Biden's Ceiling In TX

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

High 40ish, he could get close like Beto did, but just doesn't have the votes to win it

MSN polls have Biden ahead of Trump in TX, don't underestimate the Latino vote that loved Obama and Biden policies and voted to reelect them in 2012

[jamestroll]

Well I would think it is possible for Biden to win Texas in an upset if he having a better night than we would expect.

And he would win it narrowly. So I think 50% is Biden ceiling.

I would if that is enough to carry Denton or Collin counties?

Beto's is basically "Democrat narrowly wins" map which revised margins. Biden could would win just Beto's map with beter rio grande valley showings and hitting 60% in Harris and winning Tarrant more handily.

[Del Tachi]

Biden won’t do better than Beto, who got more votes than Hillary Clinton in a midterm environment.  There won’t be a groundswell because there’s no more room for Dems to grow in states like TX, GA and AZ compared to 2016. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden won’t do better than Beto, who got more votes than Hillary Clinton in a midterm environment.  There won’t be a groundswell because there’s no more room for Dems to grow in states like TX, GA and AZ compared to 2016.  

MSN polls have shown Biden leading in TX, GA and AZ, contrary to what Rs think, due to coronavirus affecting disproportionately Latinos and Blacks in TX, AZ and GA in those states; consequently,  Biden doesnt have to win majority white vote. Bush W had to crack 30 percent to get reelected and Trump only cracks 10 percent of minority vote. That's why Ds can grow

[Del Tachi]

Biden won’t do better than Beto, who got more votes than Hillary Clinton in a midterm environment.  There won’t be a groundswell because there’s no more room for Dems to grow in states like TX, GA and AZ compared to 2016. 

MSN polls have shown Biden leading in TX, GA and AZ, contrary to what Rs think, due to coronavirus affecting disproportionately Latinos and Blacks in TX, AZ and GA in those states; consequently,  Biden doesnt have to win majority white vote. Bush W had to crack 30 percent to get reelected and Trump only cracks 10 percent of minority vote. That's why Ds can grow

Dems have lost significant ground among White voters since 2004, Dubya was +17 among Whites in ‘04 and Trump was +20 (while losing the popular vote).  Demographic transformation in the Sun Belt isn’t occurring fast enough for Dems to win TX in 2020.

[brucejoel99]

It’s 48-49%.

But if he picks Cortez as VP, it could get interesting ...

AOC is not eligible to be VP on account of her age (& even if she were, she wouldn't necessarily be the one to help in Texas, but that's another matter).

[Virginiá]

Clinton actually dumped boatloads of money into TV ads in TX and iirc also invested loads into vote registering and such. It was in fact one of the reasons she did so well there in 2016.

TV ads don't do anything - certainly not on that scale. It's just a famously ubiquitous money pit that desperate and relatively clueless politicians constantly fill, and political consultants milk, every 2 years.

Clinton did well because Trump accelerated a shift of voters between the coalitions, and Texas was particularly vulnerable to that given the demographic makeup of the state. I mean, it's not like Clinton's TV ads from 2016 managed to sweep Democrats into power all over the state's urban centers in 2018. This was a long time coming, and Trump arguably sped it up.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Clinton actually dumped boatloads of money into TV ads in TX and iirc also invested loads into vote registering and such. It was in fact one of the reasons she did so well there in 2016.

TV ads don't do anything - certainly not on that scale. It's just a famously ubiquitous money pit that desperate and relatively clueless politicians constantly fill, and political consultants milk, every 2 years.

Clinton did well because Trump accelerated a shift of voters between the coalitions, and Texas was particularly vulnerable to that. I mean, it's not like Clinton's TV ads from 2016 managed to sweep Democrats into power all over the state's urban centers in 2018.

I said it was one of the reasons, not the sole reason or even the biggest reason.

[Virginiá]

TV ads don't do anything - certainly not on that scale. It's just a famously ubiquitous money pit that desperate and relatively clueless politicians constantly fill, and political consultants milk, every 2 years.

