Pollster.com

There is no way white will win this. texas has thrived under perry compared to other states. ppp is clearly trying to create a media story just like people complain rassmussen does.

Texas has thrived under Perry?? More like bombed under Perry.

I guess he can try to secede and just become the dictator of Texas. Damn voters!!!!

White is well liked in Houston and I think even in Texas, people are turned off by some of Pery's rhetoric. Not to mention Texas has a huge budget shortage this year. Yet they paid millions of dollars to change the textbooks for important things like renaming slavery and letting children know about important figures such as Phyllis Schlafly.

PPP is assuming quite a hefty minority turn-out. While possible, Perry looks like a fairly strong favorite still.

As I've said, if White can get a decent Latino turnout, he can win this.

Does Perry support the Texas State Party's platform that makes gay marriage essentially a felony?

They want to adhere to felony penalties to anyone that issues a marriage license to a gay couple. This sounds like the rule of an African or a ultra conservative Middle Eastern Nation.

Please tell me the batshit anti-gay marriage crowd won't resurface this year for the elections. Mostly ever state has banned the possibility of both civil unions and gay marriages until the Supreme Court overrules on this issue.

It's funny that communist Massachusetts has now had gay marriage for 6 years. lol Since that time they elected Scott Brown for senator because Martha Coakley assumed she owned Teddy's seat.

The one party system in Texas has ruled too long. Democrats have surprised us in other states with Democratic governors in Kansas and OK, and Senators in Alaska and Montana; two heavily republican states.

Some parts of the country might have a rightward swing in 2010, but Texas has been so far right for a long time, perhaps this might be the year, the voters get fed up. White is probably moderate enough to have a chance.

@vincent106

I'm from Texas. Houston is the 4th largest city in the U.S. and people really like White there. That is a pretty large base. Perry no more than a few years ago was pretty moderate, but ever since the tea party movement he has totally jumped the shark. It has really turned people off to him.

Gov. Perry is being very quiet when asked about the ARZ law,because one big slip up could hurt his chances,but this guy will win because the politico machine in Texas is going to make sure of that,but after 2020 the politico machine wont be able to stop this State from becoming a solid Blue State.

Perry will probably retain the state unless something really bad happens but you're getting a lot of the anti-incumbant sentiment in Texas where I'm sure the tea party is super strong. Polls like this put Perry on the defensive and it'll be interesting to see if White can take advantage of that.

Everyone on fixed news is always complaining about Obama's bad response to the oil spill and comparing it to Katrina, but I remember when Rick Perry was first governor, there was a hurricane on the Texas gulf coast and he was contacted at a Houston Astros game. He was at the game enjoying his hot dogs and beer probably when disaster first struck.

Texas is in debt and has no way to pay for the order of those new history books they nuts rewrote. You know, taking Thomas Jefferson out and putting Newt Gingrich. Ha!
Rascrap inflates GOP numbers so I suspect this poll is probably closer to reality. PPP has been one of the most accurate polls this cycle.

Texas is in debt and has no way to pay for the order of those new history books the nuts rewrote. You know, taking Thomas Jefferson out and putting Newt Gingrich in.
Rascrap inflates GOP numbers so I suspect this poll is probably closer to reality. PPP has been one of the most accurate polls this cycle.

Texas has thrived under Perry?? More like bombed under Perry.

How so? I would agree with Vincent. I would think that if Texas had "bombed" under Perry, it would be the fastest growing state in the country.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/migration-moving-wealthy-interactive-counties-map.html

@FM

Texas is 29th in GDP per capita, and was 28th in 2004... LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

OL:

Its curious you used this statistic again as a ranking of which state is "best" when you clearly have zero idea of its true use and the shortcomings.

Isn't recess over yet?

This might be an outlier. This is only PPP's second foray into the race, a 1 point improvement for White and a 5 point drop for Perry since their Feb. poll.

Rasmussen has been showing movement toward White, however, since their Perry +13 outlier 2 months ago. The RCP average for this race remains Perry +4.5%, so he still has the advantage. Perry's chances of re-election are probably around 80%.

I'm mainly looking for White to outperform Obama's 44% 2008 result, which was the best any dem had gotten statewide in a decade. Literally, the last time a dem did better than 44% statewide was Ann Richards' 53-46 loss to George W. Bush in 1994. If he beats that, I'll consider it a victory, because it will provide a better template for dem candidates in the future. Specifically, statewide candidates are going to need a base, and Houston may be a better place than Dallas or south TX where dems have hailed from previously.

"I would think that if Texas had "bombed" under Perry, it would be the fastest growing state in the country."

Relative to TX's own past economic success recently we haven't been doing that great. Unemployment has been lowering faster in other states. Ours was one where it increased.

The growth is largely because of natural increase. I welcome the new people. Growth almost always changes the political dynamics of a state, usually toward the liberal side.

A White win is likely. And yes Texas is moving back into the Democratic column. It is a forgone conclusion that the Dems will keep the minority vote and soon the minorities in Texas now will be the majority. This could be the first Republican in Texas to fall due to the changing political and demographic tides in Texas. Plus White is a good candidate the Dems in Texas should be commended for him

Who would use inward migration as a barometer of "thriving?" AZ must be thriving from all that cross the border migration!

