What happens first?

[Sir Mohamed]

The two most populous states are strongly in favor of one party. Which one will go to the other party first?

I say TX goes Dem first due to the demographic changes. But won’t happen before 2024 or 2028.

[RINO Tom]

The two most populous states are strongly in favor of one party. Which one will go to the other party first?

I say TX goes Dem first due to the demographic changes. But won’t happen before 2024 or 2028.

Doubt it happens by then unless there's a small resurgence in Dem support among Southern Whites.  Even then, White Texans tend to be both socially and economically conservative (unlike, say, many voters in WV or AR up until recently).  However, can't see CA going Republican without a massive increase among socially moderate Whites and Hispanics, and the GOP seems intent on p*ssing both of those opportunities away right now.

[White Trash]

This all of course assuming that Hispanics will remain solid Democratic voters. I think developments in the future will make them a little more friendly to the GOP.

[Virginiá]

This all of course assuming that Hispanics will remain solid Democratic voters. I think developments in the future will make them a little more friendly to the GOP.

That depends when in the future you mean, because for a group trending even more strongly Democratic, it will be a long time. Most new Hispanic voters are Millennials / young people aging into the electorate and their only impressions from the Republican party the entire time they have been teens/young adults have been of a party who wants to deport their family and friends. At this point, the GOP will probably have to bank on success with the next generation as they have clearly written off the entire Millennial generation as a massive loss.

I voted Texas because California has no obvious Republican trends going on (in fact it has been the opposite for many years now). Democrats have not really invested much at all in Texas and a surging pro-Democratic Hispanic population is slowly but surely opening the state up to meaningful competition. If you factor in the inevitable path-to-citizenship, it could happen even sooner.

[White Trash]

This all of course assuming that Hispanics will remain solid Democratic voters. I think developments in the future will make them a little more friendly to the GOP.

That depends when in the future you mean, because for a group trending even more strongly Democratic, it will be a long time. Most new Hispanic voters are Millennials / young people aging into the electorate and their only impressions from the Republican party the entire time they have been teens/young adults have been of a party who wants to deport their family and friends. At this point, the GOP will probably have to bank on success with the next generation as they have clearly written off the entire Millennial generation as a massive loss.

I voted Texas because California has no obvious Republican trends going on (in fact it has been the opposite for many years now). Democrats have not really invested much at all in Texas and a surging pro-Democratic Hispanic population is slowly but surely opening the state up to meaningful competition. If you factor in the inevitable path-to-citizenship, it could happen even sooner.

I think that the GOP is certainly making a mistake in not courting Hispanic voters more aggressively. We must remember that Hispanics are by and large a very traditionalist Catholic group. On the social side these folks should be the bread and butter of the GOP. The only problem with the GOP right now is their entire rhetoric about Hispanic and Latino immigrants as well as their rigid immigration policy.

Let's say that the Rubio/Sandoval/Bush wing of the party wins out. Hispanic voters could very well fall into the Republican coalition with a few changes in policy and rhetoric.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The answer is it depends.  If the Republicans moderate on immigration, California going Republican could happen in a 2028 or 2032 re-election of a Republican incumbent.  If Democrats moderate on social issues, Texas going Democratic could happen around 2036.  Voted California going Republican.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I say TX goes Dem first due to the demographic changes. But won’t happen before 2024 or 2028.

I agree with you.

[5280]

When CA goes Republican, TX goes Democratic. Both states are politically opposite from each other, socially.

[Derpist]

Neither will happen anytime soon. People always think Texas will go blue because of demographic changes. And then it literally doesn't even budge. lol @ Wendy Davis.

California is just trending further and further left as the state's economy turns into a dystopian oligarchical corporatist nightmare and socialism appears more attractive. That and the race identity politics.

I'd just say California, because we'll probably EVENTUALLY get some kind of revolutionary fervor to abolish the entire dreadful Californian model of capitalism and some Republican MIGHT win a three-way election marked by bombings, security forces patrolling election booths, and widespread boycott of the ballot in favor of the bullet.

