Why Rightwards Hispanic shift shouldn't discourage Ds too much in Texas

[ProgressiveModerate]

Recently, I've been seeing a lot of theories about how a rightwards shift amongst Hispanics, in particular those, with lower educational attainment could keep Texas in the GOP column for a while.

I agree with the premise that Hispanics have great potential to shift further right. I also agree this could cost Dems dearly in RGV over the coming decade.

However, I don't think increasing their margins with Hispanics is their path to victory in Texas. It's more about turning out their voters in urban centers, which are notoriously very poor in heavily minority parts of Dallas and Houston in particular (well below 30% and into the 20s in many cases). For reference, this on par with the RGV which has a more notorious reputation for being low turnout.



This map shows the change in net votes by congressional districts from 2016 Pres - 2020 Pres. While it is true that a rightwards shift of Hispanics cost Dems in RGV, higher voter turnout negated the heavily rightwards shifts seen in districts like TX-09 and TX-18. Heavily blue TX-30 which barely shifted net Biden as many votes as TX-03 which saw a 14% shift to the left.

Austin is already high turnout, but it's insane growth should mean that no matter what happens the metro will continue to net more and more votes for Dems

San Antonio turnout isn't as great but it doesn't seem to be as bad as Dallas or Houston

Also generally, the cities are all growing faster than the rest of the state which means Dems have a bit more a padding to do worse in the cities in order to win statewide.

I did a study a while back on here (Can't find thread rn but I promise I did) that found equalizing turnout across Texas by precinct would bring Texas to just Trump + ~2, shifting it 3 points left. Remember too that in this turnout equitization project, high turnout blue places like Austin were equalized to be lower. I might go back and retest what happens if Travis County is unaffected

On the flip side, raising turnout in rural Texas can be the GOP's strategy for keeping the state, however, turnout in these regions isn't as poor as Dallas and Houston in particular.

So overall, I don't think this narrative that Hispanics shifting right will keep Texas red is accurate, nor is the narrative that Dems must win over white suburbanites to pull Texas left for that matter. Obviously, both would have an impact, but neither is destiny nor the only possibility

While I do not believe that blue Texas is destiny, if I were the GOP I would be very concerned because overall the states population shifts are very unfavorable to them

What do you think?

[David Hume]

Recently, I've been seeing a lot of theories about how a rightwards shift amongst Hispanics, in particular those, with lower educational attainment could keep Texas in the GOP column for a while.

I agree with the premise that Hispanics have great potential to shift further right. I also agree this could cost Dems dearly in RGV over the coming decade.

However, I don't think increasing their margins with Hispanics is their path to victory in Texas. It's more about turning out their voters in urban centers, which are notoriously very poor in heavily minority parts of Dallas and Houston in particular (well below 30% and into the 20s in many cases). For reference, this on par with the RGV which has a more notorious reputation for being low turnout.



This map shows the change in net votes by congressional districts from 2016 Pres - 2020 Pres. While it is true that a rightwards shift of Hispanics cost Dems in RGV, higher voter turnout negated the heavily rightwards shifts seen in districts like TX-09 and TX-18. Heavily blue TX-30 which barely shifted net Biden as many votes as TX-03 which saw a 14% shift to the left.

Austin is already high turnout, but it's insane growth should mean that no matter what happens the metro will continue to net more and more votes for Dems

San Antonio turnout isn't as great but it doesn't seem to be as bad as Dallas or Houston

Also generally, the cities are all growing faster than the rest of the state which means Dems have a bit more a padding to do worse in the cities in order to win statewide.

I did a study a while back on here (Can't find thread rn but I promise I did) that found equalizing turnout across Texas by precinct would bring Texas to just Trump + ~2, shifting it 3 points left. Remember too that in this turnout equitization project, high turnout blue places like Austin were equalized to be lower. I might go back and retest what happens if Travis County is unaffected

On the flip side, raising turnout in rural Texas can be the GOP's strategy for keeping the state, however, turnout in these regions isn't as poor as Dallas and Houston in particular.

