1 million more Texans have registered to vote since Beto/Cruz race

[Non Swing Voter]

https://www.kut.org/post/voter-registration-texas-reaches-record-16-million

"He says about 1 million more Texans are registered to vote than in 2018, when Beto O'Rourke and Ted Cruz conducted their high-profile Senate campaigns.

"We're almost about 2 million more voters than we had four years ago during the presidential race," Wallace says. "It's almost like we added Connecticut – all of their voters in the state of Texas in the middle of a presidential cycle."

[Tintrlvr]

Probably pretty close to the partisan breakdown of Connecticut, too. (Which wouldn't be enough to flip the state alone or come particularly close compared to 2016 results, of course (Clinton won CT by 200k votes and lost Texas by 800k, very roughly): You also need more shifts like what happened in 2018.)

[Idaho Conservative]

They should change the law so vote registration must occur at government offices, with the person present.

[Devout Centrist]

They should change the law so vote registration must occur at government offices, with the person present.

Why?

[Idaho Conservative]

They should change the law so vote registration must occur at government offices, with the person present.

Why?

to keep Texas red.  If Texas goes, the country does too.  I couldn't care less about civility and norms, this is war.

[The Mikado]

They should change the law so vote registration must occur at government offices, with the person present.

I mean, most voters register to vote at a DMV. But there's nothing wrong with people (of both parties!!!) getting deputized to register voters. Once upon a time, I was, and I know people who currently are.

[The Mikado]

Texas doesn't actually make it THAT hard to vote, anyway. The interesting question will be what the impact of the abolition of straight ticket voting is. The consensus is that it hurts Dems more, but I'm not sure how MUCH more. Plenty of rural Republicans in East and West Texas who might also undervote downballot races as a result of it.

[Devout Centrist]

They should change the law so vote registration must occur at government offices, with the person present.

Why?

to keep Texas red.  If Texas goes, the country does too.  I couldn't care less about civility and norms, this is war.

Ah, I see. Your time is waning. Use it wisely.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

They should change the law so vote registration must occur at government offices, with the person present.

Why?

to keep Texas red.  If Texas goes, the country does too.  I couldn't care less about civility and norms, this is war.

All those illegal voters, right?

[voice_of_resistance]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

[Idaho Conservative]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

[Beet]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

[Idaho Conservative]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

[Skill and Chance]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

This is overwrought.  We didn't become a 1 party state after Reagan-Bush or FDR-Truman or the Republicans going 7 for 9 prior to FDR.  The opposition party simply adjusted their platform to pick voters off from the ruling majority.  You just don't seem to have any interest in doing that.  Even in the extreme scenario, Republicans would come back even from 8 years of Bernie followed by 8 years of AOC.  It would likely require a "the era of small government is over" speech from the next winning Republican nominee (consider that the British conservatives have held power a significant majority of the time since the 1945 Labour revolution, but they have left the NHS, etc. in place), but I have no doubt they would come back eventually.   

[Orser67]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

Even if TX does go blue, and even if that does give Democrats a huge advantage in winning/keeping control of the House and the presidency, the Senate would still lean pretty strongly towards the Republican Party.

[Tender Branson]

Good.

But:

TX has 19 million people right now over 18 who are citizens.

Which means 19 million people should be automatically registered to vote, like in most other countries.

There's still a gap of 3 million people, because only 16 million are registered.

Maybe not 3 million, if you account for prisoners who are not allowed to vote, but that's probably just a few hundred thousand.

[Storr]

Good.

But:

TX has 19 million people right now over 18 who are citizens.

Which means 19 million people should be automatically registered to vote, like in most other countries.

There's still a gap of 3 million people, because only 16 million are registered.

Maybe not 3 million, if you account for prisoners who are not allowed to vote, but that's probably just a few hundred thousand.

You're correct, according to this Texas has ~250,000 residents in prisons (state, federal, local).
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/TX.html

[Tender Branson]

Good.

But:

TX has 19 million people right now over 18 who are citizens.

Which means 19 million people should be automatically registered to vote, like in most other countries.

There's still a gap of 3 million people, because only 16 million are registered.

Maybe not 3 million, if you account for prisoners who are not allowed to vote, but that's probably just a few hundred thousand.

You're correct, according to this Texas has ~250,000 residents in prisons (state, federal, local).
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/TX.html

Yeah, US-wide some 25-30 million citizens 18+ are not registered to vote (10-15% of the eligible) - which would be the case in almost every other civilized country.

Especially young people are not registered to vote, which is bizarre, because they are the group that you can most easily register to vote: at birth in the hospital, at school enrollment or when you get a driving licence.

[Kyng]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

The ironic thing is that "roughly half the country becoming ignored at the federal level election after election" is exactly what you're advocating for when you express support for partisan voter suppression...

In any case, the premise that "If Texas falls, so does the country" is false to begin with. In a previous post, I outlined three paths that the GOP could take to remain competitive after Texas turns blue (the first of which would involve winning Texas back, but the other two wouldn't):

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=324769.msg6893364#msg6893364

A blue Texas isn't going to become part of some impregnable 270+ "blue wall". And even if it does, it'd mean the Democrats would be overly reliant on a few big states to get to 270, which would give them massive headaches in the Senate (the GOP would probably have a permanent supermajority there).

[Non Swing Voter]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

Even if TX does go blue, and even if that does give Democrats a huge advantage in winning/keeping control of the House and the presidency, the Senate would still lean pretty strongly towards the Republican Party.

Not sure it would lean strongly enough in that scenario.  If Texas is flipping then Arizona is too.  With Georgia and North Carolina becoming more competitive, the Senate could become more balanced. 