Clinton did well because Trump accelerated a shift of voters between the coalitions, and Texas was particularly vulnerable to that. I mean, it's not like Clinton's TV ads from 2016 managed to sweep Democrats into power all over the state's urban centers in 2018.

I said it was one of the reasons, not the sole reason or even the biggest reason.

Right, but what are the numbers though? This is all I can find on it:

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/18/clinton-texas-television-advertising-campaign-star/

By mid-day Tuesday, Clinton's campaign had booked ads in Texas worth at most $100,000, according to a GOP source briefed on local television sales. That figure is small in any state, but the prohibitively expensive media markets in Texas further diminishes the campaign's bang for its buck.

Comparatively speaking, Clinton's camp will spend $2 million in Arizona, another traditionally Republican state.

It does jog my memory for 2016 too, where Texas was coming up in the news but little financial commitments had been made by Democrats at the time. That is absolutely nothing when you consider that the media markets Democrats have to play in are very expensive. Compare that to the nearly 10 million in Colorado spent up to August 2016, or 20 million in Florida, or 16 million in Ohio, and so on (source). And those figures are only what was spent up to the summer. It doesn't include the tsunami of money in the run up to election day. Meanwhile, that link about the $100,000 TX ad buy was in September-October.

Even if Clinton spent a few million in Texas, it's still barely a drop in the bucket, especially for a state that big. If TV ads can even move the needle, for a state like TX, you'd need to invest tens of millions in at least Q3 of the election year.

[Hammy]

48%. Texas (if they don't go full Georgia/North Carolina) will flip eventually, but it's still too soon as there's still a very large rural/conservative suburban area to offset some of the Dem gains.

[Bomster]

Y’all are really overestimating Biden’s chances in Texas, he could theoretically reach 46-47% but I highly doubt he can win 50% of the vote.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Right now I'll estimate it is Beto's percentage until we see more evidence. I think Beto O'Rourke's performance was the current max for Texan Democrats.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Biden is going to win TX. Me and OC are the only people here who get it. 75% of the gains for the Democrats in 2016, 2018 and 2020 are from suburban college educated whites, especially college educated white women. The other 25% is going to be the continuing demographic changes in TX and the other sunbelt states. Biden is blowing Trump out of the water nationally, so a big win nationally will be important as well.

[Non Swing Voter]

I agree with the posters above who are bullish on Biden's chances.  I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying he will win Texas, however Texas is going to trend faster than people think.  States with big metro areas/industry and lots of college voters are trending hard left.  Plus demographically it's trending left.  It's basically the next Virginia.

Also, with lots of people angry and unemployed right now some of those people in Texas who never vote might finally do so.  I think he could actually outperform Beto.  But if I had to guess he'll come just as close as Beto and lose the state by 2 points or so.  But this is going to be the main reason why he's going to win the national popular vote by like 6 points.

[Nyvin]

Biden won’t do better than Beto, who got more votes than Hillary Clinton in a midterm environment.  There won’t be a groundswell because there’s no more room for Dems to grow in states like TX, GA and AZ compared to 2016. 

Texas has some of the lowest turnout in the entire country (literally in the bottom five consistently),  not to mention being one of the fastest growing states in the country at the same time.

How do you possibly fathom Democrats "have no more room to grow" from 2016?   That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Not really... Hillary's ceiling was only around 43%... It's very unlikely it would swing from 43% to 50%.

People hacks here are just really overestimating Biden's numbers.

Rather than continually mocking those making predictions, you mind sharing yours?

[Pericles]

Anything more than a 2-3 point win for Biden in Texas seems pretty implausible, unless it becomes a historic landslide, while I can't see Trump getting a double digit win in Texas. Trump probably does win but by a mid to low single digit margin.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Anything more than a 2-3 point win for Biden in Texas seems pretty implausible, unless it becomes a historic landslide, while I can't see Trump getting a double digit win in Texas. Trump probably does win but by a mid to low single digit margin.