So overall, I don't think this narrative that Hispanics shifting right will keep Texas red is accurate, nor is the narrative that Dems must win over white suburbanites to pull Texas left for that matter. Obviously, both would have an impact, but neither is destiny nor the only possibility

While I do not believe that blue Texas is destiny, if I were the GOP I would be very concerned because overall the states population shifts are very unfavorable to them

What do you think?

You need to make sure for those new turnouts, who do they vote. It may be the case that Trump turned out a lot of low propensity Hispanic voters, who voted for R.

I tend to believe as Hispanic turnout increase, they vote closer to the white.

I do agree that TX will be more competitive, but there are no enough evidence that it will flip like CO and VA. It may end up a larger NC.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Recently, I've been seeing a lot of theories about how a rightwards shift amongst Hispanics, in particular those, with lower educational attainment could keep Texas in the GOP column for a while.

I agree with the premise that Hispanics have great potential to shift further right. I also agree this could cost Dems dearly in RGV over the coming decade.

However, I don't think increasing their margins with Hispanics is their path to victory in Texas. It's more about turning out their voters in urban centers, which are notoriously very poor in heavily minority parts of Dallas and Houston in particular (well below 30% and into the 20s in many cases). For reference, this on par with the RGV which has a more notorious reputation for being low turnout.



This map shows the change in net votes by congressional districts from 2016 Pres - 2020 Pres. While it is true that a rightwards shift of Hispanics cost Dems in RGV, higher voter turnout negated the heavily rightwards shifts seen in districts like TX-09 and TX-18. Heavily blue TX-30 which barely shifted net Biden as many votes as TX-03 which saw a 14% shift to the left.

Austin is already high turnout, but it's insane growth should mean that no matter what happens the metro will continue to net more and more votes for Dems

San Antonio turnout isn't as great but it doesn't seem to be as bad as Dallas or Houston

Also generally, the cities are all growing faster than the rest of the state which means Dems have a bit more a padding to do worse in the cities in order to win statewide.

I did a study a while back on here (Can't find thread rn but I promise I did) that found equalizing turnout across Texas by precinct would bring Texas to just Trump + ~2, shifting it 3 points left. Remember too that in this turnout equitization project, high turnout blue places like Austin were equalized to be lower. I might go back and retest what happens if Travis County is unaffected

On the flip side, raising turnout in rural Texas can be the GOP's strategy for keeping the state, however, turnout in these regions isn't as poor as Dallas and Houston in particular.

So overall, I don't think this narrative that Hispanics shifting right will keep Texas red is accurate, nor is the narrative that Dems must win over white suburbanites to pull Texas left for that matter. Obviously, both would have an impact, but neither is destiny nor the only possibility

While I do not believe that blue Texas is destiny, if I were the GOP I would be very concerned because overall the states population shifts are very unfavorable to them

What do you think?

You need to make sure for those new turnouts, who do they vote. It may be the case that Trump turned out a lot of low propensity Hispanic voters, who voted for R.

I tend to believe as Hispanic turnout increase, they vote closer to the white.

I do agree that TX will be more competitive, but there are no enough evidence that it will flip like CO and VA. It may end up a larger NC.

That’s exactly what this map shows. The “new voters” in both districts still broke for Biden, just not by as much as the “old voters”.

In other words, Biden 2020 - Clinton 2016 > Trump 2020 - Trump 2016

[S019]

I strongly agree with basically all of this, and did something similar a bit back, but I shifted the RGV back to 2016 numbers and looked at the impact of the shift by county, and it turned out that it only moved the statewide margin by 1 point, and of course the urban counties shifted the margin the most, not many people live in Zapata and Starr. It's not a coincidence imo that those most heavily populated RGV counties remained the most Democratic ones in 2020 and saw the smallest shifts.

[TML]

Shortly after Election Day 2020, I saw an article stating that what actually happened in TX was that most of the new Trump voters in the RGV were Tejanos rather than Latinos - i.e. people whose families have already been in the US for many generations, as opposed to recent arrivals from Latin America. While Latinos may consider themselves people of color, Tejanos may actually consider themselves White rather than people of color. The article states that Democrats need to understand this difference and thus move past their one-size-fits-all approach toward Hispanics.

