Is Texas really turning blue?

[lfromnj]

Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.

[lfromnj]

I've been saying for a while that Texas is going to become the next Florida: a Lean R swing state. It's not there yet, but I also don't think it's going to end up more Dem than the national average for a long time. But that said, even being a winnable swing state is a catastrophe for the GOP. They'll have to play defense on very expensive turf.

Florida has retiree reinforcements. Texas has moderate right california gop fleeing and then becoming democrats in austin

[lfromnj]

Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.

Virginia even in the 90s was no where near as Republican as Texas is now (or was before this year)


Also if Texas Flips to becoming what VA is the GOP will be a different party in 8-12 years as they would be locked out of the WH without it

I mean the GOP can still win florida
Also mn maine and a few other states

[lfromnj]

yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

[lfromnj]

yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

[lfromnj]

yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?

every party has adapted in the long term. Only atlas D hacks think that demos spell the end of the GOP.I can see it giving some trouble for maybe 12 years 16 max as I said but no party can control the presidency for longer than that as a recession happens atleast once every 20 years.

[lfromnj]

yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?

I think they'll learn they have to adapt, hopefully sooner rather than later. These are career politicians running the party, they're not going to just keep doing the same thing if they're losing year after year. They need jobs, too!

Texas -> the premier swing state for several elections in a row is far more likely than Texas -> Likely/Safe Dem overnight.  There's plenty of ground for the GOP to gain in South Texas and with rural Hispanic voters in general if/when they put the effort in.  Also, the GOP trend in Upstate NY is getting fierce.  I wouldn't discount some upsets there down the road. 

If you want to worry about a former GOP base state turning into consistent 5-10% Dem wins overnight like Virginia did, worry about Georgia. 

   

Georgia has bleeding black rural. Texas has no demographic trends to help the GOP besides the last demosaurs dying in East Texas

[lfromnj]

I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.

using the governor race as a bench line is like using the Ohio senate race to show that Ohio is still a swing state. Lupe Valdez was a god awful candidate who didn't even bother campaigning and no one paid attention to.

[lfromnj]

I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.

I am not going to say that is necessarily 100% wrong, but there are some nuances...

In the case of Georgia, in 2008 Democrats had more rural support than Democrats do in TX now. Over the course of the decade, rural whites in GA trended GOP, and that counter-trend against the trend of Metro Atlanta to the Dems has kept GA overall from trending Dem too much/too rapidly.

The situation in TX now, however, is very different in that respect. Republicans are already receiving very pretty close to 100% of the white vote across much of rural TX. There has been a trend of rural TX towards Rs over the past decade, and that has similarly slowed down the overall gradual shift of TX towards Dems that has been driven by the big cities. But at this point, it is pretty much impossible for that rural trend towards Rs to continue in TX, because you just mathematically cannot go above 100% support among a demographic, and Republicans are close to that with rural TX whites.

And this is not only in West TX, but throughout the entirety of rural TX as far as I can tell. Sabine County TX, along the Louisiana border, voted 87% for Cruz. That county is 86% White and 7% Black. Cruz didn't get that 87% by winning the non-white voters. Another example is Red River County, along the Oklahoma border and very near Arkansas too. Red River County voted 78% for Trump and is 73% White (17% Black). Again, Cruz did not do that by winning the Black voters there, but by winning close to 100% of the Whites (probably 90-95% or so). Another example - Robertson County in Central TX, just north of College Station. That voted 69% for Cruz and is 58% White and 21% black. Again, he didn't do that by winning the Black voters (or the Hispanics and other non-whites). And in the case of Robertson County, that is pretty much the most Demosaur part of rural TX that is left. But there is just no Demosaur left there any more. You can literally go through basically every rural TX County, and they will all be like this. You can just look at the demographics and see that in every single one of them, Republicans are basically maxed out - they have to be winning 90-95% of the White vote in these counties at this point. And many/most of these counties have rural white population loss - those that are gaining population are generally only gaining population because of Hispanic growth (with the White population declining).