[Non Swing Voter]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

The GOP could just try to win the median voter going forward.  Perhaps not run on policies that only appeal to extremely rural and/or evangelical voters in that case?

[Skill and Chance]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

Even if TX does go blue, and even if that does give Democrats a huge advantage in winning/keeping control of the House and the presidency, the Senate would still lean pretty strongly towards the Republican Party.

Not sure it would lean strongly enough in that scenario.  If Texas is flipping then Arizona is too.  With Georgia and North Carolina becoming more competitive, the Senate could become more balanced. 

Those are all larger than average states.  Democrats need a breakthrough in places like Kansas and Alaska and to keep Montana in play to really balance the Senate out.  Also, losing any significant ground in New England would be catastrophic in the Senate. 

[Non Swing Voter]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

Even if TX does go blue, and even if that does give Democrats a huge advantage in winning/keeping control of the House and the presidency, the Senate would still lean pretty strongly towards the Republican Party.

Not sure it would lean strongly enough in that scenario.  If Texas is flipping then Arizona is too.  With Georgia and North Carolina becoming more competitive, the Senate could become more balanced. 

Those are all larger than average states.  Democrats need a breakthrough in places like Kansas and Alaska and to keep Montana in play to really balance the Senate out.  Also, losing any significant ground in New England would be catastrophic in the Senate. 

I realize they are larger than average but it would still bring them to 50+ votes unless they lose ground in other places like New England.  I don't really think they're losing as much ground in New England as people here seem to believe though.

West/SW (CA, WA, OR, HI, AZ, NM, NV, TX) = 8 states / 16 senators
New England = 6 states / 12 senators
Mid-Atlantic lean Dem states (NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA) = 5 states / 10 senators
Changing Southern States (GA, NC) = 2 states / 4 senators
Illinois = 2 senators

That would be 44 right there if my math is correct.  There are also presumably competitive states like MN, WI, MI, PA, FL.

The Senate would still lean Republican relative to the national vote but Democrats almost always win the national vote anyways (6 out of 7 of the last Presidential elections).

[Skill and Chance]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

Even if TX does go blue, and even if that does give Democrats a huge advantage in winning/keeping control of the House and the presidency, the Senate would still lean pretty strongly towards the Republican Party.

Not sure it would lean strongly enough in that scenario.  If Texas is flipping then Arizona is too.  With Georgia and North Carolina becoming more competitive, the Senate could become more balanced. 

Those are all larger than average states.  Democrats need a breakthrough in places like Kansas and Alaska and to keep Montana in play to really balance the Senate out.  Also, losing any significant ground in New England would be catastrophic in the Senate. 

I realize they are larger than average but it would still bring them to 50+ votes unless they lose ground in other places like New England.  I don't really think they're losing as much ground in New England as people here seem to believe though.

West/SW (CA, WA, OR, HI, AZ, NM, NV, TX) = 8 states / 16 senators
New England = 6 states / 12 senators
Mid-Atlantic lean Dem states (NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA) = 5 states / 10 senators
Changing Southern States (GA, NC) = 2 states / 4 senators
Illinois = 2 senators

That would be 44 right there if my math is correct.  There are also presumably competitive states like MN, WI, MI, PA, FL.

The Senate would still lean Republican relative to the national vote but Democrats almost always win the national vote anyways (6 out of 7 of the last Presidential elections).

This could easily be a coincidence.  The state of the economy was at least neutral for them (2000, 2004, 2012, 2016) to a massive tailwind (1992, 1996, 2008) in every one of those elections.  They haven't had to run against a great economy for most of the country since 1988 or defend an incumbent in a new recession since 1980.

2020 will be the test case for this if conditions don't change.  All the 20th century models would predict a clear Trump PV win.  If the economy stays in its current state and the Dem still wins the PV, I will believe this.   

[Orser67]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

Even if TX does go blue, and even if that does give Democrats a huge advantage in winning/keeping control of the House and the presidency, the Senate would still lean pretty strongly towards the Republican Party.

Not sure it would lean strongly enough in that scenario.  If Texas is flipping then Arizona is too.  With Georgia and North Carolina becoming more competitive, the Senate could become more balanced. 

Those are all larger than average states.  Democrats need a breakthrough in places like Kansas and Alaska and to keep Montana in play to really balance the Senate out.  Also, losing any significant ground in New England would be catastrophic in the Senate. 

I realize they are larger than average but it would still bring them to 50+ votes unless they lose ground in other places like New England.  I don't really think they're losing as much ground in New England as people here seem to believe though.

West/SW (CA, WA, OR, HI, AZ, NM, NV, TX) = 8 states / 16 senators
New England = 6 states / 12 senators
Mid-Atlantic lean Dem states (NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA) = 5 states / 10 senators
Changing Southern States (GA, NC) = 2 states / 4 senators
Illinois = 2 senators

That would be 44 right there if my math is correct.  There are also presumably competitive states like MN, WI, MI, PA, FL.

The Senate would still lean Republican relative to the national vote but Democrats almost always win the national vote anyways (6 out of 7 of the last Presidential elections).

NV, AZ, NC, GA, and TX becoming solid Democratic states, while all currently solid Democratic states stay solidly Democratic, is a worst-case scenario for Republicans that goes far beyond the scenario of TX becoming a solidly Democratic state.

But even assuming that happens, I still count:

44 Democratic-state senators
18 battleground-state senators (ME, NH, PA, MI, WI, MN, IA, FL, OH*)
38 Republican-state senators

Assuming a Democratic president is generally in office, Republicans would have a strong chance of controlling the Senate most of the time since they would benefit from mid-term waves.