I tried to look up on CNN.com exit poll data for Texas, the second biggest state, and only got:
- No exit poll data available
From a Dallas News article:
To save money this year, the [exit poll] consortium is doing bare-bones exit polling in 19 states. Enough voters will be questioned in those states to help predict the outcome of races, but not enough to draw narrative conclusions about the vote - what issues mattered most to women voting for Mitt Romney, for instance, or how many Catholics voted for Barack Obama.
The affected states are: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, along with the District of Columbia.
Each is considered a non-battleground state with polls showing a strong advantage for one of the presidential candidates.
Okay, Romney won 57-41 in Texas and Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz was elected to the Senate 57-40. So, nothing too exciting about Texas ... except that it has a large fraction of the country's Latino voters, who are the Official Big Story of 2012. Unfortunately, the exit poll data from Texas was too sketchy too let the public see anything about the demographics of the Texas vote.
Posts
29 comments:
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/4-sought-in-unprovoked-daytime-beating-of-city-man/-/10131532/17284860/-/j99ga4/-/index.html
The US voting system is extremely flawed, Brazil have one of the best voting system in the World.
But California has lots of Hispanics and is not a swing state, and it's not on the list. Why? Robert Hume
http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/11/07/northern-whites-not-blacks-hispanics-defeated-romney/
"But California has lots of Hispanics and is not a swing state, and it's not on the list. Why?"
Because the world hungered for the inside scoop on Sen. Feinstein's re-election bid? Because California is among the biggest states in the country?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332983/now-what-immigration-edition-mark-krikorian
The affected states are: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, along with the District of Columbia
By a strange coincidence, virtually all of these are non-battleground states which vote Republican. California, New York, New Jersey etc are solid locks for the Democratic party just as Texas, Utah, Tennessee etc are for the GOP - but those Dem states get exit polls.
Texas is pretty heavily gerrymandered (pretty rational thing to do in a state dominated by a single party, of which we have lots now Republican and Democrat).
How do you separate this out from the voting tendencies of hispanics? Pretty easy for the Presidency of course, but for local races?
BTW I don't know how excited I'd get about this if I were a Democrat, at least not without knowing how many hispanic voters split their ticket, or just let it all ride on one party.
Just for shits and giggles I'd like to know what fraction of black voters split their tickets.
That is a suspicious list of states, all red other than Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Presumably Vermont is just too important a state to leave out.
Whiter areas went heavily Republiccan while South Texas swing Democratic for President. No percent. Okahomia had around 65 for Romney. Texas would look like Okahomia if they wanted to really use e-verify and deport some of their illegal population.
w/r/t Texas vs. California
for reasons of history, chance and demographics, California "hispanics" are mostly from Southern Mexico or Central America (Guatemala, El Sal etc) whereas Texas receives most of it's Mexicans from Northern Mexico.
Mexico, like the US, is *really* different between N and S. As an example, there is no "mexican" prison gang, there isn't enough rapport. Instead, there is a Northern Mexican gang and a Southern Mexican gang. During the Mexican Revolution, N.Mex was Pancho Villa and S. Mex was Ernesto Zapata. They are *VERY* different.
Knowing how Calis So.Mex. inhabitants voted would not lead you into an informed convo about how No.Mex. voted any more than you could project Alabama's votes onto Vermont or Mass
As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 3,380 people, 1,225 households, and 982 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,580.3 people per square mile (609.8/km²). There were 1,282 housing units at an average density of 599.4/sq mi (231.3/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 89.26% White, 0.53% African American, 0.03% Native American, 8.40% Asian, 0.09% Pacific Islander, 0.44% from other races, and 1.24% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.76% of the population.
There were 1,225 households out of which 36.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 75.8% were married couples living together, 2.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 19.8% were non-families. 18.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.76 and the average family size was 3.12.
In the city the population was spread out with 26.6% under the age of 18, 4.1% from 18 to 24, 17.0% from 25 to 44, 37.3% from 45 to 64, and 15.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 46 years. For every 100 females there were 96.5 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.8 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $184,991, and the median income for a family was $200,000. Males had a median income of $100,000 versus $57,222 for females. The per capita income for the city was $133,247. About 2.4% of families and 3.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.0% of those under age 18 and 3.6% of those age 65 or over.
As of 2000, Piney Point Village was the wealthiest location
The wealthy counties out of Houston or Dallas were big gains for Mitt many make money from oil.