In the case of Georgia's 2008 shift to the left, the dominant factor there was the incredible African American turnout that Obama was able to inspire. Whereas in the case of TX in 2018, while it is true that turnout was very high for a TX midterm, turnout was still low compared to other states. GA 2008 was a Presidential election, TX 2018 was a midterm.

You mentioned "hordes" of straight ticket Dem voters brought out by Beto in your other post. While there was some of that (particularly in some places, such as Hayes County due to the college student vote and the like), we should be very careful not to exaggerate how much that was the story. The large part of Beto's gains didn't come just from turnout, but from swinging suburban whites. Thus, whereas what was necessary to repeat GA 2008 was to have Presidential-Obama-level turnout and excitement, what is necessary to repeat TX 2018 is more a matter of swinging the suburban whites again. To be sure, suburban whites could swing back, and I would not be surprised if they do in particular when there is a Dem President again. But this is not all that likely at least in 2020 as long as Trump is still around and is still unpopular, and moreover this suburban trend is a long-running nationwide trend. In the case of TX it goes back at least to 2004-2008, so there is reason to think that the general trend will continue.

While I would agree that Dems will still face quite an uphill battle at least in midterm years going forward in TX, there is reason to hope (and reason to think) that turnout will be better in a Presidential year like 2020 than it was in 2018. Despite turnout by young voters and Hispanics being good for a midterm, it was still clearly lower than in 2016 (much less what might potentially be achievable in 2020 if Dems actually invest in TX).

So in the case of GA after 2008, Obama's performance was only replicable to the degree that African American turnout could be so high. That was certainly not achievable in 2010, because it was a midterm, and there was typical drop-off of young voters and black voters. Likewise in 2014. In 2012 and 2016, it was replicated a bit more because it was a Presidential year (albeit not with the same enthusiasm as 2008).

Whereas in TX, Beto only began to tap Texas' turnout potential in 2018. Beto's results are replicable not only by increasing turnout (which should be possible, particularly in Presidential years if there is actual investment in TX) but by riding the trend among suburban whites. And there is no counter-trend of rural Whites swinging to the GOP left to help the Republicans limit the damage.

yeah I don't think people realize how bad Texas can get for the GOP. Its a VERY urban state.The few rural parts are already maxed out for the GOP(sure they can probably get a percentage or two more but it barely makes a difference in the net result. The suburbs are growing at an insane rate with minorities flooding in and voting D and also registering at rapid rates. People say these cities are liberal anyway but how liberal makes a huge difference. Sure John Kerry won Travis county in 2004 but it was by 14 points. Now Beto won it by a massive FIFTY POINTS. Sure Obama won Dallas in 08 but it was a measly 16 points. Beto won it by 32 points. Mccain won Denton and Collin by 25 points.Sure won them but it was a weak 6-7 points.Hays going from +2 Mccain to +17 Beto. That will not do at all. And the Cherry on Top of course is winning Tarrant County. This was my bold prediction of the year(Beto loses the election which would be expected but wins Tarrant)https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/28/ted-cruz-beto-orourke-fight-over-conservative-tarrant-county-texas/
Reading that article shows you how republican Tarrant was considered. That GOP chair deserves some egg on their face for claiming Tarrant was Deep red with pockets of "pink"

 the Texas GOP has no serious counter trend in the rest of Texas that can counter the suburban D surge. In other states even in virginia or colorado the SW of VA or south colorado were historically D but now trending R fast atleast able to stall the double digit win in virginia.

In Texas this will not exist and the GOP must take care now and start moderating. Kicking out Muslims when they actively want to help and join you party will not help you at all . Trying to replace a regular GOP senator with Dan patrick does not work and neither does alienating Hispanics with anti immigrant rhetoric. The bush's took good care to build reputation with the hispanics. Sure they would still lose them but by maybe 15-20 instead of the 30 points and what may soon be 40 points.

[lfromnj]

Whether Texas goes blue at a statewide level doesn't really matter, a long as the Republicans control the state legislature. You could theoretically have a Democratic Governor and Lieutenant Governor elected, only for their powers to be stripped in a lame duck session, as you saw in other states. Or you could have Texas lean blue in the Electoral College, only for the state legislature to decide that Texas' EVs will be apportioned by congressional district, and then gerrymander those congressional districts. You could have 55% of Texas going for the Democrat for president, but the Republican win the EC because most EVs went to the Republican.

