Diverse Demographics In Texas Could Determine Outcome Of March 4 Primary

A population of 23,904,380, according to the 2007 census. 50.2 percent female. 69.8 percent white. 35.7 percent Hispanic or Latino. 11.6 percent African-American. 4.4 percent Asian. 33.8 percent of households speaking a language other than English. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Lone Star State.

This enormous state, second in size only to West Coast giant California, boasts a demographic far more complex than anything seen here in predominantly white Washington State.

"The Texas population has become increasingly diverse over the past decade as the result of new immigration, primarily from Latin America and Asia, and natural growth of the existing minority populations," according to this blog created at the University of Texas in Austin.

"Texas has certainly become a 'Majority-Minority' state," said Bartholomew H. Sparrow, Associate Professor of Government at the UT.

Texas's many large cities reflect these diverse ethnic currents.

Houston, the largest city in Texas with a population of 2,009,690, has a much higher percentage of African-American citizens than the state average, with 25.3 percent of the population. Same with Dallas, where African-American citizens make up 25.9 percent of its 1,208,318-person population.

People of Hispanic/Latino origin account for 35.6 percent of Dallas's population. Houston, 37.4 percent.

San Antonio is home to an extremely large Hispanic/Latino population, approximately 58.7 percent of its 1,214,725 inhabitants calling themselves Hispanic or Latino. Only 6.8 percent of the population is of African-American descent.

Of Austin's 672,011 citizens, 30.5 percent are Hispanic or Latino, 10 percent African-American, and 16.2 are registered as representing another type of race. 65.4 percent identified themselves as white.

The smaller towns scattered throughout Texas are equally as diverse, with some laying claim to an overwhelming Hispanic/ Latino population, some predominately white, while still others, such as Galveston, TX, have a much higher African-American population.

So what does all this mean? ...A LOT.

"Texas has an incredible ethnic diversity," Bruce Buchanan, Professor of Government at UT stated, re-iterating the point by talking about a high school in Houston where over 90 languages are spoken.

Buchanan explained that out of all ethnicities, the Hispanic vote has been in the national spotlight because it has functioned as, in his words, "Hillary's firewall" in Texas, a safety net of votes that seems to be slipping away. Texas is a do-or-die state for the Clinton campaign, one being viewed as necessary for her to win to continue on it this race.

Obama has been gaining ground in the polls in Texas, particularly among Latino voters living in urban areas. And, as Buchanan explained, "the average Latino age in Texas is 26, one of Obama's key age demographics."

Buchanan believes this will make it harder for Clinton to secure a win in Texas.

According to the latest Gallop poll, Hispanic support for Clinton nationally has been slipping, while Obama has gained a significant percentage.

Stop right there! I know what you're thinking. "Well, it sounds like it all comes down to the Latino vote."

Think again.

"The African American vote will break strongly in favor of Obama," Sparrow said, explaining that black voters have, in the past, come out in larger numbers in Texas than Latino voters.

In this article posted on chron.com (the Houston Chronicle website) yesterday, Rice University political science Professor Bob Stein explained that although blacks accounted for 19 percent of the state's registered voters in the 2006 general election, compared with 25 percent for Hispanics, Hispanics haven't been able to capitalize on that advantage in the Democratic primary. Stein predicts blacks will represent 30 percent of the vote Tuesday, while Hispanics may account for 25 percent.

Overwhelming, support from black voters throughout the country has gone Obama's way this election season. Expect Texas to be no different.

So, Obama's got it locked then, right? He's crossing ethnic lines; increasingly gaining Latino votes and securing the African American vote, whose turnout is higher.

Not so fast.

Buchanan isn't convinced the voter-turnout rates between different ethnic groups will vary much.

"It's hard to pinpoint which groups will turnout more, given the uniqueness of this election," he stated, expressing how "unpredictable" this election year has been.

Sparrow conceded that while Obama is gaining Latino voters, Hillary "still has an edge" in the Latino demographic.

Current exit polls show Texas in a virtual deadlock between Obama and Clinton.

Blogs are blowing up with Texas poll news and voter predictions, many based upon assumptions of ethnic group turnout, such as this blog, based upon mathematical voter-analysis, posted on dailykos:

"I applied my (analysis) model to Ohio and Texas, and got that of the Texas electorate, 23% would be African-American and 25% Hispanic; Ohio would be 18% African-American and 4.7% Hispanic. In comparison, the latest SurveyUSA poll shows Texas at 18% African-American and 32% Hispanic, while Ohio is 17% African-American and 3% Hispanic."