Steve,
Here is a great post by Andy McCarthy on National Review's "The Corner":
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332988/immigration-delusion-andrew-c-mccarthy
It's not just people in the HBD-sphere that recognize the idiocy of the WSJ open borders crowd.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rankandfile/264855/
Yeah, Brazil has one of the "best voting systems in the world" but you use it to keep electing Lula and his clan, plus a bunch of corrupt nobodies.
I think this election showed a big South-North divide. The Civil war never ended?
ot-ish: ed west in the telegraph u.k. channeling steve sailer/peter brimelow:
Pundits tell the Republican party: 'The only way you can win is by importing more Democrat voters'
Congratulations to Teddy Kennedy on his historic election victory. The Lion of the Senate may no longer be with us, but there is little doubt that he secured Barack Obama’s win – for as every media outlet has pointed out, Romney simply "ran out of white guys"....
The consensus among the commentariat, therefore, is that the Republicans and by implication the Conservatives need to do more to attract non-white voters by cutting down on their objections to immigration and multiculturalism. In order to win, the Republicans must encourage the importation of millions of Democrat voters – an almost flawless plan.
This rests upon a couple of false ideas. Firstly, that there is a straight comparison between Latin American immigration today and that of eastern and southern European Catholics and Jews from the 1880s to 1920s. Sure, some of the complaints sound similar, but there are major differences, and the main one is that it took the 1924 law restricting immigration to facilitate the integration of white ethnic minorities....
Look at the WSJ's "heat map" for Texas: all very red...except along the border and up to San Antonio. There, deep blue. Gee, could it be demographics? See also, So. Arizona, light blue.
The GOP is rapidly turning itself into the 21st century version of the Fabian Society, eschewing electoral politics as it wonders why "culturally conservative"(??) Latinos don't embrace supply side economics and instead voting la raza.
Anonymous 11/8/12 7:34 AM, thanks for the link. Good response to questions I was thinking post-election. A conservative echo chamber certainly exists now which can skew from reality, but I don't think Nate Silver making better predictions than Karl Rove doesn't invalidate that the MSM is biased. In what world are issues like Fast & Furious and Benghazi completely ignored, but Sarah Palin emails and the abortion opinion of local politicians who the general populace couldn't pick out of a line-up become BIG NEWS, not show a bias??
So Arizona isn't as hispanic as so Texas,there are counties I believe Webb which is 97 percent hispanic.
I live in Texas and am please that in this minority majority state, 100% of statewide offices are held by Republicans, including Black and Latino officials. All conservatives, too.
My State Representative is a Latino Republican and he won re-election with like 80% of the vote. He is very conservative and a great guy.
It seems Latinos in Texas are here to work, and Latinos in California are there to live off the taxpayer.
Look at the WSJ's "heat map" for Texas: all very red..
-----
most red areas have more cows and cactuses than people. I think we should elect a new cattle and give them the vote.
http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/11/07/northern-whites-not-blacks-hispanics-defeated-romney/
This is the best commentary on this election. While Hispanic vote will play a key role in the future, this election was really decided by northern whites.
in new scientist:
Pointillist data map shows the changing face of Texas
Texas is pretty heavily gerrymandered (pretty rational thing to do in a state dominated by a single party, of which we have lots now Republican and Democrat).
Gerrymandering is required by the Supreme Court in many southern states, including Texas. You don't seem to know much about this stuff - you're a college student, I'd guess.
Here is a great post by Andy McCarthy on National Review's "The Corner"
I'm surprised Lowery hasn't banished McCarthy yet for "hate facts".
The WSJ today on immigration.
Immigrants should be a natural GOP constituency. Newcomers to the U.S.—legal or illegal—tend to be aspiring people who believe in the dignity of work and self-sufficiency, and they are cultural conservatives. They are not the 47%.
That's more akin to mental illness than anything else. The GOP has been telling itself that Hispanics are "natural conservatives" since Nixon - the fact that Hispanics stubbornly refuse to behave as the GOP stereotype of them would suggest they should never impinges on the delusion in the slightest.
We've already tried what the liberal Republicans want - if their diagnosis is correct then the 1986 Reagan amnesty should have won Hispanics over to the GOP. Instead the Republican share of the Hispanic voted dropped in the aftermath of that amnesty.
What i found interesting, or perhaps sad, was that 43% of eligible people didn't even bother to vote. The number of people who didn't vote, was greater then the number who voted for Obama.
Well, Steve, you were in the market research business once, weren't you...?
Anyone else?
Or has the paleo Can't-do mentality hit everyone here, too?
http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/11/07/northern-whites-not-blacks-hispanics-defeated-romney/
This is the best commentary on this election.
Not so. Whites in NJ, PA, WI and most northern states voted for Romney, often by large margins.
Post a Comment