Do you agree with the points mentioned above, OP?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The issue for democrats isn’t just RGV but Harris county as well as Hispanic Trends I believe allowed Trump to outperform Cruz 2018 there

[Skill and Chance]

The issue for democrats isn’t just RGV but Harris county as well as Hispanic Trends I believe allowed Trump to outperform Cruz 2018 there

IMO Texas could go either way in the medium run.  Agree that it comes down to Houston and the RGV trend is relatively low impact statewide.

[S019]

The issue for democrats isn’t just RGV but Harris county as well as Hispanic Trends I believe allowed Trump to outperform Cruz 2018 there

If Austin+Dallas continue to swing the way that they have been, Houston stagnating will simply delay, not prevent a Democratic Texas. Houston would need to actually swing to the right to set off the horrendous trends for Republicans in the Metroplex and Austin.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Shortly after Election Day 2020, I saw an article stating that what actually happened in TX was that most of the new Trump voters in the RGV were Tejanos rather than Latinos - i.e. people whose families have already been in the US for many generations, as opposed to recent arrivals from Latin America. While Latinos may consider themselves people of color, Tejanos may actually consider themselves White rather than people of color. The article states that Democrats need to understand this difference and thus move past their one-size-fits-all approach toward Hispanics.

Do you agree with the points mentioned above, OP?

I think this definitely could’ve contributed, but it’s still clear Biden lost ground with Hispanics, especially since he recieved fewer votes than Clinton in a few low pop RGV counties. The Tejano idea makes sense as some of the further in counties were already deep red tejanos, and there seemed to be a disproportionate slide against Dems in RGV specifically whereas other lower education areas didn’t see as large of a swjng

[ProgressiveModerate]

The issue for democrats isn’t just RGV but Harris county as well as Hispanic Trends I believe allowed Trump to outperform Cruz 2018 there

Thing is Dems still net more votes out of Harris County due to higher turnout even if the margin isn’t as large. For example, say 100 voters in 2016 voted 70D-30R. In 2020, 20 new voters who break 12D - 8R. Yes, the county swings right, but Dems still net 4 additional vote. Unless one is to suggest Harris County does not continue to see increased turnout or that Republicans will start outright winning new voters, it still benefits Dems, just maybe not as much as it could.

I really doubt Rs will start winning Harris County outright, and turnout especially in the most D parts of the county really can’t get much worse. So yes it could shift but Dems raw vote margin could grow.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ds netted votes in Texas from the changes in Latino voting behavior from 2016 to 2020, probably. Sure, the margin dropped, but the pool of voters grew.
In the abstract, it's better to win a group that has 80% turnout by a margin of 70-30 than it is a group that has 50% turnout by a margin of 80-20.

[Torie]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

[Unelectable Bystander]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

[swf541]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

[Schiff for Senate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

[ProgressiveModerate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

[Schiff for Senate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

The Madison suburbs, which are also populous and surprisingly liberal, have actually trended decently rightward in the Trump era, probably enough to mostly or fully cancel out Madison's leftward swing. To win in WI Democrats need to make inroads in WOW or at least keep the margin about the same (not expecting them to win anytime soon, but preferably keep the counties no more than 60-65% red), keep turnout reasonably high in urbans, and maybe try to win back some Obama/Trump voters.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

The Madison suburbs, which are also populous and surprisingly liberal, have actually trended decently rightward in the Trump era, probably enough to mostly or fully cancel out Madison's leftward swing. To win in WI Democrats need to make inroads in WOW or at least keep the margin about the same (not expecting them to win anytime soon, but preferably keep the counties no more than 60-65% red), keep turnout reasonably high in urbans, and maybe try to win back some Obama/Trump voters.

