If democrats wins Texas, will the GOP ever win the presidency again within 50 years?

[iceman]

If democrats start winning Texas, will the GOP ever win again the electoral college within 50 years. It the GOP loses Texas, they don't have a prayer anymore. Even if they gain some of the rust best states, it can't make up for the losses in the sunbelt like Texas and Arizona.

[Roll Roons]

Yes. If Texas flips, it won't become Titanium D overnight, and will still be competitive for a few cycles. Besides, if Republicans lose their biggest stronghold, they'll have no choice but to start adapting to a point where they can claw back some of their losses, not just in Texas, but also in Arizona, Colorado and Nevada.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No. If the Democrats win Texas, it'll have happened 100% because of population growth (rather than any trends in suburban support) and the emerging titanium Democratic majority (which is definitely happening this time, guys). Anyway, once a trend begins, it lasts 1000 years and only ever gets stronger. 50 years in government would definitely not provoke any kind of backlash in the governing party's voter coalition or start any new trend that might be hostile to them and half a century in opposition would not convince the GOP to try anything other than running the desiccated husk of Trump again and again.

[Person Man]

Switch that around and any part of the "freiwal" and ask yourself that question about Democrats.

[Gracile]

It's impossible to tell given that 50 years is an incredibly long time and the party coalitions might look entirely different by then. In the short-to-medium term, losing Texas will definitely pose a big challenge for the GOP's path to the presidency but it's possible they can find electoral votes elsewhere on the map.

[RINO Tom]

In the next fifty years, *quite literally* anything could happen, haha.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It will take 2-3 terms but GOP will win its only that Dems will have so much power in that era by the time they come back they would have won on so much

[President Biden Democrat]

The GOP definitely could still win the election in the next 50 years. They can win in areas like the midwest (WI, MI, OH, PA, etc.) The Democrats will totally be favored but the GOP theoretically can still win an election in the next fifty years.

[here2view]

Yes, 50 years is a long time. They absolutely would win multiple times before then, since other states can trend and cancel out the Democrats winning Texas.

50 years ago all five of West Virginia's representatives were Democrats, as well as both Senators.

[MABA 2020]

Of course they will, the attractive thing about winning Texas isn't that Republicans will never win again, it's that they'll be forced to moderate their positions

[OSR stands with Israel]

Texas 50 years ago was more solidly Democratic than it was Solidly Republican in the Bush years

[Kyng]

Of course. When a thread like this came up previously, I set out three possible paths for them: 

Let's suppose demographic changes push TX + AZ + GA into the Democratic column (which, in addition to the Hillary 2016 states, would be a 298-240 EV win for the Democrats on the 2024 map). How does the GOP respond? I can think of a few ways:

1. Become more competitive with minorities

Perhaps the GOP manages to appeal to Asians or white Hispanics or whoever. If they do this, they should at least keep TX (and probably also GA and AZ) out of the 'Safe D' column, so their current path to 270 would still be viable.

2. Become more competitive with moderate whites

This would be necessary if TX (and AZ and GA) move out of reach. The first states to fall with this path would be MN + NH + ME-AL; however, that still yields a 283-255 win for the Democrats. However, I can see them making further gains in places like New England, especially if they moderate on the 'religious right' stuff (or if the Democrats' increasingly minority-centric coalition leads to anti-whiteness in their ranks, which they fail to tackle effectively). If the GOP can win something like ME-01 + RI + DE + OR, then that gets them to 270-268.

3. Ride their own wave of demographic change

As in scenario #2, the GOP is winning MN + NH + ME-AL, getting them to 255 electoral votes. The remaining 15 will come from demographic changes which are in their favour. If liberals and minorities are moving to the Sun Belt in large enough numbers to put TX + AZ + GA out of reach, then they're moving from somewhere, and the places they're moving from will become more conservative as a result. For example, perhaps Chicago's population drops to the point where IL becomes competitive - and then, the GOP gets over 270 by flipping it.


Do note that, in the map where Democrats are winning 283-255 (that is, 2016 + TX + AZ + GA - MN - NH - ME-AL), they're only winning 20 states to the GOP's 30. If the Democrats rely on this coalition, then they're going to have a serious Senate problem - so the GOP will still be able to exert a lot of influence even if they fall short of winning the presidency.

[Grassroots]

Of course. When a thread like this came up previously, I set out three possible paths for them: 

Let's suppose demographic changes push TX + AZ + GA into the Democratic column (which, in addition to the Hillary 2016 states, would be a 298-240 EV win for the Democrats on the 2024 map). How does the GOP respond? I can think of a few ways:

1. Become more competitive with minorities

Perhaps the GOP manages to appeal to Asians or white Hispanics or whoever. If they do this, they should at least keep TX (and probably also GA and AZ) out of the 'Safe D' column, so their current path to 270 would still be viable.

