Under what conditions should the Dem. Nominee invest seriously in Texas?

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

So! In celebration of me moving to Dallas (and officially adopting a Red Texas avatar!) I've decided to ask the question, should the Democratic nominee seriously contest Texas and if so, under what conditions?

Obviously Democrats should continue to invest in Texas locally after the huge gains in 2018, and I'm personally more invested in this than ever. But should the Democratic nominee invest in an operation or spend any real time in Texas?

[Big Abraham]

No. The Democrats holding their own and putting Wisc., Mich., and Pa. in their column is all that is necessary, and it will be much easier to flip states that usually vote Democratic in presidential elections and which Trump won by less than a point, than it will be to flip a state that Trump won by eight points, and even then only barely securing victory. No Democrat who is serious about winning should be talking about "expanding the map" beyond the Rust Belt.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

No. The Democrats holding their own and putting Wisc., Mich., and Pa. in their column is all that is necessary, and it will be much easier to flip states that usually vote Democratic in presidential elections and which Trump won by less than a point, than it will be to flip a state that Trump won by eight points, and even then only barely securing victory. No Democrat who is serious about winning should be talking about "expanding the map" beyond the Rust Belt.

Well I feel like they should absolutely be talking about it, if not necessarily structuring their campaign around that talk.

[TML]

Remember that back in 2008, Obama and Biden each visited TX once during the general election season after the primaries. That year, Democrats won the NPV by 7 points while losing TX by 12 points.

At this point, I think Democrats should invest seriously in TX only if they are on track to winning the NPV by 10+ points.

[Illini Moderate]

Democrats should only be investing in Texas at the local level in 2020. The main priority should be securing a firewall of states to prevent a Trump Victory. A tiered system could look like this

1.)
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Maine
Nevada

2.)
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

3.)
Iowa
Arizona
Georgia
Florida
North Carolina

4.)
Ohio

5.)
Texas


Tier 1 states need to be defended and reinforced. Democrats cannot take these 2016 wins for granted.

Tier 2 are states that were won back in the 2018 midterms that should receive aggressive state by state campaigns.

Tier 3 should also be focused on immensely. These are states within reach that Democrats can tailor their message to win back after securing the 3 big rust belt states

Tiers 4 and 5 should only be pursued in the event of a likely landslide. A few campaign stops here and there in Ohio are still necessary however to keep the GOP competing there. Minimal campaigning in Texas COULD be justified if the nominee is Beto and/or it could be found to help vulnerable house incumbents that gained their seat in 2018. 

The main point is that Tiers 1 and 2 need to be secured at all costs, and held at a higher priority than any other states.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

If Beto is the nominee, it's plausible that Texas votes left of the nation.

[Sirius_]

They should do something, there is no reason not to as long as you don't neglect other states.

[lfromnj]

Democrats should only be investing in Texas at the local level in 2020. The main priority should be securing a firewall of states to prevent a Trump Victory. A tiered system could look like this

1.)
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Maine
Nevada

2.)
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

3.)
Iowa
Arizona
Georgia
Florida
North Carolina

4.)
Ohio

5.)
Texas


Tier 1 states need to be defended and reinforced. Democrats cannot take these 2016 wins for granted.

Tier 2 are states that were won back in the 2018 midterms that should receive aggressive state by state campaigns.

Tier 3 should also be focused on immensely. These are states within reach that Democrats can tailor their message to win back after securing the 3 big rust belt states

Tiers 4 and 5 should only be pursued in the event of a likely landslide. A few campaign stops here and there in Ohio are still necessary however to keep the GOP competing there. Minimal campaigning in Texas COULD be justified if the nominee is Beto and/or it could be found to help vulnerable house incumbents that gained their seat in 2018. 

The main point is that Tiers 1 and 2 need to be secured at all costs, and held at a higher priority than any other states.

Explain why any money should be invested  in ohio?

[SN2903]

I hope they waste millions in a state they cannot win while ignoring Michigan,  Wisconsin and PA again.

