www.411mania.com
| Search
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// [Movies] Superman Still Not Going Anywhere
MUSIC
// 50 Cent, Jay-Z Top Hip-Hop's 2008 Money Kings
WRESTLING
// Dark Pegasus Video Review: No Way Out 2004
POLITICS
// Final Thoughts On Who Obama's VP Pick Should Be
MMA
// Georges St. Pierre To Fight In December?
SPORTS
// De La Hoya-Pacquiao Fight Not Dead?
GAMES
// [Multi] Akuma Appears on Street Fighter IV


  MY 411
User name
Password
Register now! | Forgot your password?
 MUST READ
//  Bush Shows... Regret?
//  5.5% Unemployment – the Minimum Wage Factor
//  Top 13 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Lost
//  Obama Crushing McCain Among Hispanics
//  The Impact of Bill Clinton & Howard Dean
//  Obama Plans To Stretch McCain Across The Country
//  Obama Isn't Conceding Iraq To McCain
//  Reid, Dean, & Pelosi Promise That Nomination Battle Won't Go To Convention
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds
 





 
 411mania » Politics » Blog Entry
Obama & Texas
Posted by Ashish on 06.26.2008



People seem really into the idea of Obama winning Texas. Since people keep asking me to comment on whether I think he can win it or not, and since we just got a poll today showing him trailing McCain in Texas by just 5%, here's my view right now.

Can he win it? If he puts a huge effort into the state, he can. Will he? Very probably not. We already know that Obama does not plan to buy TV advertising or do any serious campaigning in Texas. He has a lot of volunteers in the state (roughly 10,000) and they do plan to send 10-15 paid staff there as well, so they will compete to some extent, but the fact that he isn't going all out means a few things. One, that he doesn't think he has a great shot at winning it. Two, that even if he could win it by going all out, it isn't worth the risk. Obama does not need Texas at all. He is currently up or tied in 12 states Bush won in 2004 and has a better chance of winning any of those states than he does Texas, which means it makes no sense to take away money, time, and resources from those states and put them in Texas which is one of the most expensive, complicated places to run a campaign in the country. And anyway, if Obama is still within single digits of McCain in Texas when October rolls around, that means he is doing VERY well elsewhere in the country and is probably in position for a near landslide victory, so again, in that case, Texas is not needed.

Sure, Texas might seem like a nice state to go after since it is the second most valuable state in the country in terms of electoral votes, but again, the risk is not worth the reward. Based on what David Axelrod said about Texas, their goal there seems to be to stay close enough to help down-ballot Democrats, especially Democrat Rick Noriega who is running close to Republican Senator John Cornyn and could grab that seat for the Democrats. Even if a poll shows up in October that has Obama within, say, six points of McCain, he won't spend any money or time there. It just isn't worth it when he is in such good position in so many other swing states. And we already know that the very red states that he plans to gamble on a bit are Georgia, Alaska, Indiana, and North Carolina, and he has a much better chance in those than in Texas. Even if he wanted to, Obama can't compete in every state. He has to pick and choose based on where he thinks he has the best chances to win or drain resources from McCain. McCain will never spend money in Texas because he knows that if Obama is in position to win Texas, the election is already lost. There is no scenario where McCain somehow wins states like Ohio, Florida, Iowa, etc. but loses Texas because to win those states, his position would have to improve, meaning it would improve in Texas as well.

Demographically, Texas IS a state Obama can win. If we look at the 2004 exit polling from Kerry/Bush in Texas, we see that 66% of voters were white, 20% were Hispanic, 12% were African American, 1% was Asian, and 2% was other. This breakdown is VERY different from the state's overall racial breakdown which has whites making up less than 50% of the population, and Hispanics/African Americans making up more than 50%. That being said, we know based on the Texas primary results that Hispanic turnout is going to be WAY up this year. We also know that African American turnout is going to be way up this year. Let's say Hispanic turnout increases to 23% and African Americans to 16%, reducing whites to 58% (we'll keep Asians at 1% and other at 2%). This would probably be a best case scenario for Obama.

Now, let's say he wins 92% of African Americahs, which he probably will, and 60% of Hispanics, which he probably will, as well as 60% of Asians and 50% of other. That gets him to 31.3% of the vote. John Kerry got 25% of the white vote in Texas in 2004. Say Obama manages to get 30% of the white vote, that would get him to 48.7% of the total vote. For that to be enough to win, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader would have to combine for at least 2.7% of the vote. If that happens, McCain would finish with 48.6%. So, as you can see, Obama can win, but even under a best case scenario where Hispanic turnout increases 3%, African American turnout increases 4%, Obama does 5% better among whites than Kerry, AND Barr/Nader do somewhat well, he still would only win by .1%. It's just too risky to gamble on such an expensive state when even a best case scenario has you only winning by .1%.

The only way Obama would compete in Texas is that by, say October, it's evident that Obama is going to win the election in a landslide, and that he has put away the majority of swing states. If that happens, he may go after Texas as sort of an exclamation point at the end of a landslide win, but right now, that doesn't seem likely.

I think Obama has picked the states he will compete in pretty wisely. Risking too much in Texas would be a foolish move, as tempting as it may be.


Post Comment (12)  |  Email Ashish  |  View Ashish's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (12)

 
Awesome article, thanks for explaining this.

Posted By: Ed (Guest)  on June 26, 2008 at 09:45 PM

 
 
I agree with everything Ashish said. But remember that Obama has 10,000 volunteers in TX, so even if he doesn't actively compete, he is going to have 10,000 people working for him and pushing his message, so who knows.

Posted By: Guest#4413 (Guest)  on June 26, 2008 at 09:46 PM

 
 
Thanks for answering my question about Texas Ashish. Looks like McCain has an uphill battle becoming president and I couldn't be happier about that. We need to stand up and take our country back!

