More likely to go blue in 2020: Texas or IN/MO?

[RINO Tom]

Assuming Trump runs for reelection, Texas ... but neither will be close.

[RINO Tom]

None. Dems, as I've said over and over again, are not going to spend the money it takes to campaign seriously in Texas when they could spend that money in 5-6 other states instead.

They've got a good chance to make Cruz's seat pretty competetive, coupled with rising Democratic enthusiasm they have a chance to make some inroads in the state. They should go for it this time.

True.

People also don't realize that Trump isn't super popular in Texas overall.

I think people realize that ... they just also realize that a significant segment of Trump's unpopularity comes from Republican and Republican-leaning voters.

[RINO Tom]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

Not sure about Indiana ... Obama had a lot of "neighboring state appeal," and Indiana isn't that populist.  The bulk of its Republican votes come from the Indianapolis suburbs (and Indy itself).  The state GOP is very pro-business.  However, I think Clinton could have also won Arkansas and West Virginia, personally.

[RINO Tom]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

Not sure about Indiana ... Obama had a lot of "neighboring state appeal," and Indiana isn't that populist.  The bulk of its Republican votes come from the Indianapolis suburbs (and Indy itself).  The state GOP is very pro-business.  However, I think Clinton could have also won Arkansas and West Virginia, personally.

In a >5 point win (particularly in a >10 point win) for either side, some states that flip will just be flukes.  Indiana in 2008 was like MT in 1992 or AZ in 1996.  It didn't really mean anything about the party coalitions going forward.

While 2008 was simply an automatic Dem win after the financial crisis, I think it's clear now that Hillary would have had an equal or lower margin of victory compared to Obama.

But that could have come in the form of winning WV and MO and losing VA, IN and CO, for example.

[RINO Tom]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

Not sure about Indiana ... Obama had a lot of "neighboring state appeal," and Indiana isn't that populist.  The bulk of its Republican votes come from the Indianapolis suburbs (and Indy itself).  The state GOP is very pro-business.  However, I think Clinton could have also won Arkansas and West Virginia, personally.

In a >5 point win (particularly in a >10 point win) for either side, some states that flip will just be flukes.  Indiana in 2008 was like MT in 1992 or AZ in 1996.  It didn't really mean anything about the party coalitions going forward.

While 2008 was simply an automatic Dem win after the financial crisis, I think it's clear now that Hillary would have had an equal or lower margin of victory compared to Obama.

But that could have come in the form of winning WV and MO and losing VA, IN and CO, for example.

Colorado and Virginia aren't the best counterexamples. Clinton probably would've won those too. Look how Democrats crushed it there. I think the obvious tradeoffs are NC and IN fact r MO and WV/AR

I just had a faint memory of polls showing McCain beating her in those states but losing in AR and WV.