Democrats should really be thinking about Texas

[ElectionsGuy]

Dallas Fort Worth Metro (Dallas + Tarrant + Denton + Collin)

Clinton: 996,683
Trump: 977,118

Houston Metro (Harris + Fort Bend + Montgomery + Brazoria + Galveston)

Clinton: 975,268
Trump: 958,579

Clinton won both of these major areas for the first time a Democrat has done so since 1964. As we know, Texas has some of the worst turnout in the entire nation. If this trend keeps up, and Democrats push for turnout here, they can start to turn the state purple (not exaggeration or anything)

[Pericles]

Trump still won Texas by over 9 points. The Democrats would be better off trying to win back the Upper Midwest and close states like Florida, as well as perhaps targeting Arizona. Texas is more of an outside target, and the map is usually more volatile in open elections with no incumbent. I'd say 2024 or 2028 is when Texas could be a swing state, not 2020.

[ElectionsGuy]

Trump still won Texas by over 9 points. The Democrats would be better off trying to win back the Upper Midwest and close states like Florida, as well as perhaps targeting Arizona. Texas is more of an outside target, and the map is usually more volatile in open elections with no incumbent. I'd say 2024 or 2028 is when Texas could be a swing state, not 2020.

I agree and don't think Texas is winnable for Democrats in 2020. But if I was a strategist I would wait to see how 2020 turns out, see if the upper Midwest is still in shambles for Democrats and if the Democratic trends in the metropolitan areas of the sunbelt keeps up. If so, go hard on Texas, Georgia, and Arizona. By 2024, that'll be nearly 70 new electoral votes.

[The_Doctor]

Texas is trending blue. The 18-29 voted Kerry 54-45%. Clinton won them 58-32% and 51-41% (they're split up into 2 different groups, 18-24, 25-29). 30-39 were split 46-46.

When the older Texas GOP electorate dies off (give it 8 years), Texas will be for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2024-2028.

[Orser67]

Yeah, as unhappy as I am about the results of this election, Democrats saw some good trends in AZ, GA, and TX (and VA and CO). It's easy to focus on the former two but TX is such a large prize that I hope the DNC at least makes some long-term investments there.

[RINO Tom]

Democrats' strategy of picking off suburbanites to gain electoral success flopped massively this election.  I think, while there are a lot who still push this, anyone who thinks they'll keep trying this is delusional.

I invite them to target Texas.

[The_Doctor]

Democrats' strategy of picking off suburbanites to gain electoral success flopped massively this election.  I think, while there are a lot who still push this, anyone who thinks they'll keep trying this is delusional.

I invite them to target Texas.

So, since they failed in one election, they should give up. Makes perfect sense.

[Mr. Smith]

Democrats' strategy of picking off suburbanites to gain electoral success flopped massively this election.  I think, while there are a lot who still push this, anyone who thinks they'll keep trying this is delusional.

I invite them to target Texas.

1988: Oh whoops, looks like Dukakis failed California, Illinois, Michigan Colorado, Maryland, and Pennsylvania after so many attempts to woo over suburbanites not-so-enarmored by Dan Quayle...clearly those states are out if they couldn't do it this year!

[MT Treasurer]

Of course they should (and they probably have to, considering their disadvantage in the Electoral College). It might take a time, but the map isn't going the same forever.

[Figueira]

The main risk here is that gaining Texas in exchange for a bunch of smaller states would result in the Democrats digging their graves deeper in the Senate, unless we can depolarize people again.

[Cashew]

The main risk here is that gaining Texas in exchange for a bunch of smaller states would result in the Democrats digging their graves deeper in the Senate, unless we can depolarize people again.

Yeah, it would be a terrible position to be in if Democrats became the party of California, Texas, New York, and Florida, while losing the midwest, and even New England.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

problem is texas republicans are gonna be even more vicious about suppressing voters

[Figueira]

The main risk here is that gaining Texas in exchange for a bunch of smaller states would result in the Democrats digging their graves deeper in the Senate, unless we can depolarize people again.

