In the short term, I think Republicans will adapt in any and all ways to keep Texas. It's too big and too valuable. What that means ideologically is debatable, but I don't think they will simply allow it to slip away ala Virginia. With that said, I think our two party system is here to stay, and if the GOP lost Texas, it'd be forced to make gains in other, equally populous areas of the country to stay alive, so it could be interesting.
Would they, though? This behavior suggests some sort of conscious, well-planned and well-executed strategy, and it also assumes they know what they need to do to actually keep Texas, which isn't guaranteed. They could try and just as easily fail.
Given what we're seeing with Republicans and their infighting, and the establishment's inability to control their party, it is hardly guaranteed that they can make the changes necessary. Those changes might necessitate eating a lot of electoral losses over a short/medium-term time span, all while leagues of voices within try to push them in different directions. I mean, right now, they can't perform the basics tasks of governing even when they have unified control.
Personally, I'm not really sold that parties can control their ultimate fates, only guide it on the margins. Even if they know what to do, it isn't assured they can do it.
A party being governed from a convention hall or a backeook might have been possible in the pre-1972 days, but outside of external trends or internal movements, parties are at the mercy of the potentially schizophrenic of both their voters and their officeholders.
Poll