If Dems get Texas it will be impossible for Republicans to ever win a Presidential election.

The growth is largely because of natural increase. I welcome the new people. Growth almost always changes the political dynamics of a state, usually toward the liberal side.

I would agree with that statement. Migration patterns over the past 2 decades have been from the blue states toward red (for the most part with exceptions being Wash. and Oregon). And the bluer the state, the more people they are forcing out because of their atrocious economic policies and union strangleholds (see MI, MA, and OH).

Here in CO, we have roughly 250 per day moving here from CA and IL (combined).

Who would use inward migration as a barometer of "thriving?" AZ must be thriving from all that cross the border migration!

Why would people move to a state where there were no jobs or job prospects? Com'on X, you're better than asking such a question. Yes, compared to Mexico, AZ is thriving.

Texas is already majority-minority in population, but when it comes to those that come out and vote, the state is still solidly conservative Republican. Perry is not all that popular, so he will probably only win by something like a 53%-47% margin. Texas will one day become a purple state and I suppose a Democratic state because of a fast growing Latino population, but we are not at that point yet.

"Texas is already majority-minority in population,"

Whites are 49% of the population, but 65% of the voters. Latinos are taking their time in increasing their voter turnout.

Get out the Latino Vote Aaron. Scare em a little about a governor who wants to secede.

At best, even if Perry wins, it will force the GOP to spend some money on this race and not win easily.

@ Aaron_in_TX

It's not just the fact that Latinos in Texas don't come out and vote nearly at the rates of whites in Texas, but let's also don't forget that a sizable portion of the Latino population in Texas is 17 years of age or younger and therefore couldn't vote if they wanted to. Aaron, you understand these numbers, many of the other lefties here don't.

Texas is moving slowly away from the Republican Party solely because of demographics, but it will take a heck of a lot longer than liberals and Democrats understand for that state to truly become competative, much less blue.

My question was just in jest really.

Texas is a unique state. Its the sun belt, low overhead, and a great refuge for the unemployed. You can buy your life there for less than $300,000 pretty much. The state is doing well no doubt based on budget. But Texas in both its strength and weakness offers some of the worst publicly funded infrastructure in any other state. Educationally and environmentally its an abysmal state, but this doesn't affect many.

Texas also piggybacks on oil and who knows what the state will be in the long run when we are beyond those years. The state may set itself up to transition to a diverse economy.

Texas and Alaska always like to tout they have balanced budgets and rainy day funds but they simply have more natural resources revenues to make money off of than say a conservative state like Utah. These businesses are the driving forces behind much of their growth. Texas is thriving on a strong oil market, but what would it be like without it?

@JMSTiger

What is your definition by long? In 2020 voter makeup in Texas will be drastically different with all the migration from up North and the latinos coming of age.

@JMSTiger

What is your definition by long? In 2020 voter makeup in Texas will be drastically different with all the migration from up North and the latinos coming of age.

@ obamalover

Not every person that moves to Texas from other states votes Democratic. Much of the inflow of people into Texas comes from other Southerners and people from the Midwest looking for a state with lower taxes and warmer weather. Texas is not going to become a purple and eventually Democratic state because of whites moving into the state from other states. It is going to become purple solely because of the Latino growth rate. I would expect that if Republicans have not made inroads with Latinos in a serious way, the state will become truly competative for President in 2016 and will probably go for a Democrat either in 2020 or 2024. If Republicans can somehow get 40-45% of the Latino vote in Presidential elections in Texas, the Lone Star state may never go Democratic.

Think about this"by 2020 the Democrats will have basically all the top electoral States.NYK,Calif,Tex,ill,and FL, all you be solid blue or lean blue by 2020, which would give the Democrats 174 electoral votes.Do the Republicans know 46% of Hispanics in this Country are 21 yrs old in younger.

The reason majority of Hispanics vote Dem is the same reason majority of Blacks and poor Whites vote Dem.

Their wallets.

Let's face it - most people vote with their wallets. Most Hispanics in US are either first or second generation and are poor compared to national average. Current and future generations of Hispanics will not only decrease reproduction rates as they gain prosperity, they surely will continue to vote with their wallets as most voters do, meaning increasingly vote GOP. Assuming Dems will still be promoting big gov nanny state and GOP won't be. That's the reality the way I see it.

melvin, there is no doubt that the Republican Party will become completely uncompetative as a national party if they don't start to improve their standing with Latinos. That is pretty obvious. What you are assuming is that the GOP will never do better than 30% of the Hispanic vote from here to the end of time. Maybe that is true, but that may also not be true. I have a feeling that the George W. Bush/Karl Rove view on this question will start to take hold in the Republican Party in the next 5-10 years because only someone with their head completely in the sand can ignore the changing demographics of the United States. With whites having very few children and Latinos having large numbers of children, it is pretty obvious where things are headed.

@StatyPolly

And most people with graduate level degrees vote Democratic. People vote with their brains as well.

