Yes. I've posted this elsewhere, but purple Texas would have a monumental (cataclysmic?) impact on national politics.
It would be the most dominant/largest swing state in history, probably — only New York from 1868–1908 comes close. For a sample of what could be to come, during those 40 years, Democrats nominated five New Yorkers, one sort-of New Yorker (Winfield S. Hancock), and Williams Jennings Bryan (thrice). That's it. Republicans would be in a similar boat, where Texas would
necessarily be the focus of their winning coalition. It's possible though unlikely that Democrats could also face the same problem, if a few Rust Belt states flip.
If Texas turns into a competitive state, get ready for crazy things like Lizzie Fletcher vs Dan Crenshaw 2044 and a ton of downstream implications for the national conversation and culture. Suddenly we're going to care a lot about grazing regulations and who orders what at Whataburger.
We're already getting a taste of this in the Cástro and especially O'Rourke campaigns, where the main appeal is nominating someone who can campaign in TX.
The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)
Better context: the last time a candidate won without carrying at least two of the four largest states was 1916. Wilson actually lost the three largest states to Hughes: New York (45), Pennsylvania (38), Illinois (29). He carried the fourth – Ohio – and it won him the election.
Harry Truman also came extremely close to doing this in 1948. He lost New York and Pennsylvania but carried Illinois by 33,612 votes and Ohio by just 7,107. He could have lost either state and won the election, but not both.
Richard Nixon also might qualify in 1968 if going by raw population rather than electoral votes. He lost New York (43), Pennsylvania (29), and Texas (25). He carried California (40), Illinois (26), and Ohio (26). By 1972 under the new census, Texas had passed Ohio (25) and tied Illinois with 26 EVs.
Without getting into actual detailed percentages, it seems like it's possible to win with a candidate who loses the largest states, but it takes a unique appeal to conservative rural voters as in Truman and Wilson or a strong third party candidate as in 1968. Given geographical and cultural changes since these elections, I'm not sure it's actually possible anymore, but it's clear that it's not the preferred way to run a campaign.
