Texas Democrats release 2020 autopsy

[Pollster]

The Texas Democratic Party has made their 2020 analysis and autopsy public.

Apologies if this has already been posted, I didn't see a thread for it.

[Hope For A New Era]

Skimmed through this a bit - seems like they understand that elections are won by turnout rather than persuasion nowadays (with the exception of certain dealigned groups), which is good.

[One Term Floridian]

While I’m glad this was made public, I still think they are underestimating the massive trend towards Trump by minorities in the state especially in the Rio Grande Valley

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

TX is winnable but not by a Valdez or Hegar or Beto candidate, Joaquin Castro or WC male can win in a state like TX that's why we lost it in 2020/ we don't know yet whom is running against Abbott, but as far as we know IA and TX aren't battleground states, but 291 plus OH, NC and FL are still are and have competetive races in 2022/2024

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

"With sufficient investment and ambition, Texas can be a reliably Democratic state in the next decade."
"We estimate 51% of the voting population are Democrats"
bahahahhahahaha

[Devils30]

Some progressives are in denial that Hispanics switched sides from 2016-20. The Warren wing would have lost the trifecta without a doubt.

[Kamala's side hoe]

Some progressives are in denial that Hispanics switched sides from 2016-20. The Warren wing would have lost the trifecta without a doubt.

Warren wing, definitely- but not necessarily Warren herself.

The most viable path to beat Biden for the nomination without a Biden own goal would have been an economic leftist candidate with a socially conservative streak.  Think of the original Two-Income Trap Warren platform circa 2005.  Such a candidate would have done exceptionally well in the COVID environment, too, likely having a bigger GE victory than Biden.

Numerically yeah there were some individual Tejano voters in the RGV (and Mexicans in Metro Houston) who voted HRC-45, but the majority of 45’s gains in Texas seemed to be from turning out previous nonvoters.

[DaleCooper]

While I’m glad this was made public, I still think they are underestimating the massive trend towards Trump by minorities in the state especially in the Rio Grande Valley

I agree with you, but at the same time I think a lot of people are overestimating the impact of the RGV on Democratic potential in the state. It's important for them to try and stop the bleeding, of course, but the path of least resistance to victory in Texas is not to try and claw their way back up to Obama numbers in the rural RGV.

[MargieCat]

This is the one thing that stood out to me.

Not sure if it's at all possible. They are projecting a 2024 win of 1700 votes. Oddly specific.

[wbrocks67]

While I’m glad this was made public, I still think they are underestimating the massive trend towards Trump by minorities in the state especially in the Rio Grande Valley

There could be a few reasons for this though, especially the incumbency factor

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

While I’m glad this was made public, I still think they are underestimating the massive trend towards Trump by minorities in the state especially in the Rio Grande Valley

There could be a few reasons for this though, especially the incumbency factor

TX hasn't elected a Senator or Gov female since Ann Richards and if the D's want to win TX they must move beyond HEGAR and Valdez, I am warming up to Beto, since the Recession is Receding and Abbott botched Energy crisis if he should run for Gov

But, he said he isn't running

[Intell]

This report is some level of stupidity, if they think this is just an issue of turnout and base mobilisation.

[MargieCat]

While I’m glad this was made public, I still think they are underestimating the massive trend towards Trump by minorities in the state especially in the Rio Grande Valley

There could be a few reasons for this though, especially the incumbency factor

TX hasn't elected a Senator or Gov female since Ann Richards and if the D's want to win TX they must move beyond HEGAR and Valdez, I am warming up to Beto, since the Recession is Receding and Abbott botched Energy crisis if he should run for Gov

But, he said he isn't running

Kay Bailey Hutchison

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

There are lots of Clinton-Trump voters in the RGV. Trump did not win >95% of new voters. Biden received fewer votes than Clinton in many counties.

[ProgressiveModerate]

There are lots of Clinton-Trump voters in the RGV. Trump did not win >95% of new voters. Biden received fewer votes than Clinton in many counties.

Also, the RGV valley tends to be a region of the country where a lot of people move in and out of a lot, so some of it could be more boarder employees for ICE and such. In some of these rural counties with just a few thousand people along the boarder, the ICE force (which probably broke very heavily for Trump) could've had an impact.

[kwabbit]

Skimmed through this a bit - seems like they understand that elections are won by turnout rather than persuasion nowadays (with the exception of certain dealigned groups), which is good.

This is a bad take honestly. Yes, it's not the depolarized 1980s, where persuasion was 95% of the equation and turnout 5%, but persuasion is still 70% of the equation. If you think Biden's gains in the built-out suburbs of WI and PA, which were ultimately the key to his victory, was simply a matter of turning out Democrats, you are dead wrong. Biden won because he was able to persuade formerly Republican suburbanites, not because he was able to turnout a hidden vote in those counties.

Even in quickly growing counties in Texas where the Democrats have made massive gains, such as Fort Bend, Harris, Tarrant, Dallas, Collin, Denton, etc., the majority of these gains have happened in the suburbs. Turnout doesn't turn Collin from a 2 to 1 Romney blowout to a swing county, that comes from Republican voters deciding to vote for Biden and not for Trump.

