by 2010, allowing them to undo DeLay's redistricting plan. Noriega is an underdog, no doubt. But he can make this race very competitive.

Posted by Erik | March 6, 2008 5:01 PM

I will once again declare victory for the regionalism model, AKA "look at a map" model, for explaining the results in these contests. Specifically, I believe that if you hooked that Texas map up to maps of the surrounding states, the different regions meeting in Texas would be pretty apparent.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 5:12 PM

Hillary makes a big stink about Obama winning red states. But what's interesting is that Clinton wins the red areas of states. In other words, in both Ohio and Texas, Clinton wins big in Limbaugh territory.

The Rio Grande Valley from Laredo southeast to Brownsville isn't red. But yeah, otherwise it's a bit like that map of the US that Republicans trotted out in 2000 to get around the embarrassment of having a minority president.

I think it was tacitly understood at the time that the DeLay redistricting plan was an attempt to lock in Republican gains in order to forestall the inevitable for as long as possible. There's no way a majority nonwhite state can be run by Republicans, at least as the Republican party is currently constituted.

One way for the GOP to get around the "time bomb" would be to realize that they've gone as far as they can with appealing only to the most reactionary white men in America, and actually begin fighting for the votes of those who aren't reactionary white men. But they don't seem too inclined to do that.

Posted by ChuckE | March 6, 2008 5:46 PM

Re: I'll believe a Democrat's winning statewide in Texas when I see it

It hasn't been that long since Ann Richards was governor of Texas.

Posted by JonF | March 6, 2008 6:04 PM

Uh-oh, another one of those maps where black means Obama won and black means Clinton won.

You got that right. From this map, it looks like Obama won everywhere (they're all dark purple, right?). What? Those dark purple counties are really dark green? Sorry, I was confused. Now show me a map with a coloring scheme that makes sense.

Posted by Paul | March 6, 2008 7:12 PM

Many of the current Texas Republicans were originally Democrats until the great Reagan inspired switcheroo in the '80s. Even our nicely coifed guv was a Democrat until '89. We have been run by the same morons for a long time, they just switched parties.

Posted by nat | March 6, 2008 7:24 PM

Ann Richards was great.

Oh, and I just heard on the radio that Obama won Texas.

Posted by Peter K. | March 6, 2008 7:26 PM

MY, convince Nick Boudreaut to do a big map like DTM suggests.

Also interesting are these Ohio and Virginia maps.

Posted by SDM | March 6, 2008 7:35 PM

Craig...

I think your analysis of Illinois is a little lacking. Just because the established Republican party imploded in the due to scandals which culminated in former Governor Ryan being sent to jail does not mean in any sense that Illinois is 'in the bag' for any democrat.

In statewide elections, Illinois seriously leans toward moderate seeming republicans. What I mean by that is that a republican can be a social conservative here and win, as long as that is not the end all be all platform on which they are running on. They love their republicans here who run on Pro-business, small government types whose intentions aren't specifically about bedroom politics. That is not to say that we won't back democrats in state-wide elections at times, because obviously we do. However, those democrats generally have to earn their chops (Dick Durbin started by winning a largely conservative congressional district in downstate Illinois and has served this state well) unless running against an opponent that is ridiculous (Keyes) or tainted (see the current governor (Public Official A) in 2006 running versus someone tainted by former Gov Ryan.)

If you don't believe me, look at the numbers. Since the Republicans became a viable party prior to the civil war, a republican has been the governor 114 years out of 152 total. In more modern times, since WWII, a republican has sat in the governors chair 46 out of 68 years. Since the Kennedy Era, a republican has been governor here for 34 years out of 48. Since the Carter Administration, it has been 26 years out of 32.

Heck, one could argue that Illinois voted for Nixon three times minus the infamous voting dead of Chicago in 1960. They voted for Ford. They voted for Reagan Twice and Bush Sr. once. If it had not been for Perot in 1992, they may have voted for him twice. Clinton 96 was completely legit, but 2000 and 2004 were more about Jr than about his opponents. Hell, we even against our own in Stevenson twice.

Despite the scandals of recent years and despite of recent history, do not think for one second that Illinois is in the bag for any democratic candidate against John McCain. Either democratic candidate at this point is going to have to work for Illinois. It would come a bit easier for Sen Obama because he is one of our own and turnout would likely be higher here, but either candidate is going to have to really make an effort in any case.

Illinois is not in the bag.

Posted by Benniefly2 | March 6, 2008 7:51 PM

SDM,

As that link implies, there is really nothing clearer right now than that Clinton is very strong in Appalachia. Which means she is probably going to win PA, unless Philly decides to tell Rendell to go fly a kite in overwhelming numbers.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 7:51 PM

"If Texas were to start voting like New Mexico, the Republicans would be in a world of pain."

You know what else would put Republicans in a world of pain? If Hispanics stopped being so freakin' racist. Honestly - I can understand why blacks vote for Obama. I can understand why women vote for Hillary. Hell, I can understand why old people vote for Hillary. But for the life of me, I cannot understand why, as a DEMOGRAPHIC, Hispanics vote so overwhelmingly for Hillary...I mean, beyond the obvious antipathy (by no means all, but most) Hispanics feel towards African-Americans.

I've asked the question before - please explain to me why, as a DEMOGRAPHIC, Hispanics overwhelmingly vote for Hillary Clinton? I hear arguments like "Hillary is more experienced"...well...yeah (I don't buy it) but...yeah...that's an argument she makes to a lot of demographics. Why would it be especially resonant with Hispanic voters? I can honestly be convinced here - please make a CONVINCING argument on this score...

Posted by Augie | March 7, 2008 2:13 AM