Yeah, it would be a terrible position to be in if Democrats became the party of California, Texas, New York, and Florida, while losing the midwest, and even New England.

I don't think we'll lose Vermont or Massachusetts any time soon, but yeah, this map (which according to current EV totals is a 276-262 Democratic win and will probably get bigger in the future) being a normal electoral map would be disastrous for Democrats in the Senate:

[Young Conservative]

Democrats' strategy of picking off suburbanites to gain electoral success flopped massively this election.  I think, while there are a lot who still push this, anyone who thinks they'll keep trying this is delusional.

I invite them to target Texas.

They're strategy to target surbanites will fail because of their support for Rep. Keith Ellison for DNC chair....the democrats are quickly becoming more radical than thought possible.

[The_Doctor]

Democrats' strategy of picking off suburbanites to gain electoral success flopped massively this election.  I think, while there are a lot who still push this, anyone who thinks they'll keep trying this is delusional.

I invite them to target Texas.

They're strategy to target surbanites will fail because of their support for Rep. Keith Ellison for DNC chair....the democrats are quickly becoming more radical than thought possible.

You're conflating support for Ellison as part of a larger trend. Ellison is a moment in time, not the Democratic Party's final destination point.

[Figueira]

The main risk here is that gaining Texas in exchange for a bunch of smaller states would result in the Democrats digging their graves deeper in the Senate, unless we can depolarize people again.

Yeah, it would be a terrible position to be in if Democrats became the party of California, Texas, New York, and Florida, while losing the midwest, and even New England.

Democrats won't lose New England (at least not most of it) unless Republicans radically alter their platform on issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control...  which isn't going to happen.  Also, New England is not as lily white as people think.  For instance, Connecticut is getting very diverse for New York transplants. 

Even keeping New England, losing the Midwest would be a Senate disaster. Unless we gain a bunch of small Western states for some reason.

[Figueira]

The main risk here is that gaining Texas in exchange for a bunch of smaller states would result in the Democrats digging their graves deeper in the Senate, unless we can depolarize people again.

Yeah, it would be a terrible position to be in if Democrats became the party of California, Texas, New York, and Florida, while losing the midwest, and even New England.

Democrats won't lose New England (at least not most of it) unless Republicans radically alter their platform on issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control...  which isn't going to happen.  Also, New England is not as lily white as people think.  For instance, Connecticut is getting very diverse for New York transplants. 

Even keeping New England, losing the Midwest would be a Senate disaster. Unless we gain a bunch of small Western states for some reason.

The Mountain West is the medium/long term answer, I think.  I could see the Mormon establishment defecting to the Dems in a Trump 2nd term.

Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, and Nebraska would be very tough to win.

[Young Conservative]

Trump still won Texas by over 9 points. The Democrats would be better off trying to win back the Upper Midwest and close states like Florida, as well as perhaps targeting Arizona. Texas is more of an outside target, and the map is usually more volatile in open elections with no incumbent. I'd say 2024 or 2028 is when Texas could be a swing state, not 2020.

People told Hillary to focus on Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina...

Georgia and Arizona were closer than Ohio/Iowa and North Carolina was barely better for her.

Trends are happening quicker than people think... that's why Trump won 3 upper midwest states unexpectedly.

North Carolina wasn't better at all if she ends up winning by 2 points nationally.
2012: National +3.8D
NC: +2 R
2016:
National +2R
NC+ ~3.8 R
It's literally a total flip, but the exact same PVI.

[Cashew]

 

1) Hold West - CA, WA, HI, OR, NM, CO, NV = 14 senators
2) Hold most of New England - CT, MA, RI, VT, ME = 10 senators
3) Hold Mid-Atlantic - NY, DE, MD, NJ, VA = 10 senators
4) Illinois - 2 senators
5) Gain states - AZ, GA, NC = 6 senators

Have you seen the hemorrhaging Democrats had in rural Maine? You need to take the threat in New England seriously.