As one globally renown professor once told me in college - undergrad degree is for education, post-grad is to teach you how to separate yourself from those voices of reason in your head.

And he was lib too. A big one:-)

@ StatyPolly

I tend to agree with you, but it doesn't always go that way. Sometimes, with certain groups, partisan allegiance becomes almost cultural. This is the case with most blacks, Jews and white Southerners. If a large segment of the Hispanic community gets incredibly turned off by what they perceive as a white dominated, intolerant toward Latinos Republican Party, it will start to become difficult for Republicans in the future to win them back, even when it comes to those that are making good money and prefer lower taxes and less governmental interference in their lives.

As long as the Gop have people like Rush limbaugh,Sean Hannity,Bill Cunningham,Ann Coulter,Glenn Beck,Michael Salvage,and Foxnews supporting the Republicans then they can forget about attracting any minority voters in the future.

@ obamalover

Democrats do very well with the least educated as well as with the most educated. A strange coalition, to say the least.

melvin, even with those people associated with the Republican Party, I have a feeling they will still find a way to attract a few minority votes. Even in 2008, McCain got somewhere between 30-35% of the Hispanic vote. Get that up to 40% and the Republicans become very competative because Democrats have a great deal of trouble getting more than 42% of the white vote. If Democrats fall below 40% of the white vote, they are suddenly the ones in big trouble.

@JMSTiger

Not really; their priorities are different. Smart people vote with their brains, and poor people vote with their pocket books.

Gotta agree with melvin. In just two or three cycles, Latinos will have enough people of voting age. All they need is an issue to galvanize them to the polls and they could be a powerful force here in TX now. As it stands, their turnout is way low. Something like immigration reform could really light the fuse the way Obama did for black people. Either way, the Latino youth around where I live are quite liberal, especially on the economic scale, and there are just a few years before they'll be voting.

By 2020 Texas will be blue or at least competitive on the scale NH or OH is now. The only caveat is if the state GOP accepts immigration reform that is surely on it's way to Congress.

I think he actually said "how to silence those voices of reasons." But I am paraphrasing, either way.

Tiger,

Yeah, I guess there is something to your point as well.

But also, if Hispanics are to become a very large minority or even the largest single group in the nation, that point will be moot. It's one thing to be a small minority and feel oppressed by huge majority as Blacks and Jews could have argued. It's something else entirely, once you're the largest or almost largest group. IMO

White just may pull this one out.

@ jamesia

Gov Perry knows not to touch the immigration issue. He has already come out and said that the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law would not work in Texas. Why did he say that? Not because he thought he would win some Latino votes. He said this so as not to give Latinos that probably wouldn't vote in 2010 a reason to come out and vote and vote against him. He knows what he is doing.

"the Latino youth around where I live are quite liberal, especially on the economic scale"

You mean - they like to get benefits courtesy of other people?

Well, big surprise. A nice job if you can get it.

Dont get me wrong people,i dont want to see this country being governed by a one party system, because that wouldnot be good for the Country as a whole.The Republican party have alot of good people in their party but the Gop is being over taken by these far-right racist people who dont understand the damage they is doing to the Republican party,these people think 90% of the voters in this Country is White.Its up to the Moderate Republicans to take back their party before its to late.

As one globally renown professor once told me in college - undergrad degree is for education, post-grad is to teach you how to separate yourself from those voices of reason in your head.

Statypolly, that is exactly right. The dumbest vote democratic and so do the people who try to obtain graduate degrees. I have two and i was one of the few conservatives in my classes, especially Econ.

One of my professors, who was a big time liberal and former Governor of Colorado, said to look at graduate degrees as a picture of intelligence is ridiculous. Similarly, to look at salaries of men and women and extrapolate just because women, on average, earn less, its because of bigotry is ridiculous.

Fact is that the type of people who tend to be liberals, tend to want to gravitate towards degrees like social work, law, and government-type work which usually requires a graduate degree. Whereas conservatives are more entrepreneurial and tend to want to get out and start a business after they obtain a bachelors degree.

Similarly, women tend to gravitate towards lower paying careers like social work and teaching.

In addition, believing that latinos will stay democrat is absurd. AS they become wealthier, they will become more conservative. Latinos are some of the most socially conservative in the country and as the democratic party continues to move left, into crazy left territory, and continues to mock people of faith, they will eventually lose the majority Latino vote.

@ StatyPolly

By that time (probably 2075 or later), it won't matter. There will be so much inter-marriage and changes in the definition of ethnicity (remember, at one time, ethnic Italian-Americans and Greek-Americans were not considered "white"; now they are as "white" as a Scot-Irish Southern hayseed like myself) that the way we view race or ethnic groups today may have totally been transformed. I do think we will still be tribal in 2075 (humans can't resist the urge to subdivide into little factions based on ethnicity, values, religion, class, educational level, partisan views, etc), but I bet the way Latinos and whites view each other that far into the future will be very different than today. Of course, I could be wrong and we could be headed toward Balkanization and civil war, but I doubt it.