Biden actually did like 2 points better than Obama in the current WI-02, which includes basically the entire Madison metro + rurals. On net the Madison metro has been a net to Dems; it’s been rural areas  in WI-03 which are Democrats bigger problem; the whole east half of WI used to blue, now you just have a really blue Madison dot

[Schiff for Senate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

The Madison suburbs, which are also populous and surprisingly liberal, have actually trended decently rightward in the Trump era, probably enough to mostly or fully cancel out Madison's leftward swing. To win in WI Democrats need to make inroads in WOW or at least keep the margin about the same (not expecting them to win anytime soon, but preferably keep the counties no more than 60-65% red), keep turnout reasonably high in urbans, and maybe try to win back some Obama/Trump voters.

Biden actually did like 2 points better than Obama in the current WI-02, which includes basically the entire Madison metro + rurals. On net the Madison metro has been a net to Dems; it’s been rural areas  in WI-03 which are Democrats bigger problem; the whole east half of WI used to blue, now you just have a really blue Madison dot

Fair enough. And really, I think people underestimate Madison. Madison metro area is way more helpful to Democrats in WI than Milwaukee metro area - Milwaukee itself is very blue, but so is Madison, and while Madison has sprawling, blue-leaning suburbs, Milwaukee's WOW suburbs are solidly Republican and well to the right of the state (they even gave McCain north of 60% of the vote, and without them Clinton would have won WI quite decently in 2016).

[ProgressiveModerate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

The Madison suburbs, which are also populous and surprisingly liberal, have actually trended decently rightward in the Trump era, probably enough to mostly or fully cancel out Madison's leftward swing. To win in WI Democrats need to make inroads in WOW or at least keep the margin about the same (not expecting them to win anytime soon, but preferably keep the counties no more than 60-65% red), keep turnout reasonably high in urbans, and maybe try to win back some Obama/Trump voters.

Biden actually did like 2 points better than Obama in the current WI-02, which includes basically the entire Madison metro + rurals. On net the Madison metro has been a net to Dems; it’s been rural areas  in WI-03 which are Democrats bigger problem; the whole east half of WI used to blue, now you just have a really blue Madison dot

Fair enough. And really, I think people underestimate Madison. Madison metro area is way more helpful to Democrats in WI than Milwaukee metro area - Milwaukee itself is very blue, but so is Madison, and while Madison has sprawling, blue-leaning suburbs, Milwaukee's WOW suburbs are solidly Republican and well to the right of the state (they even gave McCain north of 60% of the vote, and without them Clinton would have won WI quite decently in 2016).

I agree. The City of Milwaukee nets more for Dems than the city of Madison, but the Madison metro is much more helpful. It’s pretty amazing how R wow burbs are. I do wonder if we might begin to see a bit of spillover of Chicago that powers Racine and Kenosha a bit leftwards? Neither are very big or influential at the end of the day but every little thing helps. Also starting to get a little Minneapolis spillover but that’s negligible and prolly will be for a while

[Schiff for Senate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

The Madison suburbs, which are also populous and surprisingly liberal, have actually trended decently rightward in the Trump era, probably enough to mostly or fully cancel out Madison's leftward swing. To win in WI Democrats need to make inroads in WOW or at least keep the margin about the same (not expecting them to win anytime soon, but preferably keep the counties no more than 60-65% red), keep turnout reasonably high in urbans, and maybe try to win back some Obama/Trump voters.

Biden actually did like 2 points better than Obama in the current WI-02, which includes basically the entire Madison metro + rurals. On net the Madison metro has been a net to Dems; it’s been rural areas  in WI-03 which are Democrats bigger problem; the whole east half of WI used to blue, now you just have a really blue Madison dot

Fair enough. And really, I think people underestimate Madison. Madison metro area is way more helpful to Democrats in WI than Milwaukee metro area - Milwaukee itself is very blue, but so is Madison, and while Madison has sprawling, blue-leaning suburbs, Milwaukee's WOW suburbs are solidly Republican and well to the right of the state (they even gave McCain north of 60% of the vote, and without them Clinton would have won WI quite decently in 2016).

