When will Texas go Democratic?

[Senator Spark]

It has a high Hispanic population and major cities including San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston which are Democratic while turnout in the rural areas is overwhelming since it is such a large state. Explain.

[Xing]

It would either take a massive GOTV effort for Latinos, or a Democratic landslide. Even then, Eastern Texas is very "Southern", and a lot like the solidly Republican states to its east. It's unlikely to happen any time soon, probably not until at least 2028 or so.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I'd call it an 'if' not a 'when.'

Why are we assuming that the Latino community will grow indefinitely into the future? Why are we not admitting the possibility that many Latinos will homogenize into whiteness in a generation or so? Why do we assume that Latinos, even if they do not assimilate, will reliably vote Dem in the future? 

I'm generally skeptical of the Demographic Wave, there are just too many factors that go into the interaction of race, ethnicity, and ideology to firmly predict anything like a Blue Texas, Blue Arizona etc.

[NHI]

I'd call it an 'if' not a 'when.'

Why are we assuming that the Latino community will grow indefinitely into the future? Why are we not admitting the possibility that many Latinos will homogenize into whiteness in a generation or so? Why do we assume that Latinos, even if they do not assimilate, will reliably vote Dem in the future? 

I'm generally skeptical of the Demographic Wave, there are just too many factors that go into the interaction of race, ethnicity, and ideology to firmly predict anything like a Blue Texas, Blue Arizona etc.

[Ljube]

Probably never, or in case of a major realignment.

[Mr. Smith]

When someone like '08 Barack Obama but white goes up against Donald Trump, because that's the only thing that will end the polarization for even a moment.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It used to be that the Old South was Democratic and the Sunbelt cities and suburbs were Republican.  These both have switched directions, but while the Old South is now as Republican as it can get, the Sunbelt (DFW, Houston, SA, Austin - along with places like Atlanta, Phoenix, and Las Vegas) is still trending Democratic.  This, plus demographic changes, should bring TX from a +19R state down to something like a +8R.  At that point it will flip the next time there is a substantial Democratic victory.

[evergreenarbor]

Texas might become competitive sometime in the 2020s, but I think it will be like Pennsylvania: always listed as a battleground, but always ends up voting for the same party. I don't think a Democrat will win Texas anytime soon outside of a huge landslide.

[DS0816]

If Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. Popular Vote by +13 to +15, it could happen this year.

The partisan voting index has been of similar advantage for the Democrats with California as it has been with the Republicans with Texas. But, I don’t think the +19 is really required nationwide. The Ds have about a 2.5 million raw advantage in California. The Rs have a 1.5 million raw advantage in Texas.

Every 400-vote Electoral College landslide since 1928 has seen both states carried. Herbert Hoover (1928), Franklin Roosevelt (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944), Dwight Eisenhower (1952, 1956), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Richard Nixon (1972), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), and George Bush (1988) all carried both California and Texas.

Hillary Clinton can, if she’s winning the U.S. Popular Vote by over +10, win 400 electoral votes. But it is likely that, if she gets there, she will have also won Texas.

HILLARY @ 400+
• Begin: 2012 Obama Re-Election Map — 332
• Tier 1 (Pickups): North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona — 374
• Tier 2 (Pickups): Missouri, Indiana, Nebraska #02 — 396
• Tier 3 (Pickup): Montana — 399
• Reaching 400 (Electoral College Blowout): South Carolina, Texas, Nebraska #01, possibly more (like with Utah) — 450+

[White Trash]

I'd call it an 'if' not a 'when.'

Why are we assuming that the Latino community will grow indefinitely into the future? Why are we not admitting the possibility that many Latinos will homogenize into whiteness in a generation or so? Why do we assume that Latinos, even if they do not assimilate, will reliably vote Dem in the future? 

I'm generally skeptical of the Demographic Wave, there are just too many factors that go into the interaction of race, ethnicity, and ideology to firmly predict anything like a Blue Texas, Blue Arizona etc.

[Sir Mohamed]

I don’t see it in the next two decades. The only way for a Democratic candidate to carry TX is with a plurality: The GOP nominee and a strong third-party/independent conservative candidate who split the conservative vote. But even in 1992/96 it was not enough to flip the lone-star state.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

The problem with Democrats increasing Hispanic turnout is the fact Hispaincs only go about 58-42 Democrat, so higher turnout won't do much good.

[ElectionsGuy]

When white people in the suburbs aren't voting >70% Republican. Also when Dems increase turnout among Hispanics (if it ever happens) and keep the voting at 65-70% Democratic. The age gap for demographics should be helpful towards them but its going to take a long time for the old whites to die off.

[DS0816]

The problem with Democrats increasing Hispanic turnout is the fact Hispaincs only go about 58-42 Democrat, so higher turnout won't do much good.

Part of the reason is that the Democrats haven’t contested the state.

There has to be a presence.

It is like this for the Republicans in California.

Too much of the post-1980s approach to electoral politics, for the presidency, has been, “These 20 states vote Republican. These 20 states vote Democratic. These 10 states will decide the race.” It has lead to both parties abandoning pursuing the map to their actual potential. And it is no wonder we haven’t seen more than 32 states get carried in any presidential election after the 1980s. (Historical average is 34. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama averaged 29 carried states.)

[Virginiá]

Part of the reason is that the Democrats haven’t contested the state.

There has to be a presence.

It is like this for the Republicans in California.

Too much of the post-1980s approach to electoral politics, for the presidency, has been, “These 20 states vote Republican. These 20 states vote Democratic. These 10 states will decide the race.” It has lead to both parties abandoning pursuing the map to their actual potential. And it is no wonder we haven’t seen more than 32 states get carried in any presidential election after the 1980s. (Historical average is 34. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama averaged 29 carried states.)

You are right that Democrats need to contest it to even begin to have a chance and improve their standing in other state offices, but the narrow focus of campaigns right now is not really the reason the map has been relatively inelastic. There are lots of states on each side that the opposition would have little chance in, even with significant investments. They may cut the margins and win some more downballot races, but a lot of the time the votes just aren't there. American politics being at or near peak polarization really gives the parties less options.

Anyway, I do hope Democrats begin investing heavily in Texas for other reasons. Given the current and future demographic prospects in Texas, it would seem wise to begin as soon as possible, so as to beef up their standing in the House delegation and legislature.