what i'm curious to see is, how much of an impact all of the new residents from california and the north east will have on the next few elections?
If you are driving then you have to show a driver's license to show that you can legally drive otherwise my understanding is that you are not required to show an ID if asked.
Are we about to have a "Texas Spring" no, it will be about as effective as Occupy The money, religion and political power are too entrenched. When people can pay smart people to work hard for them, they will be more effective than people who have to work at it as a sideline.
In Central Texas, quite a bit. When they look at the housing costs, they think they've died and gone to heaven. In my opinion, they certainly help the Austin area stay blue.
Is Austin turning more or less blue? I would guess with the growth of the suburbs, the answer might be different than you would think. Remember, Austin outside of its inner core is pretty similar to any other suburb around Dallas or Houston.
Karl Rove: More White Votes Alone Won't Save the GOP As immigration reform grinds its way through the U.S. Senate, the main focus has rightly been on the legislation's policy consequences. But there are important political implications, especially for the GOP, that are worth examining. Some observers, including Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan and the Center for Immigration Studies, argue that if Republicans want to win back the White House, they should focus on white voters (who comprised 72% of the electorate in 2012) rather than worrying about Latinos. After all, new Census Bureau estimates are that 100,042,000 whites voted in 2008 but only 98,041,000 did in 2012. Wouldn't it be better to get those two million whites back into the polling booth? To have prevailed over Mr. Obama in the electoral count, Mr. Romney would have had to carry 62.54% of white voters. That's a tall order, given that Ronald Reagan received 63% of the white vote in his 1984 victory, according to the Congressional Quarterly's analysis of major exit polls. It's unreasonable to expect Republicans to routinely pull numbers that last occurred in a 49-state sweep. Moreover, a Reagan-like percentage of white voters would yield a much narrower win today. That's because the nonwhite share of the vote had doubled to 28% in 2012 from 13% in 1984, according to national exit polls. Consider the impact of this growing nonwhite vote. In 1988, George H.W. Bush received 60% of the white vote and won 426 Electoral College votes. In 2004, George W. Bush captured 58% of the white vote but won 286 electoral votes. It is true that Mr. Romney would not have been elected if he only increased his percentage of Hispanic voters. Had he received 35% of the Latino vote instead of the 27% he did, Mr. Obama would still have won by roughly 4,083,340 votes. The upshot is that if Republicans hope to win the presidency in 2016, they need to do better with both white and Hispanic voters. full article
Once hispanics have been in the US for a generation or more, I don't see them voting as a monolith like blacks do. Blacks basically vote like a drone -- show up to polls, vote straight ticket democrat, head home. I don't see hispanics as the same -- they tend to have more diversity of thought and opinion, although I'd love to see data on the topic.
That says a lot about the Republican stance on issues and their agenda that they've so turned off groups of people from voting for them. Very interesting and shameful to the Republicans. Thank you for posting texxx
Shockingly, li'l t's "analysis" is missing the cause and effect component. In wingnuttia, african americans are "drones" that uniquely cast their votes without thinking, unlike, whites, asians, latinos, etc. They couldn't possibly engage in a rational evaluation of Democratic vs. Republican policies. Yet, all those li'l ts out there are at a loss to explain why the african american support of Republicans dropped into the cellar in the 1960's. Hmmm. I wonder what could have possibly caused this dramatic shift in party identification? Could something similar be occurring among latinos now? Don't ask li'l t. It's all a mystery.