I agree. The City of Milwaukee nets more for Dems than the city of Madison, but the Madison metro is much more helpful. It’s pretty amazing how R wow burbs are. I do wonder if we might begin to see a bit of spillover of Chicago that powers Racine and Kenosha a bit leftwards? Neither are very big or influential at the end of the day but every little thing helps. Also starting to get a little Minneapolis spillover but that’s negligible and prolly will be for a while

Honestly, I doubt any more significant growth will happen there. The Chicago area isn't growing that fast, so neither will these two. They are kind of working class and trended rightwards in the Trump era. Of course, though, you are right inthat every vote matters in a state as purple as WI.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

The Madison suburbs, which are also populous and surprisingly liberal, have actually trended decently rightward in the Trump era, probably enough to mostly or fully cancel out Madison's leftward swing. To win in WI Democrats need to make inroads in WOW or at least keep the margin about the same (not expecting them to win anytime soon, but preferably keep the counties no more than 60-65% red), keep turnout reasonably high in urbans, and maybe try to win back some Obama/Trump voters.

Biden actually did like 2 points better than Obama in the current WI-02, which includes basically the entire Madison metro + rurals. On net the Madison metro has been a net to Dems; it’s been rural areas  in WI-03 which are Democrats bigger problem; the whole east half of WI used to blue, now you just have a really blue Madison dot

Fair enough. And really, I think people underestimate Madison. Madison metro area is way more helpful to Democrats in WI than Milwaukee metro area - Milwaukee itself is very blue, but so is Madison, and while Madison has sprawling, blue-leaning suburbs, Milwaukee's WOW suburbs are solidly Republican and well to the right of the state (they even gave McCain north of 60% of the vote, and without them Clinton would have won WI quite decently in 2016).

I agree. The City of Milwaukee nets more for Dems than the city of Madison, but the Madison metro is much more helpful. It’s pretty amazing how R wow burbs are. I do wonder if we might begin to see a bit of spillover of Chicago that powers Racine and Kenosha a bit leftwards? Neither are very big or influential at the end of the day but every little thing helps. Also starting to get a little Minneapolis spillover but that’s negligible and prolly will be for a while

Wisconsin has so many interesting features. The Green Bay metro and WOW counties are bizarrely red, the Madison metro is unlike any other similar sized (and relatively sparse) metro in how liberal it is, and the southwest rurals are relatively left leaning compared to most other rural areas.

I actually think Kenosha is and will be trending right for a couple of reasons:
1) The outskirts are becoming a hub for disgruntled republicans who work in the Chicago suburbs
2) There are a few factories that have opened somewhat recently increasing the blue collar presence in the county

[ProgressiveModerate]

Sean Trende: Ohio v. Texas

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/ohio-texas-and-the-future-of-american-politics/

If this comes to fruition then Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will all be gone before Texas flips

I dont think its fair to lump Pennsylvania in with the other 2 given the state is not that similar to either of them and has various countervailing trends.

PA is similar to MI in terms of margins and more recent trends, actually, though not to WI. Both are anchored by a very large city (Philadelphia and Detroit; WI's largest city, Milwaukee, is much smaller than either of those two) and have stagnated in population (PA fell from 20 to 19 electoral votes; MI from 16 to 15 - WI held steady at 10), and both have rurals trending rightwards (actually, so does WI, but its rurals are still noticeably more moderate than those in MI and PA) but urban/suburban areas trending leftwards (PA has the Philadelphia suburbs; MI has Grand Rapids - WI doesn't really have any; the WOW counties have moved slightly leftwards but it's not a major shift at all, they're still safely red and that's about it).

I agree with this but WI does have Madison which is both growing and has gotten much bluer and has pretty much been keeping it on life support for being competitive. The issue for WI Dems is that Milwaukee is shrinking so Madison will likely become their biggest vote get in the state at some point, but if rurales continue to shift right it prolly won’t matter

The Madison suburbs, which are also populous and surprisingly liberal, have actually trended decently rightward in the Trump era, probably enough to mostly or fully cancel out Madison's leftward swing. To win in WI Democrats need to make inroads in WOW or at least keep the margin about the same (not expecting them to win anytime soon, but preferably keep the counties no more than 60-65% red), keep turnout reasonably high in urbans, and maybe try to win back some Obama/Trump voters.

Biden actually did like 2 points better than Obama in the current WI-02, which includes basically the entire Madison metro + rurals. On net the Madison metro has been a net to Dems; it’s been rural areas  in WI-03 which are Democrats bigger problem; the whole east half of WI used to blue, now you just have a really blue Madison dot

Fair enough. And really, I think people underestimate Madison. Madison metro area is way more helpful to Democrats in WI than Milwaukee metro area - Milwaukee itself is very blue, but so is Madison, and while Madison has sprawling, blue-leaning suburbs, Milwaukee's WOW suburbs are solidly Republican and well to the right of the state (they even gave McCain north of 60% of the vote, and without them Clinton would have won WI quite decently in 2016).

I agree. The City of Milwaukee nets more for Dems than the city of Madison, but the Madison metro is much more helpful. It’s pretty amazing how R wow burbs are. I do wonder if we might begin to see a bit of spillover of Chicago that powers Racine and Kenosha a bit leftwards? Neither are very big or influential at the end of the day but every little thing helps. Also starting to get a little Minneapolis spillover but that’s negligible and prolly will be for a while

Wisconsin has so many interesting features. The Green Bay metro and WOW counties are bizarrely red, the Madison metro is unlike any other similar sized (and relatively sparse) metro in how liberal it is, and the southwest rurals are relatively left leaning compared to most other rural areas.

I actually think Kenosha is and will be trending right for a couple of reasons:
1) The outskirts are becoming a hub for disgruntled republicans who work in the Chicago suburbs
2) There are a few factories that have opened somewhat recently increasing the blue collar presence in the county

Lol Wisconsin def feels like it lags behind 10 years politically.

I think the above 2 posts make fair points about Kenosha, honestly idk the region very well so I was kinda guessing.

[Sol]

The thing about these shifts which is always so odd is that posters on this site seem to view "trends" as something equivalent to the movement of continental plates--slow but inevitable. Parties are very capable of winning back over voters or changing people's minds with good messaging or with smart campaigns. Latinos in South Florida are a great example--for nearly 8 years on this site, there was endless discussion of how the traditionally Republican Cubans were shifting D, reaching its apogee with Clinton's strong 2016 performance...and then they flipped back hard in 2018 and again in 2020. Now of course the narrative is flipped the other way. In both cases the actual problem is a narrative which ignores the fact that people can be swung.

The same goes for Wisconsin. Barack Obama won 6 out of 8 congressional districts in 2008, significantly outperforming Kerry in much of the rural parts of the state. That's collapsed the other way in Trump times of course, but what that suggests is not the inexorable move of trends but rather switches in voter preference which are specific to candidates and their campaigns and positioning.

Of course, the problem is is that it seems like a lot of the political class thinks the same way as this forum which can make this sort of thing into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[lfromnj]

The thing about these shifts which is always so odd is that posters on this site seem to view "trends" as something equivalent to the movement of continental plates--slow but inevitable. Parties are very capable of winning back over voters or changing people's minds with good messaging or with smart campaigns. Latinos in South Florida are a great example--for nearly 8 years on this site, there was endless discussion of how the traditionally Republican Cubans were shifting D, reaching its apogee with Clinton's strong 2016 performance...and then they flipped back hard in 2018 and again in 2020. Now of course the narrative is flipped the other way. In both cases the actual problem is a narrative which ignores the fact that people can be swung.

The same goes for Wisconsin. Barack Obama won 6 out of 8 congressional districts in 2008, significantly outperforming Kerry in much of the rural parts of the state. That's collapsed the other way in Trump times of course, but what that suggests is not the inexorable move of trends but rather switches in voter preference which are specific to candidates and their campaigns and positioning.

Of course, the problem is is that it seems like a lot of the political class thinks the same way as this forum which can make this sort of thing into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I dont think 2018s performance was that unusual. It still reflected D swings from 2014 atleast.