2. Become more competitive with moderate whites

This would be necessary if TX (and AZ and GA) move out of reach. The first states to fall with this path would be MN + NH + ME-AL; however, that still yields a 283-255 win for the Democrats. However, I can see them making further gains in places like New England, especially if they moderate on the 'religious right' stuff (or if the Democrats' increasingly minority-centric coalition leads to anti-whiteness in their ranks, which they fail to tackle effectively). If the GOP can win something like ME-01 + RI + DE + OR, then that gets them to 270-268.

3. Ride their own wave of demographic change

As in scenario #2, the GOP is winning MN + NH + ME-AL, getting them to 255 electoral votes. The remaining 15 will come from demographic changes which are in their favour. If liberals and minorities are moving to the Sun Belt in large enough numbers to put TX + AZ + GA out of reach, then they're moving from somewhere, and the places they're moving from will become more conservative as a result. For example, perhaps Chicago's population drops to the point where IL becomes competitive - and then, the GOP gets over 270 by flipping it.


Do note that, in the map where Democrats are winning 283-255 (that is, 2016 + TX + AZ + GA - MN - NH - ME-AL), they're only winning 20 states to the GOP's 30. If the Democrats rely on this coalition, then they're going to have a serious Senate problem - so the GOP will still be able to exert a lot of influence even if they fall short of winning the presidency.

Or, by way of communitarianism (the current place the GOP is trending, for example Hawley), start winning larger percentages of the black vote. By putting M4AC and inner city revitalization on the platform I'm sure republicans could start winning about 20-30% of the black vote. This would put IL in play, as well as NY eventually.

[indietraveler]

Yes, of course.

However if it flips by a small, but sizeable margin I could see them being locked out until 2032 until they learn to not be racist and believe in science.

[dw93]

If the GOP loses Texas, that's when they start working to lock states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (if they hadn't already) New Hampshire, and Maine (2nd district and At large) into the Republican column. They also work to keep Florida and Minnesota swing states.

[indietraveler]

If the GOP loses Texas, that's when they start working to lock states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (if they hadn't already) New Hampshire, and Maine (2nd district and At large) into the Republican column. They also work to keep Florida and Minnesota swing states.

Except they could flip all of those and it wouldn't matter. Assuming TX flips in 2020 and beyond it's also not unreasonable to assume AZ flips for good along with it and one of GA or NC.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Yes, they can still cheat.

[dw93]

If the GOP loses Texas, that's when they start working to lock states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (if they hadn't already) New Hampshire, and Maine (2nd district and At large) into the Republican column. They also work to keep Florida and Minnesota swing states.

Except they could flip all of those and it wouldn't matter. Assuming TX flips in 2020 and beyond it's also not unreasonable to assume AZ flips for good along with it and one of GA or NC.

AZ will stay competitive for the GOP for the same reason FL will. White Boomer/1st wave Gen Xr retirees will, like retirees before them, retire in those states and I have no reason to believe as of now that that demographic will get more Democratic with time as late boomer/early xrs seem to be Trump's strongest demographic currently. Who wins those states in the future will depend on who has the higher turnout, younger and middle age minorities or white retirees. I personally think that, by the time a Democrat manages to win Texas in a Presidential election, one or both of NC or GA will be locked in by the Democrats, but AZ and FL will remain swing states (with FL tilt R and AZ tilt D) for the reason I mentioned.

[Kyng]

Of course. When a thread like this came up previously, I set out three possible paths for them: 

Let's suppose demographic changes push TX + AZ + GA into the Democratic column (which, in addition to the Hillary 2016 states, would be a 298-240 EV win for the Democrats on the 2024 map). How does the GOP respond? I can think of a few ways:

1. Become more competitive with minorities

Perhaps the GOP manages to appeal to Asians or white Hispanics or whoever. If they do this, they should at least keep TX (and probably also GA and AZ) out of the 'Safe D' column, so their current path to 270 would still be viable.

2. Become more competitive with moderate whites

This would be necessary if TX (and AZ and GA) move out of reach. The first states to fall with this path would be MN + NH + ME-AL; however, that still yields a 283-255 win for the Democrats. However, I can see them making further gains in places like New England, especially if they moderate on the 'religious right' stuff (or if the Democrats' increasingly minority-centric coalition leads to anti-whiteness in their ranks, which they fail to tackle effectively). If the GOP can win something like ME-01 + RI + DE + OR, then that gets them to 270-268.

3. Ride their own wave of demographic change

As in scenario #2, the GOP is winning MN + NH + ME-AL, getting them to 255 electoral votes. The remaining 15 will come from demographic changes which are in their favour. If liberals and minorities are moving to the Sun Belt in large enough numbers to put TX + AZ + GA out of reach, then they're moving from somewhere, and the places they're moving from will become more conservative as a result. For example, perhaps Chicago's population drops to the point where IL becomes competitive - and then, the GOP gets over 270 by flipping it.


Do note that, in the map where Democrats are winning 283-255 (that is, 2016 + TX + AZ + GA - MN - NH - ME-AL), they're only winning 20 states to the GOP's 30. If the Democrats rely on this coalition, then they're going to have a serious Senate problem - so the GOP will still be able to exert a lot of influence even if they fall short of winning the presidency.

Or, by way of communitarianism (the current place the GOP is trending, for example Hawley), start winning larger percentages of the black vote. By putting M4AC and inner city revitalization on the platform I'm sure republicans could start winning about 20-30% of the black vote. This would put IL in play, as well as NY eventually.

Yeah, that's certainly possible. Or another plausible option is that atheism (and, eventually, antitheism) becomes a serious force within the Democratic Party, to the point where religiously conservative black and Hispanic voters get pushed into the GOP.

Sure, these all come under my option #1; however, my option #1 has quite a few sub-headings within it, which would lead to different maps. (For example, if the GOP does better at black outreach than Hispanic outreach, then they'll be able to compete in IL and VA again, and they'll probably take NC and GA off the table for the Democrats. And, as you noted, the margins in NY would probably be narrowing at this point - so, not-yet-born political analysts will begin asking "If Republicans win NY, will the Democrats ever win the presidency again within 50 years?" )

[2016]

Republicans need to put up a POTUS Candidate from an ethic Minority Group like Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio or someone like DeSantis Running Mate for 2018 Jeanette Nunez or if you do put up a White Male you'll need to balance out the Ticket with a Running Mate from an ethic Minority Group.

I'll give you an example:

Rick Scott won two close Governor Races in Florida 2010 & 2014, the biggest Swing State of the Country.

What did he do? He picked an African American Woman for his first Run with Jennifer Carroll and then he picked a Hispanic in Carlos Lopez-Cantrera for his second run in 2014. That is just very smart!

A Kasich/Rubio Ticket in 2016 would have been perfect in the long run for Republicans.

If Republicans nominate someone like Rubio or Haley in 2024 that whole Electoral Map changes in a pretty significant way Texas nonwithstanding.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

I fully expect Texas to flip by 2028, but that doesn't mean it becomes safe/hard likely D.  But Arizona I'd expect to be likely D due to the dominance of Maricopa (with transplants from CA and other expensive areas) and Georgia lean D but difficult to flip (like NV or MN is today).

Even 20 years is a very long time in terms of party coalitions and demographics, much less 50-so the question is a little ridiculous.  Not to mention the occasional 350+ landslide. 

I think it will be much easier for the GOP to adapt to keep Texas competitive than to flip New Jersey or Connecticut+Oregon.  Of course it will take them too long to get the message but it will happen eventually.

[Former President tack50]

I can see TX flipping. I cannot see TX becoming a safe D state. In fact TX has such a large population that if it became Safe D, the popular vote would outright become Safe D or at worst likely D, with the median election being something like D+6. Also there is the countertrend of white people becoming more republican leaning.

Anyways I guess a hypothetical 2040 election might end up with a battleground map like this I think, even if you assume the rough current trends will keep going on for a while:



Now, this map is not great for the Republicans as they need to sweep all 4 states to get a win (or all except MN for a 269-269 tie) unless they can get a lean D state or CD to flip.

However, considering this map would probably also be somewhere on the order of D+5 in terms of the popular vote, this map would not be bad at all for a party that is losing badly.

In fact, in the hypothetical where the popular vote is tied nationwide I'd expect everything to move up a notch for the Republicans. So TX/PA/FL/MN would be Lean R; the Lean D states would be tossups, etc

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Anyways I guess a hypothetical 2040 election might end up with a battleground map like this I think, even if you assume the rough current trends will keep going on for a while:

Except the electoral appropriation is going to look very different than the 2010s one for this year, so you could probably give another 20-30 to the Democratic party.

[morgieb]

Of course.

A more interesting question is 20. Even if they do flip the Midwest, that probably isn't enough to counter Texas. I think they have to flip New York and Illinois, and that will take time and a lot of evolution from each parties base.

[funjack73]

Of course they can. If Biden squeaks by in Texas, it's safe to say that it will go right back to the gop in a more favorable environment. Also, there would be immense pressure for Greg Abott to run.