Is Texas really turning blue?

[Adam Griffin]

I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.

[Adam Griffin]

using the governor race as a bench line is like using the Ohio senate race to show that Ohio is still a swing state. Lupe Valdez was a god awful candidate who didn't even bother campaigning and no one paid attention to.

Except that OH has went from blue/purple to red and continues to elect all Rs save for 1 due to his popularity, and TX has went from red to lighter red and continues to elect all Rs. Meaningfully, there's been no change in TX where it counts in these statewide races.

It's not necessarily using any race in particular (though that was the most egregious example); you can't be a swing state or purple state unless you've actually "swung" lol (which TX hasn't yet).

Governor's races don't match up much with national politics.   It wasn't just Cruz and Beto, but the Democrats also only lost the House vote by about 3% too.  

I'd say it's a case of a reasonably popular governor being able to to distance himself from the national environment, and seeing the state trend toward Democrats again otherwise.

This seems to have become a very popular talking point on the forum this cycle, which is surprising, given that there's more correlation between the 2 now than at any point in modern history. Obviously there are states that can simultaneously tilt in both directions depending on the type of office and specific candidate, but when non-toxic candidates of a party that has been winning unilaterally for decades in a state can still pull hefty double-digit leads despite hordes of literal straight-ticket first-time voters being brought out, then it's premature to say that a state is becoming "blue" (or even purple). Jim Martin lost by the same amount that Beto did in GA 10 years ago and the state still hasn't went Democratic in a statewide contest.

There's a very good chance these margins collapse in the next election when candidates who aren't Beto can't turn out all of these immensely low-propensity voters and the straight-ticket voting option is removed from the ballot.

[Adam Griffin]

...

My point was never to say GA & TX are exactly identical in terms of their performances in those years. They are, however, similar in terms of the climate and factors that pushed the shift. You are right about rural TX: it has very little room for the GOP to grow, and really hasn't changed much since 2012 (Romney won it by 46, while Cruz won it by 49; insignificant given that 6 out 7 TX voters live in metro areas). It hasn't been what's truly holding Democrats back. This was the first election in a long time where any statewide candidate won the non-rural part of the state, and while it's the overwhelming share of the state, O'Rourke only carried it by 4-5 points (compared to Romney's 10 and *presumably* Abbott's 5-7).

TX was able to make so much progress really because of 4 factors:

• A charismatic candidate capable of mobilizing hundreds of thousands of low-propensity voters
• A favorable climate that helped mitigate any midterm turnout disadvantages Dems usually face
• A climate that specifically was very favorable in suburban areas (with arguably no state better-suited to benefit from that in terms of swing than TX)
• Straight-ticket voting option (not so much an advantage in recent elections as the absence of it will be a disadvantage in future elections)

If you can recreate these four dynamics in every election going forward - coupled with the standard demographic shifts - can TX flip soon? Sure. It could flip as early as 2020. And Georgia could have flipped as soon as 2010 had everything continued lining up for us here as well. However, that's not a realistic expectation in my view, irrespective of any rural dynamics at play. Beto was a once in a generation candidate for the state, and the straight-ticket option - while not necessarily bolstering candidates for President, Governor, Senate, etc - will definitely hurt downballot candidates' chances due to the fact that Latinos disproportionately drop off the ballot after top-ticket contests. Even if you can counteract these two problems, Democrats aren't going to have favorable election cycles forever (and I do think there is a very hard ceiling on potential suburban gains in the South, with not that much more room to grow outside of demographic shifts).