When will Texas become a swing state?

[memphis]

Around the same time that Massachusetts becomes a swing state.

Are millions of GOP-leaning voters moving into MA?

[Penelope]

2020 or so, but that depends on whether or not the GOP continues it's anti-Hispanic trend, which is really, really, really unlikely.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

[Bo]

how will it lose further ground with white voters?

No. Having the white % in Texas decline enough should make TX a swing state.

[rob in cal]

If GOP ever controls DC again it may want to revisit the Texas/Mexico border issue from back in 1836, and cede the Rio Grande valley back to Mexico, moving the border up to the Nueces. While they're at it, maybe time to discuss Hawaii independence.  We could call it the gerrymandering nuclear option.

[Nichlemn]

If all demographic groups continue voting at the same percentages as they do now, Texas may vote for a Democrat in a Presidential election. However, this sort of analysis patently ignores how in such a scenario, the country as a whole would lean even more Democratic. Perhaps Carville's 40 year Democratic majority may eventually come to fruition, but in any case, Texas would be superfluous to the Electoral College majority. A better question is "When will Texas have an even CPVI?" This would take a lot longer if it ever happens.

[Liberalrocks]

"When will Texas become a swing state?"

-When Hell freezes over?

[redcommander]

Not very likely for a few decades to come if that. California has a greater chance of going red before Texas does. The Republican Party has a grip on the state. Democrats are in such bad shape there that they haven't won anything statewide since 1994, face being in the minority in the state legislature, and are below 10 congressional seats in the state. Not only that, but the Republican party there has had a somewhat successful outreach to minorities (Ortiz wouldn't have gone down if Republicans there hadn't gotten enough Hispanics to vote for Farenthold.)

[Sbane]

Not very likely for a few decades to come if that. California has a greater chance of going red before Texas does. The Republican Party has a grip on the state. Democrats are in such bad shape there that they haven't won anything statewide since 1994, face being in the minority in the state legislature, and are below 10 congressional seats in the state. Not only that, but the Republican party there has had a somewhat successful outreach to minorities (Ortiz wouldn't have gone down if Republicans there hadn't gotten enough Hispanics to vote for Farenthold.)

Can't you say the same thing about the condition of California Republicans? They have more congressional seats than Texas Democrats but that's only due to gerrymandering. If Democrats could have gerrymandered California, the number of Republicans left would have been in the single digits. Actually the Republicans could even lose a seat or two after fair redistricting.

The reason why Texas is trending Democratic is due to a growing Latino electorate and increased migration from blue states. And why California won't trend Republican is also due to Latinos as well as Asians. In addition blue collar whites are leaving the state due to a higher cost of living. So I don't know what your pronouncement that California is more likely to vote Republican than Texas is for the Democrats is based on.

   

[albaleman]

Sometime around 2030. A lot of the demographic trends are headed in the right direction, but it will definitely take time.

[albaleman]

I would say it won't become a swing state because the GOP will come to its senses and start trying to attract Latino voters again.

Am I being hopelessly optimistic?

Yes you are, because if they tried to they'd be accused of selling out by Rush Limbaugh and all his buddies.

[Sam Spade]

One of the most important things to take from 2010, in combination with what was already present in 2008, is the very likely conclusion that California and Texas are gone for the other party for the next generation barring 1) landslide; 2) weird turnout or 3) changes in the major bases of the party in question.

Some might argue, of course, that it's already been that way for 20 years now.  But the things that made that possible are now so cemented in stone that it's probably going to take a long while to change it.

[redcommander]

Not very likely for a few decades to come if that. California has a greater chance of going red before Texas does. The Republican Party has a grip on the state. Democrats are in such bad shape there that they haven't won anything statewide since 1994, face being in the minority in the state legislature, and are below 10 congressional seats in the state. Not only that, but the Republican party there has had a somewhat successful outreach to minorities (Ortiz wouldn't have gone down if Republicans there hadn't gotten enough Hispanics to vote for Farenthold.)

Can't you say the same thing about the condition of California Republicans? They have more congressional seats than Texas Democrats but that's only due to gerrymandering. If Democrats could have gerrymandered California, the number of Republicans left would have been in the single digits. Actually the Republicans could even lose a seat or two after fair redistricting.