And while some blogs use mathematical analysis I could only dream of doing, others stick to basic, thorough analysis of Texas voter demographics, including this blog comparing Texas ethnic population percentages with California.

So many of the blogs I've stumbled upon have been fascinating in their analysis and their uncertainty as to how voters will lean, and the numbers that will be produced.

In short, Texas is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

With so many different ethnic groups across the board, and record turnout expected, all bets are off. If, come Tuesday, black voters turn out in as high of numbers as expected, and if urban Latino voters sing Obama's praises, the Senator from Illinois might be in pretty good shape, and could very well spell the end for Hillary Rodham Clinton. But the Clinton Machine's legacy in Texas remains strong particularly among Latino voters, and you know what they say, "legends die hard."

One thing I can say for certain: the unpredictability of the different ethnic voting patterns in Texas puts the Lone Star state on the Democratic party's radar for the first time in a long, long time.

Comments

[Zeusthunderbolt]

Based on the numbers of likely voters, it appears that the latino and african american vote can cancel each other out, or if latino youth break for Obama , then Obama wins the ethnic vote. the election in truth will be once again decided by the untalked about ,minority of White voters, presuming most white women break for Hillary. And the white men will deliver the state to Obama, as they have done through out the primary season. If you think about it ,philosophcally speaking, Obama is a hell of a guy to support. And beleive it or not most white men are neither bigots nor racist or sexist. They vote their concious. And that fair mind is leaning Obama way.

[PTTY]

OBAMA"S REAL EXPERIENCE: HIS CANDIDACY

The best evidence of Obama"s readiness to lead the nation is the ability with which he has run for president. After all, what is more difficult, complicated, or challenging than getting elected president?


What other life experience better illustrates one"s qualification to hold the office than a manifest skill in seeking it. For anyone who has ever been elected president, the race that sent them to the White House was the single most important event in their lives and dwarfs any other experience they might have had before running.


As we have watched Obama surmount the hurdles that lay in his path, we cannot help but be impressed with his judgment. Adam Wallinsky, who served on Bobby Kennedy"s staff, once singled out good judgment as JFK"s most salient characteristic. Obama has faced so many delicate questions and issues and seems always to have the right feel for how to handle them.

At the start of the contest, he chose to avoid running as a black candidate for president and ran, instead, as a candidate who happened to have black skin. He crafted a middle course between the determined rejection of his race and its grievances of a Clarence Thomas and its emphatic embrace by a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton.


While Hillary invoked her gender at every turn, Obama decided to transcend his race rather than invoke it.

He began his candidacy eschewing donations from PACs and lobbyists, preserving his purity and giving him ground on which to stand in his claim to represent a new kind of politics, rejecting the special interests. When Hillary, whose campaign decisions have been as faulty as Obama"s have been flawless, wallowed in such donations, the Illinois Senator used the difference to paint her into the corner of the status quo candidate.


Beyond simply avoiding special interest money, Obama learned the lesson of Joe Trippi and the Howard Dean campaign of 2004 (even though Trippi was working for Edwards) and used his star power to develop a massive cyber-roots fund raising base which he mobilized again and again by the click of a mouse.


Barack realized the potential of the Internet to democratize campaign funding in a way the other candidates in general, and Hillary in particular, did not. (Mrs. Clinton invested tens of millions in direct mail instead with all of its costs and limited returns).

When Hillary criticized him for lacking experience, he brilliantly seized the opening she provided by becoming the candidate of change. He realized, as Hillary and Bill did not, that America wanted a change beyond the Bush/Clinton oscillation and grasped the fact that Hillary"s emphasis on experience would play into his hands.

And when the Clintons tried to use race to derail Obama, he countered skillfully by making Super Tuesday a referendum on tolerance and inclusivity, overtly rejecting the racial polarization which seemed to have set in after South Carolina. Underscoring his message with victories in white states like Utah, Idaho, Colorado and North Dakota, he buried the race issue.


While the Clintons went for the knockout blows of winning New York and California, Obama created a fifty state organization to win each caucus state. As Hillary"s campaign wasted half a million dollars on flowers, Obama"s husbanded his resources to put teams on the ground in the small states where his organizing paid off and brought him sufficient victories to survive the loss of the two big Super Tuesday states.

And when the Clintons went to full time negatives, Obama carefully parsed the attacks he would answer from those he wouldn"t and disdained to engage in the tit-for-tat negative campaigning, realizing that the process turned voters off more than the negatives themselves ever did.


Will he be a good president? If he is half as skillful in serving as he has been in running, he can"t miss.