@ melvin

You are being hysterical again. Certainly there are white racists that vote Republican and maybe even some of the activists in the party are hardcore racists (as I am sure there are black or Latino racists that vote Democratic or possibly even are activists in the party). But, that doesn't mean the GOP is being taken over by a mob of racists. What the party is struggling with the most is not racial issues, but ideological issues. Because they are completely out of power, all of its wings are fighting for control of where to take the party. The religious right/social conservative wing is very paranoid of and in some cases at war with the growing libertarian wing (which the Tea Party represents). The neo-cons are struggling to remain alive. The country club elites that have always disliked the influence of the religious conservatives/Southern republicans are glad to see the rise of the libertarians, but they don't like some of the extreme rhetoric of that bunch. It is a mess with the Republican Party right now, but that is what happens when you get your hat handed to you in two successive elections. This is very similar to what happened to the Democrats after the 2002 and 2004 cycles. But, they got their act together under Howard Dean and made a comeback (thanks in large part to the complete incompetence of George W. Bush). The Republicans are probably on the verge of making their own comeback in November.

JMSTiger if the Gop gets back in power they wants to pass laws like taking away citizenship from children of illegal immigrants,keeping American citizens who wasnot born here from voting in Federal Elections.This is what the 2010 and 2012 Elections is all about.The Gop knows the Demographics are changing rapidly in this Country ,thats why if they gets back the Whitehouse their going to pass these laws even if millions of people take to the streets.The Republican party is thinking about their survival as a party.

@ melvin

If they are thinking about their survival as a party, they will do the opposite of what you suggest. When there are 9 Hispanic births for every 1 death as opposed to 1 white birth for every 1 death, it is pretty obvious to only the terminally stupid which way things are moving. More than likely, immigration legislation of any kind will not be an issue in 2011 or 2012 anyway because it will never be advanced in either house of the Congress. The best politics on this issue for Republicans is just to keep kicking the can down the road and ignore it. Don't take it on one way or the other. That is good politics for them.

One thing you have to realize is that Texas demographics are changing s fast as any state in the "south". 1) There has been hugge influx of new workers fomr blue states in recent years. 2) Rapid growth in Hispanic population. Both trends push Texas away from the crazy "Perry Right". Texas will eventually look more like a Nevada politcally. Moving purple.....

Scott,

How is Perry "crazy right"? Is it because he is to the right of Stalin in your eyes?

The two most obvious things that make Perry far right are his strong support of capital punishment even in the face of evidence to suggest innocence - despite being "pro-life". The second is a tendency to pontificate about secession even though the Civil War ended that concept and essentially set forth the precedent that anything is a state matter unless the federal government decides otherwise.

And then there's always the Texas GOP platform, which effectively makes every TX GOP politician far to the right of most other national GOP politicians. For one, their aim is to criminalize all gay wedding ceremonies, even if they take place in private churches. You know you're far right or left if your inconsistencies require mind-bending justifications.

Haha... yeah. Good point - crazy extremes on the politcal spectrum do tend to converge to that black hole called "crazy". But no - Perry hasn't quite fallen into it like a Stalin or a Hitler...I am just saying the crazy religious right wing and the good old boy network that are still alove and well in Texas are going to look more like a Nevada or a New Mexico in coming years. Texas is suffering from incrasing "diversity". The biggest fear nd biggest threat to GOP is diversity and youth, who don't think like the GOB party. Oh sorry that is Good Old Boy party. It is simply a matter of time as the percent of dumb white men in Texas decreases over time.

jamesia,

Half the country is in favor of capital punishment. If half the country is in favor of an issue, one side of it cannot be "far-right" by definition.

Secondly, when did Perry advocate secession? I don't believe he ever did.

This is more far-left media driven propaganda that many on the left happily absorb without thinking intelligently on their own.

.I am just saying the crazy religious right wing

Is that like the crazy athiest left-wing?

It is simply a matter of time as the percent of dumb white men in Texas decreases over time.

I would argue that the average white male in Texas is significantly more intelligent than the average hispanic or minority male. And watch out, some of your fellow far-left crazy liberals, i mean progressives will call you racist for lumping all white men together. Or will they??

I think Rick Perry will still pull this one off. I don't think that it's this close. Texas is still very GOP and I just don't see White winning.

"Field Marshal:
jamesia,

Half the country is in favor of capital punishment. If half the country is in favor of an issue, one side of it cannot be "far-right" by definition."

Actually, more like 2/3 of the country is in favor of capital punishment. Check the polls . . .

@jamesia

Doesnt it work the other way as well? Being pro-choice and also being against state-sponsored killing of criminals? Seems kind of revealing that some liberals are okay with killing innocent, unborn children but fervently against killing maniacal criminals?

Actually, more like 2/3 of the country is in favor of capital punishment. Check the polls . . .

Haven't seen any recent polling. So according jamesia, 2/3rds of the country is far-right. if only....

P.S. I'm against capital punishment.

Field Marshall who are these crazy left liberals? Do they want to nationalize everything, tax 100% of your income, put you in a work camp and incite a people's revolution?

"Field Marshal:
Actually, more like 2/3 of the country is in favor of capital punishment. Check the polls . . .

