1990s CA GOP: "We just doomed ourselves to be a minority party for generations."
2010s TX GOP: "Hold my beer."
More of national gop because if they lose Texas they will be in the wilderness at the national level similar to the 1980s Dems and then the map will realign after 8-12 years in the wilderness .
A party just cannot win a Presidential election without winning one of CA , TX or NY
Don't forget the third largest state, Florida, assuming they don't make the same stupid mistakes there.
Florida is a bit different in terms of trajectory in that it gets a constant resupply of Republicans as a retirement mecca for rich white Republicans and this, plus a more stable political culture that is use to being in a razor thin competition with the Democrats and you have a state that is likely to remain rather close. Granted Republicans have their own problems in the state long term but it might be easy to balance the base that is use to having to compete with Democrats with winning the general far better than TX where it was all about being as conservative as possible to win the primary and then the general was a given for the GOP.
Florida Republicans would also be more likely to discuss environment and climate issues there because there is hardly no energy sector, tourism is important, the land is very low and Hurricanes are a frequent threat. This gives them a big advantage compared to the TX GOP, which is heavily tied to oil interests.
Even with FL , without TX this is how the map would look like even if the Midwest and NH and ME go Republican
They only get to 257 EV and these numbers will only get worse in the 2020s . Without Texas the National GOP will become the National Dems of the 1980s (and Dems in general only thing was they had literal conservatives save them at the House level).
Republicans need Trump to lose in 2020 and with the Dem getting 300 EV or more and having the senate be around 50-50 for the Dems (Manchin puts a halt on the leftist agenda ). Do that and Trumpism will be fully rejected
