Can someone please show me how Texas is turning blue

[Politician]

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.

2016: D+2, TX was R+9
2018: D+9, TX was R+7 on average

Yes, Beto really was a good candidate, and all the Tea Party Republicans underperformed.

[Gracile]

Using cruz to justify the case for texas turning blue is not wise. I guess we have to wait until 2020

You could say the same about people using Greg Abbott's overperformance to justify that Texas is Safe R.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Using cruz to justify the case for texas turning blue is not wise. I guess we have to wait until 2020

Texas is going Democratic like every other diverse sunbelt state for the simple fact that younger whites are less Republican than older whites, and the minority vote is the same or growing like Texas. This means that the Democrats have a rising floor with minority voters and the Republicans aren't packing enough of a punch with white voters to overcome them anymore.

Young whites are smaller as a percentage of the population, less religious than their parents and more concerned about climate change, equality and college debt, than taxes, small gov't and gov't debt.

Think of it as a flood slowly reaching the top of a red barn, which is also settling into the ground at the same time.

[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.

2016: D+2, TX was R+9
2018: D+9, TX was R+7 on average

Yes, Beto really was a good candidate, and all the Tea Party Republicans underperformed.

You seem to really hate the fact that Texas is turning blue despite you being a Democrat. Maybe you hate the fact that a heavily Latino state is starting to vote as you would expect? Why do you hate brown states trending D

And nice cherry picking. TX was R+16 in 2012. 20 points to the right of the nation. In 2018, only 10 points to the right of it in the Senate race.

[InheritTheWind]

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

Hi there! This is an ignorant statement. And that is a nice way of putting it.

I guess these are just aberrations then?:

Tarrant County (Fort Worth/Arlington):
2012: Romney +16%
2018: Beto +1%
17% Democratic swing

Dallas County:
2012: Obama +15%
2018: Beto +33%
18% Democratic swing

Collin County (Dallas suburbs):
2012: Romney +31%
2018: Cruz +6%
25% Democratic swing. Nothing to see there!

Denton County (DFW suburbs):
2012: Romney +31%
2018: Cruz +8%
23% Democratic swing. Nothing to see here!

Harris County (Houston):
2012: Tie
2018: Beto +17%
17% Democratic swing

Fort Bend County (Houston suburbs):
2012: Romney +7%
2018: Beto +12%
19% Democratic swing. Nothing to see here.

Montgomery County (Houston suburbs):
2012: Romney +60%
2018: Cruz +45%
15% Democratic swing.

Williamson County (Austin suburbs):
2012: Romney +21%
2018: Beto +3%
24% Democratic swing. Definitely nothing to see here.

Travis County (Austin)
2012: Obama +24%
2018: Beto +50%
26% Democratic swing! Holy moly!

Hays County (San Marcos)
2012: Romney +10%
2018: Beto +16%
ANOTHER 26% Democratic swing! That Beta fella sure musta been a very strong candidate here!

Bexar County (San Antone)
2012: Obama +5%
2018: Beto +20%
15% Democratic swing

El Paso County:
2012: Obama +32%
2018: Beto +49%
17% Democratic swing.

Lubbock County:
2012: Romney +41%
2018: Cruz +29%
12% Democratic swing

Brazos County  (College Station A&M)
2012: Romney +35%
2018: Cruz +12%
23% Democratic swing

I'm sure this is all just a fluke though and Trump will win Texas by double digits in 2020.

God, thank you so much for this. It's genuinely confounding how far people on this website are willing to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to trends.

[DaWN]

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

Hi there! This is an ignorant statement. And that is a nice way of putting it.

I guess these are just aberrations then?:

Tarrant County (Fort Worth/Arlington):
2012: Romney +16%
2018: Beto +1%
17% Democratic swing

Dallas County:
2012: Obama +15%
2018: Beto +33%
18% Democratic swing

Collin County (Dallas suburbs):
2012: Romney +31%
2018: Cruz +6%
25% Democratic swing. Nothing to see there!

Denton County (DFW suburbs):
2012: Romney +31%
2018: Cruz +8%
23% Democratic swing. Nothing to see here!

Harris County (Houston):
2012: Tie
2018: Beto +17%
17% Democratic swing

Fort Bend County (Houston suburbs):
2012: Romney +7%
2018: Beto +12%
19% Democratic swing. Nothing to see here.

Montgomery County (Houston suburbs):
2012: Romney +60%
2018: Cruz +45%
15% Democratic swing.

Williamson County (Austin suburbs):
2012: Romney +21%
2018: Beto +3%
24% Democratic swing. Definitely nothing to see here.

Travis County (Austin)
2012: Obama +24%
2018: Beto +50%
26% Democratic swing! Holy moly!

Hays County (San Marcos)
2012: Romney +10%
2018: Beto +16%
ANOTHER 26% Democratic swing! That Beta fella sure musta been a very strong candidate here!

Bexar County (San Antone)
2012: Obama +5%
2018: Beto +20%
15% Democratic swing

El Paso County:
2012: Obama +32%
2018: Beto +49%
17% Democratic swing.

Lubbock County:
2012: Romney +41%
2018: Cruz +29%
12% Democratic swing

Brazos County  (College Station A&M)
2012: Romney +35%
2018: Cruz +12%
23% Democratic swing

I'm sure this is all just a fluke though and Trump will win Texas by double digits in 2020.