Haven't seen any recent polling. So according jamesia, 2/3rds of the country is far-right. if only....

P.S. I'm against capital punishment."

Sure I'm not making a big deal about it but if you visit this link: http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm

You will see that the death penalty is supported by a more than 2-1 margin in most surveys.

White leads Perry by 6 among independents. In comparison, Obama lost independents to McCain by 26% in Texas. If White continues to have a significant lead among Indies as November approaches White will win.

Field Marshall - you really need a life. Just beacuse the "crazy right wing" in Texas wants to re-write history in textbooks doesn't mean the smart people that oppose them are not all atheists. And just becasue I say the that the percent of Texas that are Good Old Boys is simply decreasing as Texas gets more divers - does not make me a racist.

@JPB11011

No actually it doesn't work that way. Being pro-choice means a woman has the right to choose the right thing to do with her own body. Secondarily, during the first trimester the fetus isn't really alive. Finally, being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion, just like believing alcohol should be legally available doesn't mean you support mandatory alcoholism. Plus, the anti-smoking campaigns of today show that there are far more effective ways of ending a behavior than prohibition laws. In fact, prohibition laws have proven not only ineffective, but more damaging than the behavior they seek to prohibit. The key is to give choice, and teach your children to make the right one. It's personal responsibility.

@FM

Don't cherry pick me. I said:

strong support of capital punishment even in the face of evidence to suggest innocence - despite being "pro-life"

This is blind trust of law and statute that borders on authoritarianism, and is a mark of extremism on the right and left. Also, I tied it into mind bending justifications for inconsistent believes - which is a sign of extremism. The believe that your views are right and morally superior leads to dangerous results regardless of your political persuasion.

"I would argue that the average white male in Texas is significantly more intelligent than the average hispanic or minority male."

And how exactly would you go about separating intelligence from education? What kind of metric measures intelligence that isn't culturally specific?

jamesia- that is some fantastic spin justifying abortion while not justifying capital punishment. I like the "its the woman's choice" fallacy. LOL!! classic.

And where have I given my views on capital punishment, vincent? Are you just assuming something here? The only negative I see with capital punishment is the immense cost to the public taxpayer without any sort of effect on the rate of murder. I just think it's wasteful spending.

@jamesia

Why should i woman have the right to choose to terminate another life? The fetus is alive at conception and there is a heart beat as early as 20 days. I believe in personal choice as much as possible but we should never have the choice to terminate life. When a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer just her body. I believe that rationale is simply justification for those who wish to pass on the personal responsibility because either they are weak or stupid. Abortion should be relegated to the dustbin of history. To be choosing infanticide in a civilized world is grotesque. I predict it will be in the next couple of decades. Already we are seeing the younger population turn away from it.

Field Marshall who are these crazy left liberals? Do they want to nationalize everything, tax 100% of your income, put you in a work camp and incite a people's revolution?

Apparently, they are the antithesis of the crazy far right conservatives mentioned on here by many of the libies.

Who are they? Do they want to turn the country into a theocracy, eliminate the federal government, deport all minorities and lower taxes to zero%?

Field Marshall - you really need a life. Just beacuse the "crazy right wing" in Texas wants to re-write history in textbooks doesn't mean the smart people that oppose them are not all atheists. And just becasue I say the that the percent of Texas that are Good Old Boys is simply decreasing as Texas gets more divers - does not make me a racist.

I have no idea what this paragraph means. What's a diver? Who is a good old boy?

Did you complain though when the "crazy left wing" re-wrote the history books? I bet not.

I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy and biases. I mean, who says 'get a life' in response to a post? LOL.

For Perry to win he has to overcome and extremely hostile rural electorate. Houston will not overcome all the small counties in Texas and Austin added will not overcome them either. In Conclusion, he has some obstacles to overcome. Case in point is Loving County, where the republicans got more votes than the total county's population. How's that for Republican stronghold?

WHERE ARE THE NEVADA POLLS!? I can wait to see "RIGHT ANGLE" turn into just one more Tea Party loon discovered by a still mostly sane voting population.

@Anthony Gonzalez

Are you THE Anthony Gonzalez?

"Already we are seeing the younger population turn away from it."

Yes, the youth are somewhat more conservative on the abortion issue.

This is because they are getting married much, much later and birth control is far more accepted and easily available. There's much less need for abortion because youth lifestyles have fully accepted birth control. Particularly among white youth, whose teen pregnancy rate has declined significantly.

I would actually say that the youth movement rightward on the abortion issue is more of an effect of their leftward movement in social issues more broadly - family planning, cohabitation instead of marriage, etc...

I also think some of it is a relative decline in promiscuity compared to their Boomer parents of the 60s.

Abortion is a much more extreme birth control option than the pill or the patch, the most exteme, in fact. So it follows that with the acceptance of numerous birth control methods, abortion would become less accepted.

I think Sex Ed in schools is in large part responsible for this phenomenon, which conservatives largely opposed (some still do).

As a liberal who opposes abortion personally (for religious reasons) but doesn't wish to legislate a return to pre-Roe coat-hanger treatments, I'm heartened by the fact that young people are looking for better solutions than just "cutting or sucking" it out.

