Texas Trends

[illegaloperation]

It will get more Democratic.

The reason Texas is firmly in Republican hand is that Hispanics have very very low turnout in Texas.

Democrats (at least in Texas) have foolishly waited, believing that demographic changes will put them back in power.

Now the Democrats have launched a full-time organization with the goal of turning Texas into a battleground state by doing voter registration drive.

Here is how it will happen. In 2018, the underdog Democratic nominee running for statewide office put up a really strong fight. He ultimately lost, but only by ~2%.

The Democratic base is energized and finally push Democrats to win statewide. Meanwhile, the presidential campaign caught political wind of change and Texas becomes prime battleground state.

[illegaloperation]

Hispanic do vote more Republican in Texas than in other states, so it might not be as competitive as demographics show.

In 2020s, in the presidential election Texas will be winnable for Democrat, but only if he or she is well into the 300+ EVs.

At the state level, statewide races will be very competitive for Democrats.

It will probably be a big Montana with Brian Schweitzer-equivalents running for governor, senators, and other statewide offices.

[illegaloperation]

It will get more Democratic.

The reason Texas is firmly in Republican hand is that Hispanics have very very low turnout in Texas.

Democrats (at least in Texas) have foolishly waited, believing that demographic changes will put them back in power.

Now the Democrats have launched a full-time organization with the goal of turning Texas into a battleground state by doing voter registration drive.

Here is how it will happen. In 2018, the underdog Democratic nominee running for statewide office put up a really strong fight. He ultimately lost, but only by ~2%.

The Democratic base is energized and finally push Democrats to win statewide. Meanwhile, the presidential campaign caught political wind of change and Texas becomes prime battleground state.

This is probably what will happen, but probably not until the 2020s. TX Hispanic are both more Republican and less likely to vote than Hispanics elsewhere. The only way it will happen earlier is if the Republicans have a particularly brutal primary for a statewide office in 2014, 2016, or 2018, leaving them with an extreme, unpopular nominee with a bunch of far right positions who then Akins himself, leading to a Democratic victory. The other possibility is that Ted Cruz runs for reelection in 2018 and loses (he's basically what Glenn Beck would be if he were a U.S. Senator, so I wouldn't completely rule it out), though more likely Cruz's defeat in 2024 will be the moment that signifies Texas's transition from a deep red state to a purple state.

The reason I specifically single out 2018 is because of the assumption that Cruz will be running for reelection. He wins reelection, but the election is closer than anyone expects.

Also, I doubt that Texas will be winnable for the Democrats at the presidential level in 2020. Rather, a popular Democratic presidential incumbent decides to turn Texas into a battleground state. She loses the state, but provides just enough coattail for Democrat running for statewide office to win.

[illegaloperation]

Either Hispanic's votes get suppressed or they are reclassified as whites like the Irish and Italians before them. Either way, the Republican party should do fine.

They'll be good for another decade at least, no concerns really. States don't change overnight. I would think the fastest growing state moving in the D direction is Virginia which is definitely a concern. Texas actually moved to the right in 2012 from 2008 and has no signs of voting for democrats so it's not like we need to worry about it right now.

It's already there.

Arizona and Georgia are moving. While Associated Press raised my suspicion with its b.s. decision to poll only 31 states for last year's presidential election, left off the list was Georgia. In 2008, Barack Obama won the female vote in the state with 54 percent. Since Mitt Romney shifted the state by a couple points, maybe Obama won Ga. females again in 2012. In 2008 Arizona, there was no gender gap, where Obama received 45 percent support from both males and females. In 2012, with Romney barely having shifted the state, the president won over the female vote with 51 percent.

As for Texas, its R+15.78 [2012] statewide margin for Mitt Romney was comparable to John McCain's R+11.76 [2008]. The state lately is about 19 or 20 points more Republican, relative to the national outcome. What the Democrats would have to do is actually show up in the state, long before a general election, and rebuild. Part of what that would do is give the party a presence, yes, but it may reduce the obstacles in place that doesn't require a presidential winner, from Team Blue, to have to take the national margin by that many percentage points to win over Texas.

Georgia hasn't been competed in since the 90's. I wouldn't count on it moving simply because a large number of African Americans voted for Obama in the last two elections.

None sense. What if Obama in 2008 said that North Carolina hasn't been competed in a long time so he won't compete in in?

As for Texas, Clinton should compete in in even if she has no chance of winning it. That way, we can see how close or far the state really is.

[illegaloperation]

A long and interesting article on Texas' political future in the Texas Monthly called "The Life and Death (and Life?) of the Party": http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/life-and-death-and-life-party

Very interesting, especially the parts about voter registration and the electorate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hard to see how Democrats win anytime soon with numbers like that considering Texas whites are about 71-74% Republican. Texas is 44.5% non-Hispanic white in 2012 yet the electorate is about 20 points above that mainly because of proportionally lower voter registration rates among minorities. Too bad that online voter registration bill in the state failed earlier this year. Or even further: imagine Texas with same-day registration or automatic voter registration...

But the expected 65% white electorate is for the midterm only, when the already very low Hispanic and youth votes drop even lower. In 2012, only 59% of the electorate was white. My prediction is that the 2016 electorate will be no more than 55% or 56% white, even lower than that if Hillary generates massive enthusiasm among latinos (as she's likely to do) and Battleground Texas succeeds with their massive voting registration (and voter education) efforts the next 4 years.

That's true, I was thinking of most of the statewide races that are up in mid-terms. Presidential numbers are different but even then that's a big gap to cover. I am betting on Texas swinging to Democrats in 2016 but I don't think it will be enough for a win in 2016. Say Hillary does well with Texas whites and gets 30% with them being 55% of the electorate, she'd have to win the remaining 45% non-white vote by about 75-25 to hit 50% total.

That's an optimistic scenario for Democrats too as we don't know how much things like Texas' upcoming voter ID requirement will affect the electorate.

Yes they might prevent people from voting multiple times and deter illegal immigrants.

While you are at it, get rid of absentee ballots too. Those are the leading cause of voter frauds.

Oh, Republicans like to use those. Never mind.