The reason why Texas is trending Democratic is due to a growing Latino electorate and increased migration from blue states. And why California won't trend Republican is also due to Latinos as well as Asians. In addition blue collar whites are leaving the state due to a higher cost of living. So I don't know what your pronouncement that California is more likely to vote Republican than Texas is for the Democrats is based on.

   

I'm saying statewide it is more hospitable to Republicans. We've managed to get a Republican Governor, Secretary of State, and two Insurance Commissioners elected since '94. Texas isn't for Democrats if you go by how the state votes as a whole for elected offices. The Latino community in Texas is also more likely to vote Republican than in California, which means the state should stay safely Republican for a few decades, unless for some reason Hispanics become a Republican voting bloc.

[-]

I would say it won't become a swing state because the GOP will come to its senses and start trying to attract Latino voters again.

Am I being hopelessly optimistic?

Yes you are, because if they tried to they'd be accused of selling out by Rush Limbaugh and all his buddies.

[Skill and Chance]

I would say that Texas will become a swing state whenever state economy next crashes, but California 2010 stands as a strong refutation of that theory.  Hispanic population increase would eventually do it under the current party system, but the state needs to become almost 60% Hispanic before it becomes a true toss up state.  By that time the partisan leans of white, black, and Hispanic voters could be completely different than today.

[Dgov]

"When will Texas become a swing state?"

-When Hell freezes over?

Or When Texas Freezes over?

Seriously, Texas has been "About to go Democrat" since the 1980s.  Since then, Republicans have managed to hold on by significantly increasing their percentage of both the White vote and the Hispanic vote, mostly due to rapid suburbanization.  Rural East Texas has gone from a swing region (Clinton won or came close to winning it in 92) to about 70-30.  Orange county in particular has had a large shift, having Voted for Clinton by 17 points in '92 and voted for McCain by 47 points in '08.  Add on that Texas Hispanics have gone from about 80-20 Democrat to close to 60-40 Democratic over the last 30 years (Topped off by Bush winning them or almost winning them in 2004) and you have plenty of reasons to believe the Republican party can hold on to the state.

[5280]

When Texas becomes a swing state, California will become swing also. Hopefully I'm not around by that time. Hell will break lose and kill us all!

[Verily]

"When will Texas become a swing state?"

-When Hell freezes over?

Or When Texas Freezes over?

Seriously, Texas has been "About to go Democrat" since the 1980s.  Since then, Republicans have managed to hold on by significantly increasing their percentage of both the White vote and the Hispanic vote, mostly due to rapid suburbanization.  Rural East Texas has gone from a swing region (Clinton won or came close to winning it in 92) to about 70-30.  Orange county in particular has had a large shift, having Voted for Clinton by 17 points in '92 and voted for McCain by 47 points in '08.  Add on that Texas Hispanics have gone from about 80-20 Democrat to close to 60-40 Democratic over the last 30 years (Topped off by Bush winning them or almost winning them in 2004) and you have plenty of reasons to believe the Republican party can hold on to the state.

This is... weird and wrong. Texas was Democratic in the 1980s. Undoubtedly it was moving towards the Republicans throughout the 80s and 90s, and maybe into the early 00s. But no one was talking about it being "about to go Democratic" in 1980 because it was Democratic, and the question then was when it would become more Republican.

Political winds have changed in Texas only in the past five or ten years or so. The Republicans are no longer gaining ground among white voters there because there is no longer any more ground to be gained, while the Democrats are gaining ground among urban whites and with an increasing Hispanic population. This is a slow process, though, and it will be at least a decade before Democrats are particularly viable statewide again.

Of course, I don't think 2010 is a great indicator of this Republican strength. 2006 would have been a better example, had the Democrats had a decent candidate and there not been weird Independents.

[Dgov]

"When will Texas become a swing state?"

-When Hell freezes over?

Or When Texas Freezes over?