Abortion used to be a no-brainer; unfortunately little thinking generally went into the activities which led to this decision. I'm VERY happy to see abortion become more and more rare for the right reasons...personal responsibility.

I totally agree with Aaron_in_TX on this. SexEd and, generally, ANY kind of education or availability of objective info regarding sexual and reproductive behavior is a good thing. Greater knowledge leads to better planning which leads to...duhh...fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer cases of VD and HIV as well.

"If they are thinking about their survival as a party,"

Melvin was right that if the R's ever lose TX, their chances of getting to 270 EVs would be slim to none. They'd have to hold all the rest of their 2004 states and sweep OH, PA, and FL just to get barely over 270. All the dems would have to do would be to focus on one state, ie: CO, and there'd be no way.

Republicans are being smart in the short term by trying to cash in on the white middle class anger that exists out there right now. That is exactly what they should do. Over the next decade, I expect them to moderate and focus on hispanics somewhat more.

"Democrats have a great deal of trouble getting more than 42% of the white vote. If Democrats fall below 40% of the white vote, they are suddenly the ones in big trouble."

Obama got 43% of the white vote and had no trouble getting 365 EVs. John Kerry got 41% and that was worth 252. Al Gore got 42% and that was worth 266. The 1-2% gain in the white vote (almost completely due to ages 18-29) was not alone responsible for a 100 EV gain.

By my rough calculations, Obama will need more than 40.5% of the white vote in order to win a squeaker assuming 2008-style numbers among minorities. That seems like a reasonable task, since every dem since 1988 has gotten at least 40% of the white vote.

National electorate picture is an ever living breathing organism. Losing TX is not the end GOP presidential hopes. Not very long ago, TX along with most of the rest of the South was solidly Dem, and all of West Coast was solidly GOP.

Things change, often rapidly.

It's interesting to revisit some of the former electoral maps.

1968 TX was one of only a few Dem states.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1968_Electoral_Map.png

1976

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1976_Electoral_College_Map.png

72, 80, 84, 88 were blowouts, so mostly one color maps, and starting in 92 the map started to look more like the recent versions.

There are other problematic categories for republicans as well when you take a long view.

College graduates - they have increased their support for dems consistently over the past couple decades. 88- 43%, 92- 44%, 96- 47%, 00- 48%, 04- 49%, 08- 53%. This segment has grown from 39% of the electorate in 92 to 44% in 08.

Suburban voters - dems consistently get 47% since 96 in this crucial swing category, in 08 it was 50%. Republicans are at best treading water and this group has grown from 41% to 49% of the electorate.

Age - There is a very clear democratic cohort with people born ~1978 or after (first-time voters beginning in 1996). Prior to 1996 first-time voters went for republicans and youth had not supported democrats with more than 50% since 1976. Starting in 1996 that changed. It should be noted that Nader got 6% of youth in 2000, those voters went exclsively for dems in 2004 and 2008. The 2000 election debacle may have been an important event for many of those first time voters.

Race - obviously the hispanic and black problems, but often overlooked are Asians - a growing constituency that has firmly swung from the republican column back in the 80s, early 90s to firmly in the democratic column beginning in 2000. Losing both the Asian and Hispanic vote means republicans can never hope to get any of the 74 EVs on the west coast.

Ruy Texiera and John Judis were writing about these long term trends 10 years ago, and people called them crazy especially after the 2004 cycle. It's not that complicated really. All the categories are driven by demographic change in racial composition - suburbs, college grads, age (the 18-29 population is only ~58% white, the under 18 pop is closer to 50% white). All changing because of demographics.

There's no evidence to suggest that hispanics will start to support republicans given more time and affluence. They've given R's an average of about 35% since 1980. Certainly some hispanics have moved into the middle class in the past 30 years, yet their level of republican support as a group hasn't changed much. It's ridiculous to think they will gravitate toward republicans when the hispanic youth on average vote for democrats by 10 points more than their elders - making their dem support around 75%.

I don't think republicans are stupid. I think they know all this but also know they can maximize their potential in the short term by using rhetoric targeted toward middle class white men over 40, who happen to be the most consistent voters despite their dwindling numbers, and worry about their other problems later. They will change their tune in 6-10 years. Bank on it.

Republicans really lost the minority vote with Reagan - particularly blacks, but hispanics too. He didn't need them to win and win big.

The change I expect from republicans is for them to drop the Reagan act. Most republicans still pine for him and cling to his style badly. In another 10 years half the population will not remember him and thus his memory and rhetorical style will be useless.

Democrats clung to and pined for JFK loooong after he was dead and it did them no good.

"They will change their tune"

You don't really believe that GOP has a centrally controlled message of racism to attract older white males. Since you imply they will have to change that tune to attract minorities once whites' numbers dwindle. GOP does not have an anti-minority tune. There are certainly racists in all walks of life, but GOP's message is one of self-reliance regardless of background, where is the Dem message is to single out minorities for special help from the rest of society. That is what I believe gets the Dems minorities' votes.

@StatyPolly

GOP's message is one of "majority oppression" and "reverse racism", which are code words for you know what. The words change but the message stays the same.

