To what extent should Biden invest in Texas?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Cases For:

-Dems winning Texas in 2024 and beyond makes a GOP path to EC victory basically impossible without significant changes on the GOP's part
-Texas is probably Dems best and possibly only Senate picks up opportunity
-Texas has disproportionately low turnout in it's heavily Dem urban cores, some of the lowest in the country. Increasing these turnouts to more normal levels would be powerful
-Overall, its clearly been trending left relative to the nation since the early 2000s
-It voted for Trump by a little under 6% in 2020. States regularly swing more than 6 points between cycles

Cases Against:

-Texas is just a large state; serious investment would take a ton of resources
-Even if Texas is theoretically winnable, it's not needed to win and will almost certianly be to the right of the tipping point
-Texas (probably) won't have many competitive House seats in 2024 due to the gerrymander
-Trump won it by about 6% in 2020. Abbott just won re-election by 11%. That's still quite a deficit to erase

[S019]

A considerable amount, but not as much as North Carolina

[South Dakota Democrat]

The Senate seat necessitates at least moderately investing in it, I think.

[MargieCat]

I'd like to see some investment in Texas.

Especially from the DSCC.

I think Texas should become the new Florida in terms of priority.

Biden needs to focus on holding all his most vulnerable 2020 states, specifically Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. I feel that Pennsylvania and Michigan are on safer ground than the previous. The reach states should be North Carolina, Texas, and potentially Alaska.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, Biden should invest in a state that is worth 40 electoral votes and that he lost by only 5%

[Mr.Phips]

The Senate seat necessitates at least moderately investing in it, I think.

This.  Democrats have to have that Senate seat to hold control, given that they are very likely to lose at least 2/3 out of MT/OH/WV.

[Spectator]

If Biden doesn't want a hostile Senate in a second term, it pretty much requires defeating Ted Cruz.

Also, resources aren’t going to be an issue for the incumbent President of the United States, especially if he jettisons Iowa and likely even Florida (?). He’ll have more than enough money to spend on Texas if he wants.

[Mr.Phips]

If Biden doesn't want a hostile Senate in a second term, it pretty much requires defeating Ted Cruz.

And if he wants any shot at getting another Supreme Court appointment.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Should definitely invest in it because of the Senate seat. While it’s expensive, remember that Florida appears to be a lost cause, so just put the money for Florida into Texas.

[Tekken_Guy]

If Biden doesn't want a hostile Senate in a second term, it pretty much requires defeating Ted Cruz.

And if he wants any shot at getting another Supreme Court appointment.

A possible scenario is that he narrowly loses the Senate in 2024 then wins it back in 2026.

[Ferguson97]

If Biden doesn't want a hostile Senate in a second term, it pretty much requires defeating Ted Cruz.

And if he wants any shot at getting another Supreme Court appointment.

A possible scenario is that he narrowly loses the Senate in 2024 then wins it back in 2026.

Why would Cruz win against Cornyn?

[Tekken_Guy]

If Biden doesn't want a hostile Senate in a second term, it pretty much requires defeating Ted Cruz.

And if he wants any shot at getting another Supreme Court appointment.

A possible scenario is that he narrowly loses the Senate in 2024 then wins it back in 2026.

Why would Cruz win against Cornyn?

I meant that Democrats narrowly lose the senate and win it back in 2026.

[rhg2052]

Worth noting that between 2012 & 2020, Texas swung D by 10 points, more so than Arizona, Georgia, Colorado, and Virginia. It absolutely could be winnable in 2024 under the right national environment.

Obviously the first priority has to be defending AZ/GA/NV/WI and making sure Michigan and Pennsylvania are solid, but after that I think working to boost turnout in Texas cities is absolutely a worthwhile investment. It might not lead to a win, but could make a difference in the Senate and lay groundwork for a win in 2028.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Worth noting that between 2012 & 2020, Texas swung D by 10 points, more so than Arizona, Georgia, Colorado, and Virginia. It absolutely could be winnable in 2024 under the right national environment.

Obviously the first priority has to be defending AZ/GA/NV/WI and making sure Michigan and Pennsylvania are solid, but after that I think working to boost turnout in Texas cities is absolutely a worthwhile investment. It might not lead to a win, but could make a difference in the Senate and lay groundwork for a win in 2028.

I feel like losing TX would actually be a huge blow to the GOP whereas AZ/GA/CO/VA drifting away from the GOP are just cuts they can still make up for. Right now, I don't think the GOP has any sort of realistic electoral path without Texas (assuming Dems also carry GA and AZ), which would really force the party to do some soul searching.



This map is still a narrow D electoral win, and MN, NM, NH, and ME-AL are stretches.

[Agonized-Statism]

A fair bit, but it's even more important for the Texas Democrats to start building themselves up bottom-to-top. The party's really lacking on Mexican-American outreach and representation and could use a strong reformist platform to speak to the concerns of the (sub)urban, multiracial majority, going after the entrenched one-party rule of the same landed aristocrats who've dominated since the drafting of the 1876 constitution by Confederate veterans and the Grange. The 2021 Freeze absolutely didn't have to happen and it's a prime example of the need for change. Texas itself has changed dramatically and that needs to be taken into account, balanced with exploitation of the beef between business conservatives and the activist Republican base.