Seriously, Texas has been "About to go Democrat" since the 1980s.  Since then, Republicans have managed to hold on by significantly increasing their percentage of both the White vote and the Hispanic vote, mostly due to rapid suburbanization.  Rural East Texas has gone from a swing region (Clinton won or came close to winning it in 92) to about 70-30.  Orange county in particular has had a large shift, having Voted for Clinton by 17 points in '92 and voted for McCain by 47 points in '08.  Add on that Texas Hispanics have gone from about 80-20 Democrat to close to 60-40 Democratic over the last 30 years (Topped off by Bush winning them or almost winning them in 2004) and you have plenty of reasons to believe the Republican party can hold on to the state.

This is... weird and wrong. Texas was Democratic in the 1980s. Undoubtedly it was moving towards the Republicans throughout the 80s and 90s, and maybe into the early 00s. But no one was talking about it being "about to go Democratic" in 1980 because it was Democratic, and the question then was when it would become more Republican.

Political winds have changed in Texas only in the past five or ten years or so. The Republicans are no longer gaining ground among white voters there because there is no longer any more ground to be gained, while the Democrats are gaining ground among urban whites and with an increasing Hispanic population. This is a slow process, though, and it will be at least a decade before Democrats are particularly viable statewide again.

Of course, I don't think 2010 is a great indicator of this Republican strength. 2006 would have been a better example, had the Democrats had a decent candidate and there not been weird Independents.

No, I was referring to the fact that people were largely predicting that any movement towards the Republicans would be immediately offset by an increasing Hispanic population, and that it would settle back into the Democratic column after only a few years.  The fact that the State is more Republican now than it was in 1980 despite the fact that the Hispanic percentage has almost doubled (and I assume voter participation rates increased by more than that) again suggests that the Democrats can't rely on Hispanics alone.

For example, in the 2010 governors race, Perry beat White by 630,000 votes.  Assuming that Hispanic voters voted the way the CNN exit polls showed (61-38 White) and any new ones would continue to vote at the same ratio, there would need to be approximately 2,744,252 more Hispanics to show up to the polls than actually did.  That would mean quadrupling of the Number of Hispanics who did actually vote (slightly under 1 Million).

But maybe using 2010 isn't a good reference point.  Using the 2008 Senate numbers (again CNN exit polls, mostly because they're all I've got), Cornyn won 55-43 against Noriega, winning by just under a million votes.  Assuming constant Hispanic voting rates (supporting the Democrat 61-36), that would require approximately 4 Million more Hispanic voters to show up than did in 2008.  Noreiga himself didn't get more than 3.4 Million votes.

Do you see why I think that the Democrat's electoral problems in Texas can't be solved by just waiting for more Hispanics to show up instate?   The Gap is just too big, and Hispanics are just not Democratic enough for that to be a viable election strategy.

[Sbane]

It all depends on how these migrants from the other states vote? I know everyone is assuming they will vote 70-30 Republican, but what is that based on? Most people don't have the choice of moving where they want. I don't see why migrants from blue states wouldn't vote accordingly.

[Verily]

Indeed, they haven't been for the past few years. The suburbs have become less strongly GOP. They're still Republican bastions, to be sure, and would be even if Texas were a swing state, but not to the extent they were half a decade ago. It's not only about more Hispanic votes; it's also about lowering GOP margins in the suburbans and white urban areas.

[phk]

It all depends on how these migrants from the other states vote? I know everyone is assuming they will vote 70-30 Republican, but what is that based on? Most people don't have the choice of moving where they want. I don't see why migrants from blue states wouldn't vote accordingly.

Wouldn't  conventional wisdom be for Republicans to be the first to leave a D-dominated state for Texas?

[Sbane]

It all depends on how these migrants from the other states vote? I know everyone is assuming they will vote 70-30 Republican, but what is that based on? Most people don't have the choice of moving where they want. I don't see why migrants from blue states wouldn't vote accordingly.

Wouldn't  conventional wisdom be for Republicans to be the first to leave a D-dominated state for Texas?

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

[Dgov]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

[5280]

If people are moving by their own choice, then of course yes. IMO a lot of people are moving because they are losing their jobs here, and are finding new ones in Texas. People who move to Arizona from here are much more Republican.

Here's to hoping they realize there's a correlation between "Is a Small Government State" and "Has jobs".

That can be said about my home state in another decade. If they keep electing people who are 'big government' people will start flocking out of Colorado to a more pro-business state (i.e. Texas, or somewhere in the south). Californization of my state is almost complete.