Is Texas Now a Battleground State?

[It’s so Joever]

Texas will be close in 2028 even with the Republican winning and will be won by a Democrat in 2032.

Very confident in that take. Why so?

My delusions WILL BE REAL!

[TheReckoning]

You’re not taking into account that Trump is a uniquely bad candidate for the wealthy, educated suburban whites that are growing in Texas.

If a candidate can get Trump support among Hispanics and rural areas, and Romney support in urban/suburban areas, Texas will be around 20%+ for GOP.

This would be a much more plausible argument if the GOP were doing something to distance itself from the very things that, as you put it "the wealthy, educated suburban whites that are growing in Texas" don't like about Trump. Do you see them doing that? I don't see any sign of that at all, so far... They seem to be doing rather the opposite, doubling down on Trump and Trumpism in the wake of Trump's defeat. If anything, it appears Trump may well run again and perhaps be the GOP nominee once again in 2024.

And in addition, it doesn't address the fact (as shown by the trend maps linked above) that this urban/suburban erosion is a longer run trend going back about 16-20 years, and that a similar trend has also been happening across the country in urban/suburban areas even before that (i.e. Philly suburbs going from GOP in the 1980s and 90s to solidly Dem now). I do agree that Trump accelerated this trend in Texas, but it was already a trend in process in Texas, and nationwide, even before Trump came along.

If Texas was swinging so heavily towards the Democrats, it wouldn’t have swung by only 1 point relative to the NPV this year, especially in a year of record turnout. In comparison, CA swung 3 points more to the GOP relative to the NPV. Doesn’t mean that CA will be competitive in a couple of election cycles.

Is Texas less Republican than it was in the 2000s? Sure. Competitive? No.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

If Texas was swinging so heavily towards the Democrats, it wouldn’t have swung by only 1 point relative to the NPV this year, especially in a year of record turnout.

Is Texas less Republican than it was in the 2000s? Sure. Competitive? No.

I think you are not reading what I said, or at least not carefully enough. I said that Texas (not even Texas as a whole, so much, but urban/suburban Texas) has been consistently trending Dem going back to the 2000s. That is a different thing than saying that Texas as a whole has consistently swung Dem. To understand the overall statewide swings, you need to look at the competing localized trends and countertrends, which I have explained in more detail above.

As far as the national popular vote goes, because Democrats normally win the popular vote and Republicans sometimes "win" while losing by millions of votes, the average battleground state is to the right of the nation, so it is not especially meaningful to say that a state is not a battleground because it is to the right of the national popular vote average.

At the end of the day, Texas voted almost the same as Florida. Rationalize that all you want, I guess, but the broader trend is clear and long-running.

[DK_Mo82]

Yes but south Tx needs to go back to what it was before this election or it will take ten more years for a democrat to win.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, it’s not Georgia.

[Red Wall]

It's a reach state for dems so far.

[The Mikado]

Trump wins TX by 5.6. Atlas: it's off the table. Safe R.
Biden wins MN by 7.1. Atlas: It's only a matter of time, it'll go R soon. It's getting closer.

[JGibson]

It is a battleground state, albeit one favored for the GOP.

[GALeftist]

I'm really getting tired of the "muh uniquely bad" takes with respect to like every single state. Trump won against the odds in 2016 and kept it shockingly close in 2020. It seems just as likely to me that Trump is a uniquely good fit for the Republican coalition as opposed to uniquely bad, and we'll have to wait until at least 2024 to see with any measure of confidence which one is the case.

[BaldEagle1991]

No, it’s not Georgia.

Culturally and economically they're similar.

[neostassenite31]

National GOP groups are for sure not going to take TX for granted in 2024. Even if it leans R electorally, the fact that it has 41 electoral votes is a virtual guarantee that Democrats will paint a target on it.

Yes, the mirror state of Texas on the other side of the NPV is Colorado or New Jersey, but both clearly have different recent trend patterns than TX.  

[Frenchrepublican]

It depends of what do you mean by ''battleground state'' but it is funny to see that many people who would never call VA (a D+6 state) a battleground state call TX (R+10) a battleground one.

[MargieCat]

It depends of what do you mean by ''battleground state'' but it is funny to see that many people who would never call VA (a D+6 state) a battleground state call TX (R+10) a battleground one.

Long term trends.

[EastwoodS]

It depends of what do you mean by ''battleground state'' but it is funny to see that many people who would never call VA (a D+6 state) a battleground state call TX (R+10) a battleground one.

Long term trends.

Trends can change quite quickly; we really have no idea what the attitude will be in 4 years or 4 months. This could all attribute to new trends.

[MarkD]

Going from 15.79% R margin in 2012 to 8.99% R margin in 2016 to 5.58% R margin in 2020? Yes, that trend is indicative that it is becoming a battleground state, and that Democrats should seriously compete there from now on.

[ProgressiveModerate]

It depends of what do you mean by ''battleground state'' but it is funny to see that many people who would never call VA (a D+6 state) a battleground state call TX (R+10) a battleground one.

Long term trends.