[Small L]

In most scenarios, their national numbers need to be so good to have a shot in Texas that it becomes unnecessary.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Dems need to invest heavily in TX/GA/AZ whatever the case. They are the future of the party.

[Heebie Jeebie]

It would be counter-productive for the presidential campaign to nationalize the competition in Texas. A "Texas Democrat" running for Senate or Governor is going to be seen as moderate and electable; a "Washington Democrat" running for president is going to be seen as liberal and extremist. Don't nationalize Texas politics!  Not yet.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think it's definitely worth some investment. Trump's approvals are absolutely abysmal in Texas. Democrats need to invest because it keeps Democratic engagement in the state up. Texas can probably go blue to Democrats by 2024 if they continue to invest in it. I don't think it's likely they win in 2020 but investing there is a great long term decision.

[lfromnj]

It would be counter-productive for the presidential campaign to nationalize the competition in Texas. A "Texas Democrat" running for Senate or Governor is going to be seen as moderate and electable; a "Washington Democrat" running for president is going to be seen as liberal and extremist. Don't nationalize Texas politics!  Not yet.

lol any dem running in tex is gonna be seen as extreme lol. Texas is a state where you need to maximize turnout and win a FEW swing voters(Id hardly call Clinton Beto voters) swing

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Does Texas really go non-Atlas blue with any other Republican nominee though? We keep talking about “2024” or “2028,” but a large part of the truth is that Hillary and Beto only came “close” because they were pushing against the message of a Republican leader who was uniquely bad, or at the very least uniquely ill-suited to winning over large swaths of voters in the state. That has to count for something, right?

[Heebie Jeebie]

It would be counter-productive for the presidential campaign to nationalize the competition in Texas. A "Texas Democrat" running for Senate or Governor is going to be seen as moderate and electable; a "Washington Democrat" running for president is going to be seen as liberal and extremist. Don't nationalize Texas politics!  Not yet.

lol any dem running in tex is gonna be seen as extreme lol. Texas is a state where you need to maximize turnout and win a FEW swing voters(Id hardly call Clinton Beto voters) swing

L, I disagree. Do you really think Harris or Warren wouldn't be seen as more extreme than Castro or Beto or Kim Olson or whomever?    Making the Democratic presidential nominee the face of the competition would only intensify the polarization of the Texas electorate. Better to let the gubernatorial and Congressional campaigns spearhead the changes already underway.

[McGovernForPrez]

Does Texas really go non-Atlas blue with any other Republican nominee though? We keep talking about “2024” or “2028,” but a large part of the truth is that Hillary and Beto only came “close” because they were pushing against the message of a Republican leader who was uniquely bad, or at the very least uniquely ill-suited to winning over large swaths of voters in the state. That has to count for something, right?

I think Trump's presence has just helped to speed up already present trends. He pushed lots of urban/suburban voters into the Democratic column and it's likely many of them stay that way. Outside of that all of the other demographic trends we've seen in Texas will only continue. Young people from out of state will keep moving into the urban centers and the latino population will still continue to grow and get to voting age.

2018 was an absolutely devastating year for the Texas GOP and it isn't just Beto's result that should scare them. Democrats did markedly better in almost every single statewide race. Besides Abbot's performance Dems didn't lose any race by larger than a 5 point margin. They also got 47% of the house vote as well.

Considering how much the loss of Texas would cripple Republicans electorally, Democrats would be foolish not to invest in Texas right now when there is a Republican in office accelerating the trends that will make it go blue.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Considering how much the loss of Texas would cripple Republicans electorally, Democrats would be foolish not to invest in Texas right now when there is a Republican in office accelerating the trends that will make it go blue.

This is all true, McG, but do you think the Democratic presidential campaign is the best vehicle for investing in Texas right now?  Or would money and resources more wisely be funneled through the gubernatorial and Congressional campaigns?

[JG]

Does Texas really go non-Atlas blue with any other Republican nominee though? We keep talking about “2024” or “2028,” but a large part of the truth is that Hillary and Beto only came “close” because they were pushing against the message of a Republican leader who was uniquely bad, or at the very least uniquely ill-suited to winning over large swaths of voters in the state. That has to count for something, right?