Texas is extremely likely to be close either way.

[Del Tachi]

Biden won’t do better than Beto, who got more votes than Hillary Clinton in a midterm environment.  There won’t be a groundswell because there’s no more room for Dems to grow in states like TX, GA and AZ compared to 2016. 

Texas has some of the lowest turnout in the entire country (literally in the bottom five consistently),  not to mention being one of the fastest growing states in the country at the same time.

How do you possibly fathom Democrats "have no more room to grow" from 2016?   That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

From 2018.  Beto got more votes than Hillary, but still came up short while Republican turnout was down.  For better or worse, Dems’ 2020 electorate arrived two years early thanks to their superb organization and enthusiasm in the 2018 midterm contests. 

[Mr. Smith]

Something in the 47-48% range.

This, though I expect Biden to hit something like 44% overall.

[Tender Branson]

It’s 48-49%.

But if he picks Cortez as VP, it could get interesting ...

AOC is not eligible to be VP on account of her age (& even if she were, she wouldn't necessarily be the one to help in Texas, but that's another matter).

I'm talking about the NV Senator, not AOC.

[morgankingsley]

As a percentage? I would say 47

As a margin? Minus 2 or 3

[iceman]

Y’all are really overestimating Biden’s chances in Texas, he could theoretically reach 46-47% but I highly doubt he can win 50% of the vote.

in reality, everyone is overestimating Biden's numbers in all states.

[Nyvin]

Biden won’t do better than Beto, who got more votes than Hillary Clinton in a midterm environment.  There won’t be a groundswell because there’s no more room for Dems to grow in states like TX, GA and AZ compared to 2016.  

Texas has some of the lowest turnout in the entire country (literally in the bottom five consistently),  not to mention being one of the fastest growing states in the country at the same time.

How do you possibly fathom Democrats "have no more room to grow" from 2016?   That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

From 2018.  Beto got more votes than Hillary, but still came up short while Republican turnout was down.  For better or worse, Dems’ 2020 electorate arrived two years early thanks to their superb organization and enthusiasm in the 2018 midterm contests.  

Even in 2018,  Turnout in Texas was around 47%,   during a presidential year that would be horrible turnout.   There's also tons of people moving to Texas every year.    Of course there's room for Democrats to improve, that's nuts to assume there isn't.

Y’all are really overestimating Biden’s chances in Texas, he could theoretically reach 46-47% but I highly doubt he can win 50% of the vote.

in reality, everyone is overestimating Biden's numbers in all states.

Based on what?

[Del Tachi]

Biden won’t do better than Beto, who got more votes than Hillary Clinton in a midterm environment.  There won’t be a groundswell because there’s no more room for Dems to grow in states like TX, GA and AZ compared to 2016. 

Texas has some of the lowest turnout in the entire country (literally in the bottom five consistently),  not to mention being one of the fastest growing states in the country at the same time.

How do you possibly fathom Democrats "have no more room to grow" from 2016?   That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

From 2018.  Beto got more votes than Hillary, but still came up short while Republican turnout was down.  For better or worse, Dems’ 2020 electorate arrived two years early thanks to their superb organization and enthusiasm in the 2018 midterm contests. 

Even in 2018,  Turnout in Texas was around 47%,   during a presidential year that would be horrible turnout.   There's also tons of people moving to Texas every year.    Of course there's room for Democrats to improve, that's nuts to assume there isn't.

Turnout in 2016 for Texas was 51.3%.  47% in a midterm is exceptional turnout, and it was driven by an unprecedented upswing in Democratic participation.  Beto got more votes than Clinton, while Cruz got about 400k less than Trump.  A lot of these Trump voters will be back in 2020, but is Biden going to generate Beto-type numbers and then some?  It just doesn’t look like there’s enough room for TX Dems to grow.  They cashed in early and still lost.