Tl;dr, focus on the state level to make it an actual swing state, maybe even a blue state, or it might just flip once nationally as an anti-Trump fluke

[Progressive Pessimist]

More than Florida, but less than North Carolina. And more so for the sake of making the uphill battle of unseating Ted Cruz more than anything, the only thing even close to a pickup in the 2024 map that Democrats can manage, a little less difficult. We at least have to try, even if the state probably still resists flipping for another decade or so.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Much more investment than Florida.

Exchange one large state with dwindling hope for one large state with increased promise.

[Red Wall]

Triaging Florida gives him some room but Texas is not there for democrats in 2024.

[ProgressiveModerate]

A fair bit, but it's even more important for the Texas Democrats to start building themselves up bottom-to-top. The party's really lacking on Mexican-American outreach and representation and could use a strong reformist platform to speak to the concerns of the (sub)urban, multiracial majority, going after the entrenched one-party rule of the same landed aristocrats who've dominated since the drafting of the 1876 constitution by Confederate veterans and the Grange. The 2021 Freeze absolutely didn't have to happen and it's a prime example of the need for change. Texas itself has changed dramatically and that needs to be taken into account, balanced with exploitation of the beef between business conservatives and the activist Republican base.

Tl;dr, focus on the state level to make it an actual swing state, maybe even a blue state, or it might just flip once nationally as an anti-Trump fluke

One thing that makes Texas a bit trickier for Dems than some of these other states is that they're actually reliant on several metro areas, each with very distinct cultures and needs. Trying to appeal to all of them at once is def a challenge, especially once you factor in RGV. And also from the racial lens, you basically have to do well with both liberal and moderate whites, Hispanics all across the spectrum, african americans, and a growing Asian population.

[Agonized-Statism]

One thing that makes Texas a bit trickier for Dems than some of these other states is that they're actually reliant on several metro areas, each with very distinct cultures and needs. Trying to appeal to all of them at once is def a challenge, especially once you factor in RGV. And also from the racial lens, you basically have to do well with both liberal and moderate whites, Hispanics all across the spectrum, african americans, and a growing Asian population.

That's very true. Having just lived there, I can attest to the differences. Each city is its own little world, and even within some demographics there's splits- the Vietnamese Boat People versus their kids and recent arrivals, the Tejanos who were crossed by the border in the 19th century versus the immigrants who came over with the 2013-2014 surge (and the weirdos like me whose relatives came somewhere in the middle and mixed in), and so on. That's why it's important to think smaller-scale right now, do the organizing and build the machines at a local level. I think there can be a unifying party platform, but it'll take time to figure it out.

[Ferguson97]

I feel like losing TX would actually be a huge blow to the GOP whereas AZ/GA/CO/VA drifting away from the GOP are just cuts they can still make up for. Right now, I don't think the GOP has any sort of realistic electoral path without Texas (assuming Dems also carry GA and AZ), which would really force the party to do some soul searching.

I feel like we're too polarized for a party to be locked out of the electoral college like that, I think that if the Democrats are consistently winning Texas, they're making up ground elsewhere.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I feel like losing TX would actually be a huge blow to the GOP whereas AZ/GA/CO/VA drifting away from the GOP are just cuts they can still make up for. Right now, I don't think the GOP has any sort of realistic electoral path without Texas (assuming Dems also carry GA and AZ), which would really force the party to do some soul searching.

I feel like we're too polarized for a party to be locked out of the electoral college like that, I think that if the Democrats are consistently winning Texas, they're making up ground elsewhere.

While I think Texas is winnable for Dems, it'll still be a while before it actually votes to the left of the nation so in the hypothetical scenario, I'm describing Rs are consistently losing the PV.

I think Rs issue long term is that right now, they're so used to losing the PV and relying on institutional biases to carry them over the line, but when those biases no longer work in their favor they'll be in real trouble and they'll have to do some pretty serious rebranding.

[Pericles]

Democrats got a bunch of electoral votes and two Senate seats out of a similar state last time, why wouldn't they try to get lucky again?

[pppolitics]

...as much as Florida usually gets

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

FL, NC and AZ are better investments but John Love is a better candidate than Sancrainte, if I had to bet Love would have a better chance but there are not any polls but I would invest in TX it depends on the Debt Ceiling its very likely WVA, pipeline, Border wall and extended tax cuts are in there, that's why Manchin isn't DOA there is gonna be a WV pipeline in the Debt Ceiling with an R H and WV and KY aren't AL Beshear, Byrd and Manchin and Jay Rockefeller never lost 60/40 but AL hasn't elected a D since Doug Jones sin e 1996 Gov Siegalman, users like to keep comparing Doug Jones with Manchin it's not the same because Manchin and Tester win in a D +4 PVI in 2012

Rs like Trump want you believe he built the Border wall no he didn't Obama and Biden and Boehner built 128M and Trump built 400m just like he lied in the debate with Hillary that he would build a wall and it was already there

How did Trump build a wall and Rs had 247 Republicans at one pt in the H fake news