God, thank you so much for this. It's genuinely confounding how far people on this website are willing to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to trends.

An individual or two spring to mind

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The is a broken bold code command in that list of counties beginning with Travis.

[QAnonKelly]

The same reason as GA. The metros are drowning out the rest of the state, nonwhite voting share is going up, and there are lots of college-educated white millennials.

[MT Treasurer]

You’re right, it’s clearly not trending Democratic. It’s just that Texans loathe Ted Cruz so much that they even took it out on Trump in 2016, they’re that fed up with Cruz. Fletcher and Allred wouldn’t be in Congress today without Beto’s star power and Ted Cruz dragging down every single Republican on the ticket. If Beto, who’s the strongest, most handsome, most charismatic, most eloquent, most knowledgeable, most appealing, most authentic, most inspiring Democratic candidate who ever ran in the state of Texas, couldn’t pull it off against the most despised politician in the country in a D+9 YEAR, how could anyone even have a prayer of winning Harris County against strong™ underrated™ incumbent™ John "NUT" Cornyn?

[Mr. Smith]

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.

2016: D+2, TX was R+9
2018: D+9, TX was R+7 on average

Yes, Beto really was a good candidate, and all the Tea Party Republicans underperformed.

You seem to really hate the fact that Texas is turning blue despite you being a Democrat. Maybe you hate the fact that a heavily Latino state is starting to vote as you would expect? Why do you hate brown states trending D

And nice cherry picking. TX was R+16 in 2012. 20 points to the right of the nation. In 2018, only 10 points to the right of it in the Senate race.

No, but NV was R+10. Texas was more like R+17, with Florida not far behind.  Really even New Jersey was rightwards of the nation.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's turning blue at state level. At Federal level, like AK and LA, which are oil states, it's an R state, nothing will change that

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

2016: D+2, TX was R+9
2018: D+9, TX was R+7 on average

Yes, Beto really was a good candidate, and all the Tea Party Republicans underperformed.

You seem to really hate the fact that Texas is turning blue despite you being a Democrat. Maybe you hate the fact that a heavily Latino state is starting to vote as you would expect? Why do you hate brown states trending D

And nice cherry picking. TX was R+16 in 2012. 20 points to the right of the nation. In 2018, only 10 points to the right of it in the Senate race.

No, but NV was R+10. Texas was more like R+17, with Florida not far behind.  Really even New Jersey was rightwards of the nation.

There are ceilings and floors that have to considered when discussing these considerations. It is not just a binary situation.

Also TX holds up the floor for the GOP nationwide. The mere fact it is reduced in its margin would cause the nationwide picture to shift substantially since there is nothing to counter NY, ILL and CA.

[UncleSam]

TX is trending Dem but most of the Dems here are very illogical about it. It didn’t flip in a D+9 wave year yet many seem to think it is competitive in 2020 lol. Massive states don’t swing that quickly - it’ll be at least 2024 before TX is seriously contested, and probably much later than that.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

TX is trending Dem but most of the Dems here are very illogical about it. It didn’t flip in a D+9 wave year yet many seem to think it is competitive in 2020 lol. Massive states don’t swing that quickly - it’ll be at least 2024 before TX is seriously contested, and probably much later than that.

“Massive states don’t swing that quickly”

Uh, Texas just did. Twice in a row.

IL: 1988-1992
CA: 1988-1992

Both massive

[R.P. McM]

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

Not even Beto was able to max out the Dem vote in Texas. He ran behind Clinton in several D-leaning Hispanic parts of the state (both in terms of margin and raw vote) - one could assume turnout in these areas will be higher in a presidential year.

I think it's pretty difficult to max-out with a voter turnout rate of 46% (51% in 2016)! Yeah, there's an ocean of untapped Democratic votes in TX. Probably enough to flip the state right now, given a turnout deluge. I doubt it'll happen in 2020 — we won't see a ~15% jump — but it's still tantalizing to consider that, theoretically, the votes are there.

[TDAS04]

Most of the 2018 statewide races were close.  The gubernatorial election may not have been, but the incumbent Republican won by 13 points, down from 20 when he he was first elected in 2014.

[Frodo]

Please please please. I've heard it far too much on this website.

Your thread has two pages worth of responses -do you feel your question has been answered to your satisfaction? 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Most of the 2018 statewide races were close.  The gubernatorial election may not have been, but the incumbent Republican won by 13 points, down from 20 when he he was first elected in 2014.

Against a weak opponent as well.

[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.

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.

[Rookie Yinzer]

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.

[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.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Using cruz to justify the case for texas turning blue is not wise. I guess we have to wait until 2020

What a weak response/concession.

Not to mention, "I guess we'll have to wait till the next election" can apply to 95% of threads on this board.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

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.

2018 was such a high turnout everywhere across the country that I doubt Beto’s hypothetical absence on the ticket would have led to such a decline in the kind of high turnout districts like TX-7 and TX-32 to allow Sessions and Culbertson to win again. Fletcher’s and Allred’s margins might’ve dropped a point or two, but lol at acting as if Beto single handedlg dragged them across the line. Those districts were gone from the moment Donald Trump raised his hand on the Bible.

[Rookie Yinzer]

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.

[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.