Since when does "population growth in suburbs" equate to a strong Democratic trend, especially in a state like IDAHO? Both states are Safe R, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon, barring some weird migration patterns.
After 2006 and 2008, many people predicted that Montana would become the next Colorado/Oregon/Vermont/etc. How did that turn out again?
Texas will become the next California.
Explain how , Texas is way more rural then California
Huh???
Sources....
I pulled some numbers, albeit a bit fast, based upon 2016 census data, trying to err in the favor of Texas, and it looks like roughly 14.4% of the Population lives in defined "Rural Areas" versus 13.5% in California.
Not sure if you have ever visited, spent much time, or lived in Texas (Which I did for four years very recently), but almost 80% of the Population is concentrated in a relatively small number of large and sprawling Metro Areas.
Not sure where you are going with the argument....
The suburbs of DFW, Houston, Austin, SA, and turnout levels in the cities of those Metro areas, are all key factors, rather than the "rural Texas" malarkey you appear to be proposing....
Although certainly if one drives all the way across Texas, it certainly looks that way, but even then it would be the equivalent of taking I-5 starting at Bakersfield and driving to the Oregon border, and most of the state appears to be rural....
