Atlas Forum

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: Republican Left on December 05, 2018, 12:45:13 am



Title: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Republican Left on December 05, 2018, 12:45:13 am
Is Texas really going to become a blue state? If Texas turns blue doesn't that mean game over for any prospects for a Republican president (and killing conservatism in America, at least in the national sense), not to mention a lopsided House? Won't this mean one party rule for a generation?

Or will Texas (and other states in the South like Georgia and North Carolina) turn into another Florida or Ohio, ergo "battleground" Texas or purple?


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: smoltchanov on December 05, 2018, 01:06:43 am
^ I will not make a long-term prediction, but in the next decade second variant sems much more likely to me.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: darklordoftech on December 05, 2018, 01:27:48 am
Anything can happen in the long run.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Southern Speaker & Acting Southern Gov Punxsutawney Phil on December 05, 2018, 03:46:21 am
Anything can happen in the long run.
^ I will not make a long-term prediction, but in the next decade second variant sems much more likely to me.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Tekken_Guy on December 05, 2018, 07:19:29 pm
It’s definitely going in a blue direction, but it may be a while before a Democrat wins outright.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Thunder98 on December 05, 2018, 08:44:44 pm
I screenshot a lot of Election maps from Wiki starting from Election 2000.

Presidential Elections: 2000-2016
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)

Senate Class 1: 2000, 2006, 2012 and 2018
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)

Senate Class 2: 2002, 2008, and 2014
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Annatar on December 05, 2018, 08:46:04 pm
I think it is definitely becoming less republican, I can see it moving from a R+10 state to a R+5 state, it probably is becoming a bit more like Florida but a few points more republican, a state where a democrat can win in a really good year but not otherwise. The issue for the GOP right now in Texas is unlike most other states, there are not a lot of voters outside the metro areas, in most states there are a lot of voters in small towns and cities which can give the GOP huge numbers of votes, the same dynamic doesn't exist in Texas. The top 5 counties alone cast 42% of all votes in Texas and all 5 seem to be trending democratic pretty hard and are also growing fast. The top 10 counties cast 57% of votes in 2016 and all 10 also shifted democratic in 2016.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Thunder98 on December 05, 2018, 08:50:49 pm
Texas Gov Elections: 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018

(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)
(
Img
)


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Brittain33 on December 06, 2018, 09:55:52 am
Not as much as it seems, because 2018 was in part built on borrowing voters who could easily flip back to the Republicans rather than on activating disengaged potential voters (although Beto did some of that too.)


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Socialists are Pro-Choice Fascists on December 06, 2018, 10:32:46 am
It's going down the same path as CA went down. The TX GOP will have good years again, and they'll still win some elections, but long-term things are going sharply downhill for them.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 06, 2018, 10:40:07 am
Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Storr on December 06, 2018, 11:01:58 am
I would not say Texas is turning blue like California. California whites are much different that Texas whites. But, I feel it's safe to say it's becoming highly competitive. Increased urbanization, as well as increased migration (it will gain 2, maybe 3 (!!) congressional seats after the 2020 census) to the state is changing the make-up of Texas to where it will be competitive statewide for the foreseeable future.

One reason North Carolina is still competitive despite having a low African-American population for a Southern state (21.5% as of the 2010 census), is due to a large population of highly educated and/or non-NC native whites (mostly from the Midwest or Northeast, particularly Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania). Texas has had an influx of new arrivals similar to those seen in NC in recent decades. These new Texans along with Hispanics, African-Americans, and highly educated native Texans will ensure Texas will at least be a competitive state for many years to come.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: RINO Tom on December 06, 2018, 11:54:49 am
I would say it's undeniably moving left.  The only question is will our current party system/trends continue long enough for Texas to become a "solid blue" state.  I think Texas will eventually max out as a Lean D state, ala Colorado right now, before something happens over the next 30-40 years to shake things up.  So, my answer depends on what you mean by "turned blue."