"You don't really believe that GOP has a centrally controlled message of racism to attract older white males."

Whether they do it consciously or not, the fact remains that the GOP coalition is 90% white and more male than female, so clearly their message resonates more with that group. SOMETHING the GOP says turns off minorities & women. The Dem coaltion is only 60% white and more female than male.

"GOP's message is one of self-reliance regardless of background"

LOL, self reliance! What kind of country do we have, an agrarian republic? It's not like I can go and put my back into the plow and grow my own food. I'm dependent on who wants to pay me for my skills whether it's government or business. Either way I don't really feel self reliant, rather I'm at their mercy.

"they will have to change that tune"

The GOP used to say medicare was socialism. Now they defend medicare against cuts, particularly medicare advantage. GOP including Reagan used to be apprehensive about having a holiday for Martin Luther King. Now they praise him as much as anyone else. They definitely change their rhetoric to fit the times. This "I want my country back" nonsense will stop after a while.

I agree with you statypolly. The reason for the lack of minority votes in the GOP is one of personal responsibility and a lack of pandering.

The GOP basically says, work hard and you will be rewarded regardless of race, religion, etc. Whereas the Dems buy and oppress the minority vote through countless government social programs in an effort to subjugate them.

In other words, the GOP says this is our message, join us if you agree. Whereas the Dems have a tailored message for each voting group in order to keep them all together.

To think that Texas will go Dem and stay dem forever is similar to the GOP thinking FL will go GOP and stay like that forever in 2000. Or VA going blue in 2008 and staying. Fact is, the election is mostly based on the person in power and whether they approve of disapprove of that person.

Self-reliant, to me, does not mean you churn your own butter. It means you buy butter with the money you earn, as apposed to being given the money by the govt to buy the butter or just being given the butter by the govt directly.

"SOMETHING the GOP says turns off minorities & women.

It's what they don't say. They don't say we'll take care of you. (with other people's money, of course. Since money does not exactly grow on trees) GOP says "we'll stay out of way and let you compete on your own". Dems, OTOH, demonize and punish producers and reward and praise moochers. If you boil it down to the very basics.

"I don't really feel self reliant, rather I'm at their mercy."

I don't feel that way. That's essentially what separates libs and cons. You're only at their mercy because you choose to be. We don't have a class system in this country. Overwhelming majority of successful people in US are self made. It's rare that descendant manage to hang on to wealth for more than a one or two generations. "They" in your term "their mercy" are there because they choose to be there. You too can be one of "them" if you choose to be and apply yourself.

As far as GOP changing their tune to defend Medicare, that's just tawdry politics of the moment.

I believe that Perry is going to lose to White in 2010 - not because of him, but because of what is going on down ballot with the Republican Party Platform. Perry is a lot of things (I don't like him and fully intend to vote for White), but he is a very smart and savvy politician. The reason he is being quiet about Arizona law is that it is very possible that Hispanics will surpass the white population by 2015. Perry sees that and it's why he's been really quiet because he knows that four years from now (should he win) when he runs again (which he will if he wins in 2010), the Hispanic population will be close to the White Population in Texas. The new Texas Republican platform wanting the Arizona law plus the whole issue to criminalize same sex marriage (which I honestly have no idea how that would be enforcable) basically alienates about 35-40% of the electorate off the bat for 2010, basically giving everyone in either of these (Gay/Hispanic) demographics no choice but to vote Democratic. I am not surprised in the least that the race is this close since this past weekend was when the Texas Republicans adopted this new Platform.

""They" in your term "their mercy" are there because they choose to be there. You too can be one of "them" if you choose to be and apply yourself."

Sorry, I should have clarified. You seem to think I'm talking about class conflict a la Marxist theory.

By "they," I meant whoever is your superior (paying you) in whatever job you have. No one in our post industrial economy is self reliant except for maybe a very small class of farmers. Even they are at the mercy of market forces unless producing for self sufficiency only. Self sufficiency has not been possible for most since the industrial revolution.

Although it is silly to suggest that there are no class distinctins in America. They are very clear. There is a very strong correlation between the parent's economic class and that of the children. Wealthy stay wealthy, middle class stay middle class, and poor stay poor, although we do have a pretty good record of near-poor moving into middle class, and that is precisely BECAUSE of gov't financial assistance - ie: GI Bill, federally aided mortgages, and aid to education. I'm not for welfare for doing nothing, I don't know why you try to say I am.

"You too can be one of "them" if you choose to be and apply yourself."

Perhaps I'm more cynical than you (I'm from a cynical generation), but my success at every job I have EVER worked (public and private sectors) had less to do with how much I applied myself and more to do with the rapport with my superiors. At jobs where the management liked me, I was promoted. At jobs where they did not, I didn't advance or did so slowly.

It was just like the movie "Office Space" at one job. After a couple years I hated it so much that I engaged in a conscious effort to put in as little actual work as possible. Somehow this endeared me with management, probably because I was one of the few who never complained when hours got cut. For me it was worth the lost wages to be there a few hours less per week. I was already good at schmoozing the management at that job. They liked my sense of humor.