The only area where the statewide vote matters, thanks to the 17th Amendment, is the Senate, but there, Texas is no more significant than any other state.

The real question in Texas, like in so many other states, is whether the state legislature will go blue.

The Texas state house flips before statewide imo in 2020. Republicans  are self packed in rural areas more than dems are in cities.

[lfromnj]

Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

[lfromnj]

Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

I think Beto won an easy majority of state legislative districts. The gerrymander really backfired on the Republicans. That said, unless the Dems can break through in 2020, the Republicans probably just re-gerrymander in 2022 and it's all moot - though a 2022 gerrymander may not survive all the way until 2030 (and would by necessity be less aggressive than the 2012 gerrymander in any case).

I think people are really overestimating how easy TX will be to redraw for the GOP, even on the House end. A new TX GOP-drawn map is going to have to be very, very conservative with a focus on creating Dem sink districts. It's not just the state's changing partisan lean as it is where the obscenely quick population growth is happening: the same suburban counties that are trending Dem, along with the already Dem urban counties, are going to have a massive increase in number of seats allocated.

You have less faith in gerrymandering abilities. The Republicans managed to gerrymander themselves into control of the *New York* state Senate for most of the past decade (and before then), after all. On a state legislative level they can also rely on malapportionment (which I don't think they do now). The Supreme Court has allowed fairly significant variances in state legislative districts, even on a systematic level (again, witness the New York state Senate).

the NY state senate depended a lot on retail politics. Obama won like 50/60 senate seats and Clinton won like 40. It was very retail based.

[lfromnj]

wait does anyone have the highland park numbers in Dallas for
2012 pres, 2016 pres and 2018 senate.  I want to see these lifelong republicans voting for Beto because Drumpf.

[lfromnj]

I also read a medium post about a person who canvassed for Beto in the end.
The Texas dems had so little infrastructure and Texas was growing so fast the Minivan app had very inaccurate data. The GOTV operation Beto did should refresh the dems on that and they now have a much better list on who to target. In 2020 setting a GOTV operation is much easier. If Beto decides against running for president or senate he should pull a mark warner and run for leader of the TX dems.

[lfromnj]

wait does anyone have the highland park numbers in Dallas for
2012 pres, 2016 pres and 2018 senate.  I want to see these lifelong republicans voting for Beto because Drumpf.

Highland Park is 4 precincts.

2012:

Romney 4248 (79.4%)
Obama 1041 (19.5%)
Total 5350

Romney margin of 3207 votes (59.9%)


2018:

Cruz 3075 (64.6%)
Beto 1641 (34.5%)
Total 4757

Cruz margin of 1434 votes (30.1%).


So as compared to 2012, although Highland Park still voted 2 to 1 Republican, Beto cut the Republican margin in half, and got a 30% swing. So 2 to 1 Republican is quite a bit better than 4 to 1 Republican.

and afaik these people aren't really moving out in vast numbers and there isn't a large amount of growth in the area. It is also very white so that suggests hundreds of rich republicans switching to the dem party because of Trump. The turnout here is very high due to the wealth and affluence of the area so there isn't an incredible turnout difference(although it seems like some rich RINO's want tax cuts but hate Trump so they didn't vote at all or it could be the normal midterm loss..Losing these donors are devastating for the DFW GOP. Without a large gap in Highland Park Marchant can't fundraise for 2020.

[lfromnj]

Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

Has anyone figured out if O’Rourke won a majority of state House seats? It looks like he did, but it’s a close call just from eye-balling it

Im gonna assume every currrent district held by D's is a Beto district. Not a bold assumption
THats 67 seats

Lets look at the remaining where the GOP won by 5 or less.

The 26th  was a 5 point win for the GOP incumbent
66 and 67th was a bare win
92 and 96
108
112
134 was a 6 point win but it 100% voted for Beto as its a clinton +15 district
138

Anyway those 9 all probably voted for Beto so yeah RIP Texas GOP gerrymander. There might be more.