The same is true in the massive swing in the Rio Grande Valley. If you posit that it was simply a one-sided turnout surge that caused some counties to swing 50 points towards Trump, then you're being delusional. In Starr County, for example, the 2016 result was about 80/20 Clinton. In a county that lopsided, to say that the nonvoting population is entire Republican is crazy. The nonvoting population was probably around as Democratic as the voting population.

If there's a 50% turnout increase, as there was in Starr County, then around 67% of the electorate voted in 2016. And that went 79/19 for Clinton.

So that 67% breaks down as 53/13. That's already higher than Biden's vote share. Then maybe the new voters are 40% Biden, 60% Trump. So you can add 13/20 to that, and you get 66/33. Then to actually get to the result, you would need a 14% shift of the overall vote, or around a fifth of the previous vote, to get to the actual result.

The change in the RGV was a matter of persuasion. These voters decided to leave the Democratic party to vote for Trump. It wasn't a magic swell where the completely untapped 100% Republican nonvoting population finally voted. There was a real shift here, and explaining it through turnout misses what actually happened.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In my view, Biden didn't have a bad performance in TX, it's just Trump did better. Both sides massively increased their raw vote totals and Biden actually got hundreds of thousands of more votes in TX in 2020 than Trump got in 2016. However, Trump was also able to get more Republicans to turn out and did make some gains in minority communities.

[Alben Barkley]

George W. Bush did WAY better in the RGV and with Hispanics as a whole, but sure, just because Trump overperformed with them in one election, clearly that’s proof that they will be a reliably Republican voting bloc in the coming years and anyone who needs more evidence to come to that conclusion is just “in denial.”

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

George W. Bush did WAY better in the RGV and with Hispanics as a whole, but sure, just because Trump overperformed with them in one election, clearly that’s proof that they will be a reliably Republican voting bloc in the coming years and anyone who needs more evidence to come to that conclusion is just “in denial.”

Latinos have a pro-incumbent streak as well, don't they?

[Alcibiades]

George W. Bush did WAY better in the RGV and with Hispanics as a whole, but sure, just because Trump overperformed with them in one election, clearly that’s proof that they will be a reliably Republican voting bloc in the coming years and anyone who needs more evidence to come to that conclusion is just “in denial.”

W did do better than Trump with Hispanics overall, but he did not do better in the RGV, and that’s despite having one of the biggest home state boosts of any recent presidential candidate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

George W. Bush did WAY better in the RGV and with Hispanics as a whole, but sure, just because Trump overperformed with them in one election, clearly that’s proof that they will be a reliably Republican voting bloc in the coming years and anyone who needs more evidence to come to that conclusion is just “in denial.”

Latinos have a pro-incumbent streak as well, don't they?

Not really , the thing is the GOP were in charge when everything collapsed from 2004-2008 including failure on immigration which set the gop back with Hispanic voters .


If Kerry won in 2004 and McCain was the 2008 nominee , McCain probably does better with Hispanics than 2004 Bush did

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

George W. Bush did WAY better in the RGV and with Hispanics as a whole, but sure, just because Trump overperformed with them in one election, clearly that’s proof that they will be a reliably Republican voting bloc in the coming years and anyone who needs more evidence to come to that conclusion is just “in denial.”

W did do better than Trump with Hispanics overall, but he did not do better in the RGV, and that’s despite having one of the biggest home state boosts of any recent presidential candidate.

Bush did much better in the Urban RGV than Trump did, so he won them by more even if he didn't get those insane rural swings he did perform much better because those counties have almost no people.

Like Bush Lost the RGV, 45-54 in 2004, Trump lost it 41-57 in 2020 compared to  29-68 in 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande_Valley#Politics

[MargieCat]

"With sufficient investment and ambition, Texas can be a reliably Democratic state in the next decade."
"We estimate 51% of the voting population are Democrats"
bahahahhahahaha

Not unrealistic since Texas is a majority minority state.

The 2018 census estimate has Texas 41.4% Non-Hispanic White. It's between 30-40% Hispanic, depending on the source.

According to the exit polls, 67% of the voters were White and 13% Latino.

[Alcibiades]

George W. Bush did WAY better in the RGV and with Hispanics as a whole, but sure, just because Trump overperformed with them in one election, clearly that’s proof that they will be a reliably Republican voting bloc in the coming years and anyone who needs more evidence to come to that conclusion is just “in denial.”

W did do better than Trump with Hispanics overall, but he did not do better in the RGV, and that’s despite having one of the biggest home state boosts of any recent presidential candidate.

Bush did much better in the Urban RGV than Trump did, so he won them by more even if he didn't get those insane rural swings he did perform much better because those counties have almost no people.

Like Bush Lost the RGV, 45-54 in 2004, Trump lost it 41-57 in 2020 compared to  29-68 in 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Grande_Valley#Politics

I think, if you look at the map in the Wikipedia article, these results are only referring to the southernmost tip of Texas (i.e. the strict geographic Valley), not the broader Hispanic region that politically forms the RGV. Bush did better by that definition, because, as you say, it contains the main urban centres, but if you expand it to all of Hispanic South Texas, I reckon Trump still did better.