Texas Liberal

All People Matter

History Of The Texas Primary

The Texas Presidential Primary, to be held March 4, is a big deal.

Democrats Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton are working to the take the largest share of the 228 delegates to be awarded.

( Photo above is of Galveston at sunset. If you live near the Texas coast, this might be your concept of Texas.)

Mike Huckabee hopes Evangelical Christians in Texas will help him add to a number of Southern victories gained so far against John McCain. 140 delegates are up in the Republican race.

32 of the Democratic delegates will be superdelegates. (Please click here for a Texas Liberal history of the superdelegate idea. )

I maintain that the superdelegate idea is undemocratic and goes against the idea of an open and fair Democratic Party.

( The process by which Texas delegates are selected is mind-numbing and not the province of this post. Here’s a link to part one and part two of an explanation of this system by the Texas political blog Burnt Orange Report.)

Not surprisingly, given the lack of enthusiasm for democracy found historically among the Texas political class—-and from many of the Anglo voters who have dominated Texas politics—the Texas Presidential primary does not have a long history.

The first Texas presidential primary was held in 1980.

( Here is a concept of Texas some might have—An oil rig in the middle of town.  I’ve never seen this in my nine years in Texas. Though I have seen oil rigs within the city limits of Houston.)

Texas was for many years part of the one-party “Solid South” that anchored Jim Crow segregation in America.

This system had multiple parts.

The two-thirds rule at the Democratic National Convention assured that the South would have a veto over any presidential candidate who threatened progress on Civil Rights. It took two-thirds of all delegates to ratify a nominee.  That rule is now gone.

On Election Day in November, the South, including Texas, would almost always vote for the Democratic nominee.  A Texas exception to this was in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover defeated Catholic Al Smith. (Some Texans  must have sat around the dinner table deciding if they disliked Catholics or black people the most.)

( Here is Al Smith with Babe Ruth. You can likely figure out who is Smith and who is Ruth. )

This Southern unity prevented the Democratic nominee from pushing Civil Rights during the campaign (If he had any inclination to do so to start with.) since he could not alienate such a large block of states.

In Congress, Southern Democratic Senators and Representatives, often reelected without opposition, built seniority and gained control of important committees. This also stopped any progress on Civil Rights.

Here is a link to a history of the “Whites Only” Democratic primary used in Texas for many years to determine nominees–and certain November winners in a one party state–for the great majority of Texas offices.

In the U.S. Senate, the filibuster rule allowed Southern Senators to block Civil Rights legislation.  This may all seem a bit off the topic of the Texas Primary, but it gets at the political climate in Texas for many years and how it was that the Progressive-era reform of the presidential primary did not reach Texas until 1980.

Today Texas, along with Hawaii, California and New Mexico, is a state where the majority of people are not white. That’s amazing when you think of the John Wayne/roughneck image of Texas.

Many of these non-white folks are immigrants.

(The Port of Houston is immense and it connects Houston and Texas to the world. Many immigrants come to Texas today and they are–for the most part so far–accepted.)

Most of these immigrants are accepted. Even undocumented immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere have not  been disturbed much as of yet. If this has to do with the role these immigrants play in the Texas economy, or the possible–mostly unrealized– political clout of Hispanic voters in Texas, I could not fully say.

Roughly one-third of Texans are Hispanic. Though many are not legally here. And of those that are here legally, many do not vote. Texas is just over 11% black. Almost 24 million people live in Texas. Here is a link to some basic facts about Texas.

(Below is the border between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. Hard to see any distinctions between people from this perspective.)

George W. Bush won Texas with 61% of the vote in 2004. Republicans are in firm control of Texas politically.

That first presidential primary in 1980 produced an interesting result. Ronald Reagan of California defeated George H. W. Bush of Houston, Texas by a 51%-47% margin. This was on May 3, 1980.

Mr. Reagan had mostly wrapped up the nomination by that point, but it still shows the strength conservative in the Texas Republican party against a strong home-state candidate.

On the other side, President Jimmy Carter beat Ted Kennedy 56%-23%. I think today the liberal would do somewhat better.

Texas was a Super Tuesday battleground for Democrats in 1988. Mike Dukakis rook first place with 33% against 25% for Jesse Jackson and 20% for Southerner Al Gore. This win helped confirm Mr. Dukakis as the front-runner, though it would take another round of primaries to make it more certain. (Please click here for a Texas Liberal history of Super Tuesday.)