[Virginiá]

The answer is it depends.  If the Republicans moderate on immigration, California going Republican could happen in a 2028 or 2032 re-election of a Republican incumbent.  If Democrats moderate on social issues, Texas going Democratic could happen around 2036.  Voted California going Republican.

Huh? Are you seriously trying to argue that California is solid blue because of immigration alone? That the magic bullet is for the GOP to moderate on immigration? California was flying away from Republicans like a rocket before immigration became such a wedge issue among Hispanics. Your moderate happened in 2000/2004 and the best that could be done was a 10 point divide in 2004, and California has been trending even more Democratic since then.

[RINO Tom]

ITT I learned that California has a "corporatist" government, LOL.

[White Trash]

a dystopian oligarchical corporatist nightmare

I'll take "Scary Buzzwords" for a thousand, Alex.

[RINO Tom]

Both are unlikely, but the best chance is Texas circa 2028.  It would take three of the next four R nominees being Trumpists for Democrats to seal the deal there IMO.

And despite the wet dreams of Atlas Democrats, the GOP simply isn't going to keep doing that.  Even if we ignore for a moment that this Trump phenomena is clearly a reflection on his personal appeal and not policy initiative, parties don't keep nominating candidates destined to lose.  They change in order to get elected, and the odds of a "Trumpist" being elected will decline each cycle.

[Kingpoleon]

When CA goes Republican, TX goes Democratic. Both states are politically opposite from each other, socially.

[Orser67]

Texas has a few trends/phenomena that help Democrats: 1)the rural vote is declining in importance, 2)the Hispanic population continues to grow, 3)Texas has one of the lowest turnouts in the country (at least in 2012), 4)Texas Republicans do relatively well with Hispanics compared to the rest of the country. If a few of these things change, I could see Dems winning the state in the 2020s. Democrats also have some talented young politicians like the Castros and Rafael Anchia.

I don't see anything positive that California Republicans can point to.

[Clark Kent]

Both are unlikely, but the best chance is Texas circa 2028.  It would take three of the next four R nominees being Trumpists for Democrats to seal the deal there IMO.

And despite the wet dreams of Atlas Democrats, the GOP simply isn't going to keep doing that.  Even if we ignore for a moment that this Trump phenomena is clearly a reflection on his personal appeal and not policy initiative, parties don't keep nominating candidates destined to lose.  They change in order to get elected, and the odds of a "Trumpist" being elected will decline each cycle.

The William Jennings Bryan 1908 campaign says hi!  Of course, Trump will be 81 in 2028, so there's no way it would be him.  But I'm sure LePage, Bevin or some current Appalachian House backbencher could capture the party's heart during the 2020's!

In all seriousness, between the immigration fight, the commodities crash, and the constant court battles over a new discriminatory legislation coming out of the South every other week, doesn't it feel like we are reliving 1896-1912?  Except that we're in an alternate universe where Grover Cleveland had an electoral college advantage and won reelection and then the land speculation panic happened a year early in 1892?

Either way, I agree with you that this Trump = demise of the Republican Party talk is ridiculous.  Clinton is holding things together right now, but we are 2 or at most 3 cycles away from the Sandersistas bolting the Democrats and running a 3rd candidate, and when that happens, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate.  IMO we are now realigning from a North vs. South to an East vs. West divide as Republicans win over the Northern white populists.  That's how Democrats could win Texas.

What the heck does Matt Bevin have to do with trump?

[IceSpear]

Neither one is going to happen barring a massive re-alignment.

[JohnathanOHughes]

2020 Democratic Nomination: Most likely nobody, only if she does a really bad job in her 2017- 2021 term, and she probably will, so the possible candidates would/could be: Andrew Cuomo, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders [If he hasn't retired yet], etc.

General: Its not like shes going to win the general, directly elected after a Democratic President serving 8 years wouldn't give her that option.