Texas Counties 11-33

 As we consider the second group of Texas counties, we should note that Democratic Party candidate Beto O'Rourke won only four of the 23 counties. Overall, Beto lost this set of counties by 483,219 votes. On the other hand, Governor Abbott won 63.6 percent of the two-party vote in the counties.

 


What do the counties that Beto won indicate for what Democrats can do in 2024 to garner more votes? First, note that voter turnout is extremely low in three (Webb, Hidalgo, and Cameron Counties) of the four counties, averaging 33.5 percent of the vote. In the county that Beto won with the highest percentage of the vote (Webb County), voter turnout was a paltry 31.1 percent of registered voters. Only Hays County featured turnout that exceeded half of the registered voters. Obviously, voter turnout among Democratic Party identifiers who did not vote is the highest priority.

Second, among the counties that Abbott won, I would largely ignore those counties where he won with 65 to 80 percent of the two-party vote. I think that there are certain counties among this group that should be engaged. For example, Bell County, Brazoria County, and Nueces Counties provide an opportunity to expand the Democratic Party vote in 2024. I would hope that Democrats devote some money and organization to assisting Democratic Candidates in those counties. Montgomery County, because of its proximity to Harris County, might be considered for additional efforts to mobilize Democrats.

Third, I would expend little to no effort in the counties where Abbott earned more than 80 percent of the vote. There are probably few Democrats there to mobilize. 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more