Posted By: Geoff (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 01:05 AM

 
 
Ashish, great article as usual. I think Obama can take more of the white vote than you think, maybe not from a % standpoint, but you have to consider that Bush's home state is Texas, and theoretically he would pull a higher vote here than McCain could. I don't have the numbers handy, but you have to figure if he generates more turnout than Bush did amongst Latinos and African-Americans, and Barr also takes some of the typical conservative Texas vote, Obama can win by a lot more than .1%. Not a 60-40 like say Massachusetts, but maybe a 48-44 or so with Barr/Nader pulling in closer to 8%.

Posted By: Joe (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 01:25 AM

 
 
The people really into Obama winning Texas happen to be Democrats incidentally. What else would they think? Of course they would be optimistic.

Posted By: Rick (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 12:06 PM

 
 
How is Michigan a battleground state? GOP has had snowball's chance in hell there since the 80s.

Posted By: Jared (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 01:23 PM

 
 
Very interesting article. I shared it on Twitter. Hope you don't mind.

Posted By: Becky Mochaface (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 02:54 PM

 
 
Obama's strong numbers in Texas are just another reason to choose Richardson as his running mate. Richardson would draw a fair number of Hispanic votes, making Obama even more competitive in Texas (as well as the SW battleground states) without requiring any additional expenditure there. If McCain isn't already panicking about Texas, Richardson on the ticket would guarantee it.

Not to mention that Richardson has the foreign policy experience that Obama needs on his ticket.


Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 04:14 PM

 
 
I agree that it wouldn't be wise to sink a lot of money into TV advertising. But I think it is worth considerable party-building measures: voter registration, voter list improvement, perhaps appearances with down-ticket candidates. I'd throw some small money into cheaper media as well (radio, print, direct mail). We don't need the Electoral Votes, but there's a lot of room to grow the party for the future. Plus an important Senate race, some House races, and control of the state Legislature (redistricting after 2010).

Posted By: lilnev (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 06:41 PM

 
 
Past election years, many Texas Democrats have stayed home with their, 'what's the use?' excuse. This year, though, I feel a change coming. Either way, don't forget that in 1992, Bush won Texas with less than 4% (he received about 40%) of the vote. Granted, Perot, another Texan, took about 22% with Clinton at 37% of the vote that year—Those results are almost in line with the latest poll showing McCain leading Obama 43%-38%. So it's really feasible especially with a Nader lurking and unhappy Ron Paul supporters. Obama can win Texas, but it's going to be an uphill, albeit not impossible battle.

Posted By: AustinTx (Guest)  on June 27, 2008 at 08:05 PM

 
 
Actually, if Nader is in the campaign, he would take votes from Obama, not McCain.

Posted By: Rick (Guest)  on June 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM

 
 
Huge victories in history were made when the commander in chief did things which were seen as impossible by their adversaries: Napoleon moved his armies 4 x faster as it was seen possible in this time. Hitler went through Belgium in one night to attack france from the north, which wasn't foreseen by the french gouverment. Obama won the superthuesday and the following weeks in preparing all the rural states for weeks under clintons radar for the final take over. Louisiana, Mississippi and the other southern states are seen out of reach for Obama but who do you expect to see working in this states day after day when you would look under the republican radars in this states? Does it looks familiar to you?

Posted By: maz hess (Guest)  on July 01, 2008 at 09:48 AM

 
STAY CURRENT
Latest Major National Poll
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.12-08.17 Qunnipiac 47 42
Ashish's Latest Electoral College Preview
Date Obama McCain
08.04.08 309 229
RCP's Latest Electoral College Preview
Date Obama McCain
08.19.08 264 274

Advertisement

Battleground States: Latest Polls
New Hampshire (04)
Date Poll Obama McCain
07.23-07.23 Rasmussen 49 45
Pennsylvania (21)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.04-08.09 Franklin 46 41
Ohio (20)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.12-08.14 Public Policy 45 45
Michigan (17)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.07-08.07 Rasmussen 49 45
Indiana (11)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.16-08.19 SurveyUSA 44 50
Minnesota (10)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.13-08.14 SurveyUSA 47 45
Iowa (07)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.07-08.07 Rasmussen 49 44
Montana (03)
Date Poll Obama McCain
07.29-07.29 Rasmussen 47 47
Missouri (11)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.07-08.07 Rasmussen 50 44
Virginia (13)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.12-08.12 Rasmussen 47 48
North Carolina (15)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.13-08.13 Rasmussen 44 50
Georgia (15)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.14-08.14 Rasmussen 44 53
Florida (27)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.18-08.18 Rasmussen 46 48
New Mexico (05)
Date Poll Obama McCain
07.24-07.24 Rasmussen 49 43
Colorado (09)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.13-08.13 Rasmussen 48 49
Nevada (05)
Date Poll Obama McCain
08.11-08.11 Rasmussen 45 48


Safe States (for now)
Obama McCain
CA (55) AK (03)
CT (07) AL (09)
DC (03) AR (06)
DE (03) AZ (10)
HI (04) ID (04)
IL (21) KS (06)
MA (12) KY (08)
MD (10) LA (09)
ME (04) NE (05)
NJ (15) OK (07)
NY (31) MS (06)
OR (07) ND (03)
RI (04) SC (08)
VT (03) SD (03)
WA (11) TN (11)
WI (10) TX (34)
UT (05)
WV (05)
WY (03)
TOTAL: 200 EV TOTAL: 145 EV
270 needed to win


Other Blogs Worth Reading
The Field 538
RealClearPolitics Ben Smith
Mark Ambinder The Stump
First Read The Page


www.41mania.com
Copyright © 2005 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.