A few months later, I received a glowing evaluation and promotion offer while some of my clearly more diligent co-workers got laid off. I had fully expected poorer marks compared to the previous year when I tried harder. I was incredulous that the management could not see that I hated the job and put in just enough effort to avoid bringing negative attention to myself. Simultaneously, people who WANTED to work more to put food on the table and take care of their kids got laid off (I had the luxury of no kids and low bills). And as a result they wanted to make me one of them! Needless to say I quit that job a few weeks later.

So in my experience, success is mostly based on who you know and who likes you. Working hard is a necessary but secondary factor....it's more important that people PERCEIVE you as a hard worker, or at least not perceive you as lazy. Which means you need to work with some purpose but there's no need to knock yourself out.

"Work smarter not harder" has always worked well for me, and I hate it. It makes me feel manipulative and deceitful, but I've seen too many people put in a TON of effort only to have the credit taken from them by others.

Aaron, your description of your work experiences is very reminiscent of my own. There is plenty of evidence on how people with high "social IQ's" outearn people with high actual IQ's. Basically yes, a skilled brownnoser gets promoted ahead of his/her more productive peers.

It happens often in corporate America, and to even a much greater degree in a governmental workplace. Really, the main reason I am a conservative is because I want smaller government, since government almost necessarily is an inefficient and highly wasteful enterprise. At least in a private concern, there is a chain of accountability, since ultimately, there is ownership of assets. Once the ownership of assets is public, no one really cares and those negative experiences you describe worsen significantly.

As far as American class system goes, I am not sure I agree with you. Perhaps it's true that the bulk of the poor and middle class stay at the same level thru generations, but it's cultural, and not systematic. It is systematic in most of the world but not here. Cultural - meaning you end up where you strive. There are plenty of dirt poor inner city kids from crappy schools that became highly successful doctors and lawyers. For example. IT WAS THEIR CHOICE. Overwhelming majority of all millionaires in US are self made small business owners. That's a statistic. Most of them did not succeed on their first or second try. They take risks, borrow, mortgage and sell everything, max out credit cards, (lie borrow and steal, to exaggerate) work their butts off, obviously, but if you have an average intelligence, and are willing to do all that, you can make it.

Most heirs, OTOH, tend to lose the big money by the second or third generation.

I do support some reasonable level of help for the ambitious poor, BTW. Pell Grants, ect..

In the end, one of the things that separates cons from libs, is cons believe in equal opportunity, while libs seek equal outcome. And seeking equal outcome is a true progress killer.

"It happens often in corporate America, and to even a much greater degree in a governmental workplace. Really, the main reason I am a conservative is because I want smaller government, since government almost necessarily is an inefficient and highly wasteful enterprise. "

Like I said, I experienced it in both public and private sectors. The difference, imo, has to do with the size of the organization rather than whether its public or private. The smaller the org, the less "cheating" you can get away with.

If either Gingrich or Palin win the Republican nomination in 2012, Obama will win in a landslide. Huckabee is not running. Christie is not running. Jindal is not running. Patraeus is not running. The only chance the Republicans have is to go with the guy who probably doesn't really believe in much of anything- Mitt Romney.

Interesting it is Newt Gingrich they like the best.

I predict that White may win this one. Perry's unfavorables are not very good. Democrats have to spend some money on this one. White doesn't seem like he is that liberal which may help him.

I think that the Perry Haters will be out in huge numbers this year, and turnout will be huge in Texas this year.

That is the beauty of having a Governor or candidate who is highly polarizing and contreversial, the turnout is very numerous. I think states where a party has a very popular Governor or Senator, turnout isn't as high.

I am willing to bet that Nevada and KY will have higher turnout than Delaware or Iowa.

That is a pretty high disapproval for Perry. That should be more concerning than the actual matchup numbers.

Emily

Why is it that this poll was just posted today but we have comments dated on dates before 28th?

"The only chance the Republicans have is to go with the guy who probably doesn't really believe in much of anything- Mitt Romney."

And he will probably never win the nomination. He won't do well in TX according to this poll.

Also, don't forget that Romney was the one Obama's team expected to run against in 2008. He wanted to run against flip-flopper Romney, not the centrist war-hero McCain.

"Why is it that this poll was just posted today but we have comments dated on dates before 28th?"

I think PPP released the governor race numbers about a week ago, but have just released the presidential primary numbers, although both came from the same poll, hence why Emily kept them together.

New Quinn poll just out
http://www.quinnipiac.ed/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1450
shows Strickland and Kasich in a virtual holding pattern...43-38 for Strickland, nearly the same margin over the past 3 months. Only half of voters know Kasich.

Strickland leads by 3 points with independents.
Kasich was kind of a moderate as I recall back in the 90s, certainly not a Tea Party type by any means. It will be interesting to see if he gains with this group as he becomes more well known.

Both candidates are nicely maxed out with their base (they've consolidated them, respectively), so the race will be decided by independents. Strickland's favorables are not great, but at least their not not underwater, and he's not rated very highly on statewide issues, especially economic ones.

This will be one tight race