Vice President Bush was an easy home state winner in 1988.

Though as an incumbent President, Mr Bush’s 69% against 24% for Pat Buchanan in 1992 was not so impressive.

The son, George W. Bush, beat John McCain 88% to 7% in 2000. Not a close call. Mr. McCain may do better this time.

In 2004, while Bush was unopposed among Republicans, John Kerry won two-thirds of the vote on his way to the nomination.

2008 promises to be the most interesting and most relevant Texas presidential primary yet held.

Texas Liberal is leading the way in political history blogging in 2008.

February 9, 2008 - Posted by | Campaign 2008, Elections, History, Houston, Immigration, Political History, Politics, Texas | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I’m a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I’m voting for Obama. I’ve waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
    She rode into power with her husband, and together they’ve acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater. She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, “Oh, but that’s how you get things done in Washington,” I literally cringe.
    I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; she cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope–and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.
    Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.

    Diane Wald

    Comment by whydidyoudoit | February 10, 2008

  2. Great comment—Thank you.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | February 10, 2008

  3. Thanks for the excellent satellite photo of El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, and for your observation on the situation here. If you look really carefully, you can see my house, just south of the southern tip of the Franklin Mountains.

    Comment by Jeff Sirkin | February 10, 2008

  4. Jeff—Thank you very much for this excellent comment.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | February 11, 2008

  5. Thanks, Neil. If you look even more carefully, beginning about a quarter of the way up from the bottom of the photo on the right, you can see the concrete channel that holds the once mighty Rio Grande, which once, believe it or not, was a river. It is now mostly a mud puddle, surrounded by barbed wire. We here in El Paso can thank the State of New Mexico, and, I assume, the Army Corps of Engineers, for that. (There is a dam on the river about two hours northwest of El Paso. In New Mexico, the Rio Grande is still a river. The last time I drove to Albuquerque, I realized that, in the distant past, if one had a canoe, she or he could paddle from Albuquerque to El Paso.

    You may also notice in the photo that Ciudad Juarez looks larger than El Paso. It is. According to the City of El Paso, El Paso (as of 2006) has a population of 624,365. Ciudad Juarez has a population of 1,563,973.

    El Paso is the fifth largest city in Texas, and the 23rd largest city in the U.S. Ciudad Juarez is the 5th largest city in Mexico.

    El Paso/Ciudad Juarez are in the high desert mountains of the Chihuahuan desert. They are at an elevation of 4000 feet.

    Comment by Jeff | February 11, 2008

  6. Hello,

    I will be voting for Hillary..Yes she voted for the war,
    and Obama voted against it,but then Obama later commented
    he “Supports our Troops” just like we Republicans and everyone else said all along..

    The reason I’m voting for Hillary is Obama’s immaturity
    really showed when he said he would attack Pakistan whether President Musharraf approves or not!

    He also quotes:

    Washingington Post
    Sunday, April 29, 2007;
    Page B07 Post by Robert Kagan

    “Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending.
    He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

    He wants the American military to “stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar,” and he believes that “the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face.” He wants to ensure that we continue to have “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.”

    Haven’t we had enough war yet??

    Also,why won’t he hold his hand over his chest when
    the Star Bangled Banner plays,yet downplays the Cuban terrorist flag flag in Houston! (Maybe he did too many drugs too care!)

    David F.

    Comment by David | February 15, 2008

  7. David—Much of what you say here is not true. I find it doubtful you are a Democrat at all with this phony stuff about drugs and that national anthem lie that is going around. The flag was one person in an office not thinking about what they were doing.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | February 15, 2008

  8. For the first time in history we have a real chance of having just what this country needs—a women for President. So why are women, particularly young women, voting against Clinton? Do they feel that their kind is incapable of doing the job? Years ago we started breaking up the good old boy network in Washington by electing females to Congress. This year it’s time to finish the job and send a female to the White House. Remember, the Kennedy endorsement was not pro Obama, it was anti Clinton. The perennial leader of Washington’s good old boy club is Kennedy and he can’t stand the idea of having a woman as President. Obama is right; it is time for a change. A gender change.

    Comment by Michael | February 17, 2008

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: