Is Texas Now a Battleground State?

[Frodo]

[BaldEagle1991]

Yes, in a way. I just think whoever could keep Texas close has to have a coalition of Hispanic voters + White college educated suburban voters.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Definately; I would argue it has a higher chance of tipping 2024 than people here think, though it's almost certain to vote to the right of the NPV barring something really unexpected. TX is pretty much exactly where GA was in 2016 in terms of margin, for reference. It'll be4 interesting to see if Democrats continue to gain in and suburbs or if the GOP holds their gains in RGV. I would still give the GOP the edge but I think they should start being worried about this time bomb.

[KaiserDave]

Obviously

[Kuumo]

It's probably Likely Republican now, so it is a peripheral battleground state. For what it's worth, the ninth closest state in 2016 was Arizona, which obviously flipped the next election cycle.

[pbrower2a]

Texas is beginning to look increasingly like a microcosm of America. It used to be a much poorer, more rural state with far lower standards of education. It's becoming more like Michigan than like Alabama.   

[TomC]

Yes. Whether it’s a swing state remains to be seen, but both parties will be battling for it.

[S019]

Yes, it is a state that will be hotly contested, especially since it will have a very competitive Senate race too, the DFW suburbs are swinging hard, I wouldn't be shocked to see one or both of Collin/Denton flip in 2024.

[BaldEagle1991]

Texas is beginning to look increasingly like a microcosm of America. It used to be a much poorer, more rural state with far lower standards of education. It's becoming more like Michigan than like Alabama.   

Texas is probably becoming more like Pennsylvania than Michigan.

[Neptunium]

Too early to call a battleground, Trump still win above 5% here when Biden win 5% national wide.

[Roll Roons]

Republicans may not win there by 20 points anymore like they did in the 2000s, but this year's results showed that it's definitely not there yet. Competing there is so expensive and time-consuming. It's worth some investment, being one of the very few offensive Senate opportunities, but for the presidential race, it should be a lower priority than the big six (AZ, GA, MI, NC, PA, WI).

[TheReckoning]

Calling Texas a battleground is like calling Colorado a battleground.

It swung 1 point this year more to the Democrats relative to the NPV, and Trump is doing abysmally bad among suburban educated whites. It actually swung more Republican as recently as 2008-2012.

I wouldn’t say it’s solidly Republican anymore like it was staring in the 90’s, but it’s not a toss-up, either.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Do people on this forum have short term memory loss? Everybody who is saying no is using the same excuses that were said about Georgia and look how that ended up.

[Tender Branson]

No, not really.

If Trump's on the ballot again, he could win by 4-10 again, which under a perfect DEM scenario could mean "borderline battleground state".

But with almost any other R on the ballot (Romney, Cotton etc.), Texas will be 10% R in the end.

[Roll Roons]

Do people on this forum have short term memory loss? Everybody who is saying no is using the same excuses that were said about Georgia and look how that ended up.

Campaigning in Texas is a much bigger investment than campaigning in Georgia. Not only is it much larger physically, but there are a lot more media markets.

[Catalyst138]

Really depends on the definition of “battleground.” Will it be a tipping point state or vote closest to the national vote? Most likely not. But could it be competitive in a good Dem year? Definitely.

It shouldn’t be a priority for Democrats in comparison to the big 3 Rust belt states, AZ, or GA, but writing it off entirely is silly, especially since swings and trends are not as predetermined as people seem to think they are.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Really depends on the definition of “battleground.” Will it be a tipping point state or vote closest to the national vote? Most likely not. But could it be competitive in a good Dem year? Definitely.

It shouldn’t be a priority for Democrats in comparison to the big 3 Rust belt states, AZ, or GA, but writing it off entirely is silly, especially since swings and trends are not as predetermined as people seem to think they are.

I can easily this post being in a "Is Georgia Now a Battleground State?" thread from December 2016 (Obviously without the mention of Georgia in your post).

And on that note, I still find it weird actually seeing Georgia in the "Focus on the big 3 states...and _____ I guess" role that Arizona served in 2016-2020.

[ElectionsGuy]

Democrats still have not won any statewide office in Texas since the 1990's to this point, nor majorities in any legislative chambers. They failed to win in a blue wave year. They lost the presidential and congressional votes by 5-10 points in a Lean Dem environment. This is not the mark of a battleground state. Maybe it's getting there, but it ain't there yet. (and yes, I know people mock that phrase)

If Texas is a battleground, Minnesota should be too, it's congressional vote and Senate race were even much closer than Texas's was. And I think Minnesota correctly earns the distinction after this year of a light blue state or a state that leans Democratic. Texas definitely gets a distinction as leaning Republican at least. It is not a state that decides elections.

[EastwoodS]

Democrats still have not won any statewide office in Texas since the 1990's to this point, nor majorities in any legislative chambers. They failed to win in a blue wave year. They lost the presidential and congressional votes by 5-10 points in a Lean Dem environment. This is not the mark of a battleground state. Maybe it's getting there, but it ain't there yet. (and yes, I know people mock that phrase)

If Texas is a battleground, Minnesota should be too, it's congressional vote and Senate race were even much closer than Texas's was. And I think Minnesota correctly earns the distinction after this year of a light blue state or a state that leans Democratic. Texas definitely gets a distinction as leaning Republican at least. It is not a state that decides elections.

And triggered Democrats will storm this thread of brutal honesty in 3..2...

[pppolitics]

I guess it depends.

Are Democrats willing to invest in Texas to make it a battleground state?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, FL is a battleground since Rick Scott is a ,🎯 in 2024, HEGAR was Blanched in 2020, Greg Abbott is gonna be reelected and either Cruz or Crenshaw will be elected in 2024. D's have plenty of battlegrounds aside from TX

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Do people on this forum have short term memory loss? Everybody who is saying no is using the same excuses that were said about Georgia and look how that ended up.

TX isn't GA, HEGAR was Blanched by 10 pts

[Fuzzy Bear]

It may be by 2024, so I voted "yes".

There is an exodus of more socially liberal people from CA and NY to TX.  I see TX as a less socially conservative state as time goes by.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=5gki

I could see a map like this where TX is the decisive state. There is a case that this election might've been the last hurrah for Democrats in the rust belt, Biden was hand picked by voters because he was the canidate who could win back the WWC and flip the big 3, and he only narrowly one all 3 states from stalling rural trends and pushing suburban areas to their limit, and juicing just enough votes from the shrinking urban centers. If the rust belt is off the table, and if FL and NC are titanium tilt R forever, the next most plausible win would be TX.

[neostassenite31]

If the GOP nominee is competitive with the NPV, then no. It swung left only 1 point more than the nation overall (trend) and in fact moved by almost the same margin as neighboring Oklahoma.