Trends can change quite quickly; we really have no idea what the attitude will be in 4 years or 4 months. This could all attribute to new trends.

That's true, but even though VA was closer to the NPV than TX, it seems less likely to flip since Democrats consistantly win the NPV, and even though trends can sometimes suddenly reverse, it general, trends tend to continue, and VA has no sign of slowing down it's leftwards trend.

[One Term Floridian]

Arguments both for and against. At best for the GOP it’s like MN is for the Dems and at worst for the GOP it’s like VA was in 2004 and just waiting for the ripe opportunity to flip big time

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As we should have learned in 2020, D's arent gonna win any 413 maps, FL is the last stand for D's, not TX, there are gonna be 278 to 334 maps not huge landslides. The D's don't even have a bench and Castro Bros have a last name complex

[Figueira]

Yes, in the same sense that it already was. It certainly didn't become less of a battleground state.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

It's not there yet, clearly. I thought it would've been a lot closer this year. But it's on track to being a battleground by 2024 and I think Dems will flip it this decade almost inevitably. Except they'll probably find a way to mess it up somehow lol

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Oracle is moving its headquarters from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas. Austin suburbia is going to turn into NOVA eventually.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/oracle-is-moving-its-headquarters-from-silicon-valley-to-austin-texas.html

[forsythvoter]

It's a lean R state right now, but trending D. Whether that makes it a battleground depends on the D and R parties' national strategies, but I suspect that the simple fact that it has 40+ electoral votes will turn it into battleground state, because the margins are competitive enough that it wouldn't make sense for Ds to write it off or R to take it for granted.

Personally, I think if we start seeing GA voting D by +5, that's when TX will be a true toss up. The historical data suggests that TX and GA results have generally tended to move in the same direction, with TX being about 6% more R than GA.

TX / GA Pres Result
2004: R+22.9 / R+16.6
2008: R+11.8 / R+5.2
2012: R+15.8 / R+7.8
2016: R+9.0 / R+5.1
2020: R+5.6 / D+0.2

[Beet]

I was one of those Democrats who was pretty hopeful about Texas.

Despite my general pessimism, I gave Biden a 35% chance here. It's now apparent I was too optimistic. The Democrats' position didn't really gain from 2016 because back then, even though Clinton lost by a slightly larger margin, there was always this notion that if turnout increased, then Democrats would gain. There was this saying Texas Democrats liked to repeat, "Texas isn't a red state, it's a blue/purple state with low turnout/voter suppression." Well, this year turnout in Texas skyrocketed, and it proved we have a solid Republican majority after all. Trump gained 1.2 million votes between 2016 and 2020, which is more than George W. Bush gained on Bob Dole from 1996 to 2000, or indeed more than any Republican candidate has gained here in Texas in a single cycle ever.

Even worse, it's apparent some of the Biden voters are Republicans who were just fed up with Trump's personal antics. While Biden lost 46%-52%, downballot Democrats lost by more. John Cornyn won by 10 points; about the same margin as he did in 2002 and 2008. This is a better indicator of the partisan baseline than Trump-Biden. But while in the 2000's the Democrats could claim this was due to low turnout, now they cannot. Some Republicans got a record six million votes, which is ridiculous consideration that George Bush didn't even crack 5 million in his heyday.

Even worse, with the Republicans' control of redistricting and 83-67 majority in the state house, and solid majority in the state senate, they look to remain solidly in the majority in state government for at least until 2030. Even if you extrapolate the gains that Biden made 2016-2020 and assume that those anti-Trump Republicans eventually become Democrats, at the current rate it would take until at least 2032 for it to put a Democrat over the top. And who knows what could happen by then? All in all, I wouldn't say the Democrats should get too hopeful about Texas.

[TheReckoning]

I'm really getting tired of the "muh uniquely bad" takes with respect to like every single state. Trump won against the odds in 2016 and kept it shockingly close in 2020. It seems just as likely to me that Trump is a uniquely good fit for the Republican coalition as opposed to uniquely bad, and we'll have to wait until at least 2024 to see with any measure of confidence which one is the case.

Trump got less votes than Romney as a share of the electorate twice, and you think he’s a good fit for the GOP?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I'm really getting tired of the "muh uniquely bad" takes with respect to like every single state. Trump won against the odds in 2016 and kept it shockingly close in 2020. It seems just as likely to me that Trump is a uniquely good fit for the Republican coalition as opposed to uniquely bad, and we'll have to wait until at least 2024 to see with any measure of confidence which one is the case.

Trump got less votes than Romney as a share of the electorate twice, and you think he’s a good fit for the GOP?

Both TX and the GOP are changing though. Romney, the GOP canidate from 2012, is now one of the most hated figures in his own party and would never be able to win the nomination today. Furthermore, TX is a very different state than it was 8 or 12 years ago. Obama didn't lose GA in 2008 becuase he was any worse of a fit than Biden, or McCain wasn't a better fit than Trump, it's just that overall the Democratic and GOP coalitions have changed. Sure, Trump may have accelerated some trends, and we could see a bit of mean-reversion in 2024, but we shouldn't assume things are just going to suddenly stop.