It's this kind of thinking that makes America suck for everyone. This strategy might get a Republican in the White House, but it's at the expense of good policy and at least good policy debate for the long term future. The GOP has survived since Nixon on identity politics and not in constructive policy debates about the long term future. This has an effect of framing the discussion within the myopic confines of the Culture War, often backfiring by firing up the most partisan of Democrats and rewarding candidates of all stripes for their extreme positions, rather than engaging in good governance. As long as we are all focused and arguing about abortion, gun rights, flag burning, pot smoking, intern banging, truthers and birthers, Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, we are doing so at the expense of maintaining infrastructure, education, the balance between labor and big business, free speech, privacy rights and a lot of other things that get decided without any debate at all, and largely to the detriment of everyone and the stability of the nation. If I'm the GOP, I'm more interested in being relevant in 20 years than winning the next presidential election. I'm looking for ways to make the tent bigger, not smaller. I'm looking to ask questions that the majority of Americans agree on, and re-frame the debate away from identity politics and back towards good governance. I would redefine "conservative" to it's traditional political meaning, which is a party that stands for fair play, equal access and against plutocracy. This is something everyone wants. It can't keep calling itself the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower and advocate dismantling government to the highest bidder instead of reforming it with transparency and an eye to eliminate corruption. And enough with the dog whistling about "state's rights." There's nothing inherently conservative about willfully tipping the balance between big business and labor, deregulation in the marketplace, the consolidation of media and financial services, voter ID laws, gerrymandering, engaging in wars that can't be afforded, trickle down economics, and so on. It's not the 80s any more and that crap isn't going to continue to work. When Karl Rove is the voice of your moderate wing, you're officially broken! The GOP has allowed the culture warriors, theocrats, and the most unscrupulous of monied interests to define them and the word conservative, which make them different than the conservative parties in other First World countries and unlike them, it will simply not survive if it continues to do so. It needs more Dick Durbins and Bob Doles and less Huckabees and Reagan wanna-be's polluting the discussion with divisive identity politics. It needs to be a proper opposition party first. It can't become that as long as politics are defined by raising funds by any means necessary. To be the party that's willing to take a hit in the short term and look to reform the political process away from the highest bidder, empower the middle class, stop deifying Reagan and wrapping itself in the flag and playing "I love America more than you because my flag pin is bigger", and redefine themselves as a party that earns votes from meat and potato voters by standing for things like fair play, a fair living for a fair day's work and all that feel-good Eisenhower stuff that everyone likes and no one is getting. As it is, Democrats are winning policy debates, even though their proposals are really weak. No one loves the Democratic Party all that much, but they at least are being seen as trying to do their jobs even if the result is lousy. Republicans are winning short term gains by forfeiting the real game. An opposition party should be seeking to push them to work harder and draft better legislation, not appeal to the culture warriors by winning easy high fives for obstructing the very thing they were elected to do: govern.
I think a lot of the problems with Democratic party policy choices would be fixed by a competitive Republican Party. The Republicans have effectively ceded the center to the Democrats which in turn has pushed the Democrats to occupy previously Republican positions. (Insurance Exchanges, Cap and Trade, immigration reform, etc..) This has boxed the Republicans into a position where their "moderate" wing is really what was the far right wing of the party and the far right wing of the party is now in uncharted waters of crazy. Gone are the days of the normal center left/right balance that formed the basis of American policy. And we're in a government where both sides have to be functioning. It leads to weak and watered down policy choices since the Democrats are taking Republican positions and compromising with even more right wing positions. Historically that's not where our legislation has ever gone. It wasn't that long ago where things like funding Planned Parenthood or nutrition assistance were bipartisan issues that had no opposition. When the Republicans default back to their normal alignment, then the Democrats will default back to theirs and we'll have a proper and healthy balance of policy options. The debate shouldn't be cap and trade or unregulated pollution. It should be a market oriented option versus something like a carbon tax. It should be insurance exchanges versus a single payer. Two equally viable policy solutions with different philosophical approaches. But that will only happen when the Republicans properly reclaim the right of center platform and push the Democrats back to the left of center.
Which part do you disagree with? I agree with those stats 100%. Those stats show how much the Republican party has alienated a group of American voters, and how shameful that is for Republicans. I was very impressed that you'd post statistics which back that up. It's crazy that Republicans seem have been almost antagonistic towards this group of voters and kept blacks from voting for them in such large percentages. By the way since I answered your question maybe you can back and answer the simple yes or no question that you've been running away from about whether or not you believe that the U.S. planned chemical weapon attacks on the Syrians in order to blame Assad. You've run away from that question for a whole thread and despite replying in the thread never once answered the question. I've been the bigger man and provided the example for how easy it is to answer a question.
Actually, bigtexxx's opinion in regards to Latino(a) voting is correct. The reason black voting shifted was due to the Civil Rights Act and Movement in the 1960s.
voter ID law can still be challenged under VRA section 2 difference is Texas no longer needs permission from DOJ before they implement it
So after Texas implements voting practices that will hurt minorities they can be challenged on it. By then of course elections have been decided, voters alienated, and damage to democracy done.
