Can someone please show me how Texas is turning blue

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The downballot Ds did very well precisely because of Beto. If he wasn't there, turnout would have been lower and Culberson and Sessions might well have won by high single digits.

Beto made white Rs and Independents vote for Democrats down ballot? Oh.

Beto raised turnout among infrequent voters and those people voted for downballot Democrats. He also won quite a few traditional R voters, cutting into R margins in places like West Houston and the Park Cities.

He raised turnout among infrequent voters relative to midterm elections. It was still down from 2016. High propensity college educated Rs came out to vote for Democrats. Are you telling me these high info voters would have stayed home because Beto wasn’t on the ballot? Not buying that. Fletcher and Allred still would’ve won.

I'm not sure if they would have won. Converting R voters was only half of the story. Raising turnout among low propensity voters was still extremely important to their victories.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

It isn't. Beto was an amazing candidate running against a weak inchent in a D+9 year.

If beto was such a uniquely amazing candidate, why did local dems do really well too (both house and the state level)? Plenty of dems barely did worse than Beto, and a few dems actually did better than Beto.

The congressional house races were R+3.5. Generic R in the house barely did any better than Ted Cruz.

Also, 1) What makes you think 2020 won't be a big dem win 2) It was more like D+8 when you take into account that the GOP didn't run candidates in a lot of house races 3) Hispanic and youth turnout went down the cliff in 2018 (as it always does in midterms) and will be better in 2020.

Finally, Ted Cruz had positive approval ratings, so he wasn't that weak.

When you account for uncontested races, it would've been more like R+5 to R+6, which is what the average non-Governor statewide race margin was.

Still does not change the fact that it is quite clear to anyone with a brain “how Texas is turning blue”, which is what the first two posters in this thread seem to be in complete denial about.

I don't think TX is turning blue in the near future.
It's likely turning into another NC, with a small R lean that gives them an edge in 50-50 contests  but it's still well within reach of victory in a good year.

"Turning" blue and "being" blue are two different things, and I would like to think you're smart enough to recognize that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It isn't. Beto was an amazing candidate running against a weak inchent in a D+9 year.

If beto was such a uniquely amazing candidate, why did local dems do really well too (both house and the state level)? Plenty of dems barely did worse than Beto, and a few dems actually did better than Beto.

The congressional house races were R+3.5. Generic R in the house barely did any better than Ted Cruz.

Also, 1) What makes you think 2020 won't be a big dem win 2) It was more like D+8 when you take into account that the GOP didn't run candidates in a lot of house races 3) Hispanic and youth turnout went down the cliff in 2018 (as it always does in midterms) and will be better in 2020.

Finally, Ted Cruz had positive approval ratings, so he wasn't that weak.

When you account for uncontested races, it would've been more like R+5 to R+6, which is what the average non-Governor statewide race margin was.

Still does not change the fact that it is quite clear to anyone with a brain “how Texas is turning blue”, which is what the first two posters in this thread seem to be in complete denial about.

I don't think TX is turning blue in the near future.
It's likely turning into another NC, with a small R lean that gives them an edge in 50-50 contests  but it's still well within reach of victory in a good year.

"Turning" blue and "being" blue are two different things, and I would like to think you're smart enough to recognize that.

is "turning blue" the same as "Trending D"? in which case, y'all need to be more specific.

[Badger]

Because semantics solves everything, perhaps it's best put as creeping towards purple rather than turning blue.

[Senator Incitatus]

I think there should be less chatter about Texas "going blue" and more about the problem it poses for national politics if it does become a toss-up.

I'd argue there hasn't been a national political event with such massive, direct repercussions since the Civil War. There hasn't been a state of that size with a margin close to the national race since New York in the post-War period and it came to absolutely dominate the national political focus, especially within the Democratic Party. Texas could become the equivalent. We're already getting a taste of this in the fact that both Cástro and O'Rourke see themselves as presidential contenders. Their appeal relies entirely on their ability to put Texas in play.