The way moderates seem to be quitting the republican party, chances are the 2024 primary electorate is going to be made up by a majority of very conversative people, thus I would not be surprised to see another Trump-ish nominee.

[pppolitics]

Democrats should do it.

No, Democrats wouldn't win Texas, but doing so would force Republican to use up money and resources that could have been used in other states.

No. The Democrats holding their own and putting Wisc., Mich., and Pa. in their column is all that is necessary, and it will be much easier to flip states that usually vote Democratic in presidential elections and which Trump won by less than a point, than it will be to flip a state that Trump won by eight points, and even then only barely securing victory. No Democrat who is serious about winning should be talking about "expanding the map" beyond the Rust Belt.

Remember that back in 2008, Obama and Biden each visited TX once during the general election season after the primaries. That year, Democrats won the NPV by 7 points while losing TX by 12 points.

At this point, I think Democrats should invest seriously in TX only if they are on track to winning the NPV by 10+ points.

In most scenarios, their national numbers need to be so good to have a shot in Texas that it becomes unnecessary.

Just because Democrats won't win TX doesn't mean that it's not a good investment.

Democrats investing in Texas would force Republicans to defend the state with resources that could have been used in other states.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Democrats should do it.

No, Democrats wouldn't win Texas, but doing so would force Republican to use up money and resources that could have been used in other states.

Right, but wouldn't that mean that Democrats are also using up money and resources that could be used in other states?

[pppolitics]

Democrats should do it.

No, Democrats wouldn't win Texas, but doing so would force Republican to use up money and resources that could have been used in other states.

Right, but wouldn't that mean that Democrats are also using up money and resources that could be used in other states?

You are not looking at the big picture.

Would you rather play offense in TX or play defense in MN and ME?

[McGovernForPrez]

Considering how much the loss of Texas would cripple Republicans electorally, Democrats would be foolish not to invest in Texas right now when there is a Republican in office accelerating the trends that will make it go blue.

This is all true, McG, but do you think the Democratic presidential campaign is the best vehicle for investing in Texas right now?  Or would money and resources more wisely be funneled through the gubernatorial and Congressional campaigns?

No because the least popular Republican in Texas is Donald Trump. His approval rating there has consistently been in the low to mid 40's and tracks very well with the national average. Channeling into the dislike of the president is the best way to accelerate the trends and cement the changes we've already been seeing. Beto already laid a ton if important groundwork, now we need to capitalize on it.

[Heebie Jeebie]

No because the least popular Republican in Texas is Donald Trump. His approval rating there has consistently been in the low to mid 40's and tracks very well with the national average. Channeling into the dislike of the president is the best way to accelerate the trends and cement the changes we've already been seeing. Beto already laid a ton if important groundwork, now we need to capitalize on it.

Yeah, but the Beto campaign is really what's shaping my thought here.  Beto very deliberately distanced himself from the national party by running a campaign that emphasized his independence and idiosyncrasies.  He did a lot to cater himself to the Texas electorate in ways that a national presidential candidate just couldn't. 

[McGovernForPrez]

No because the least popular Republican in Texas is Donald Trump. His approval rating there has consistently been in the low to mid 40's and tracks very well with the national average. Channeling into the dislike of the president is the best way to accelerate the trends and cement the changes we've already been seeing. Beto already laid a ton if important groundwork, now we need to capitalize on it.

Yeah, but the Beto campaign is really what's shaping my thought here.  Beto very deliberately distanced himself from the national party by running a campaign that emphasized his independence and idiosyncrasies.  He did a lot to cater himself to the Texas electorate in ways that a national presidential candidate just couldn't. 

Beto's success had a lot more to do with national trends and infrastructure than it did him distancing himself from the national party. I know it's now some sort of atlas meme that Beto is some sort of centrist, but he ran as an unabashed progressive in Texas. His campaign did well because he had an absolute ton of money to actually spend on the race. He laid down infrastructure that Dems haven't had in decades.