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: The Mikado on December 06, 2018, 06:42:33 pm
I've been saying for a while that Texas is going to become the next Florida: a Lean R swing state. It's not there yet, but I also don't think it's going to end up more Dem than the national average for a long time. But that said, even being a winnable swing state is a catastrophe for the GOP. They'll have to play defense on very expensive turf.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 06, 2018, 08:05:09 pm
I've been saying for a while that Texas is going to become the next Florida: a Lean R swing state. It's not there yet, but I also don't think it's going to end up more Dem than the national average for a long time. But that said, even being a winnable swing state is a catastrophe for the GOP. They'll have to play defense on very expensive turf.
Florida has retiree reinforcements. Texas has moderate right california gop fleeing and then becoming democrats in austin


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Old School Republican on December 06, 2018, 08:43:54 pm
Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.

Virginia even in the 90s was no where near as Republican as Texas is now (or was before this year)


Also if Texas Flips to becoming what VA is the GOP will be a different party in 8-12 years as they would be locked out of the WH without it




Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Old School Republican on December 06, 2018, 08:44:48 pm
It's going down the same path as CA went down. The TX GOP will have good years again, and they'll still win some elections, but long-term things are going sharply downhill for them.

CA even in the peak of Conservativism there (I would say 1986) was no where near as Republican as Texas has been


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 06, 2018, 08:50:38 pm
Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.

Virginia even in the 90s was no where near as Republican as Texas is now (or was before this year)


Also if Texas Flips to becoming what VA is the GOP will be a different party in 8-12 years as they would be locked out of the WH without it



I mean the GOP can still win florida
Also mn maine and a few other states


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Old School Republican on December 06, 2018, 08:56:13 pm
Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.

Virginia even in the 90s was no where near as Republican as Texas is now (or was before this year)


Also if Texas Flips to becoming what VA is the GOP will be a different party in 8-12 years as they would be locked out of the WH without it



I mean the GOP can still win florida
Also mn maine and a few other states


Well if they lose Texas , Arizona is gone as well and this is how the map would like in that case (Give Trump NH , MM , and ME)


()


Trump still wins 275-263


But after redistricting that’s will no longer be a winning map


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Hardline Remainer on December 06, 2018, 09:45:45 pm
Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.

Virginia even in the 90s was no where near as Republican as Texas is now (or was before this year)


Also if Texas Flips to becoming what VA is the GOP will be a different party in 8-12 years as they would be locked out of the WH without it



I mean the GOP can still win florida
Also mn maine and a few other states


Well if they lose Texas , Arizona is gone as well and this is how the map would like in that case (Give Trump NH , MM , and ME)


()


Trump still wins 275-263


But after redistricting that’s will no longer be a winning map
Ooh!!! ^^That'll *probably* be the go to 269-269 map of the late 2020s.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Old School Republican on December 06, 2018, 09:50:52 pm
Texas Rurals are maxed out  unlike GA and NC rurals
Therefore once texas flips its gonna we Virginia style rather than NC style
It might have a brief GOP resurgurce but once it flips we will call it Safe D by maybe 2036.

Virginia even in the 90s was no where near as Republican as Texas is now (or was before this year)


Also if Texas Flips to becoming what VA is the GOP will be a different party in 8-12 years as they would be locked out of the WH without it



I mean the GOP can still win florida
Also mn maine and a few other states


Well if they lose Texas , Arizona is gone as well and this is how the map would like in that case (Give Trump NH , MM , and ME)


()


Trump still wins 275-263


But after redistricting that’s will no longer be a winning map
Ooh!!! ^^That'll *probably* be the go to 269-269 map of the late 2020s.

Yah so if Texas goes Dem , there will be a major realignment which will shift the map up completely


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 06, 2018, 09:56:29 pm
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Sbane on December 07, 2018, 09:44:15 am
I don't see Texas turning blue since a lot of the recent trend has to do with well educated suburban voters swinging to the Dems. These people might swing right back under a Dem president. That being said, it is becoming a purple state and if the GOP becomes the party of Trump in the long-term, Texas will turn blue. If they focus more on fiscal conservatism, Texas will still vote for them.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Republican Left on December 07, 2018, 09:57:10 am
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 07, 2018, 10:04:56 am
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Republican Left on December 07, 2018, 11:22:48 am
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 07, 2018, 11:37:28 am
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?

every party has adapted in the long term. Only atlas D hacks think that demos spell the end of the GOP.I can see it giving some trouble for maybe 12 years 16 max as I said but no party can control the presidency for longer than that as a recession happens atleast once every 20 years.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: The Mikado on December 07, 2018, 07:57:29 pm
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?

every party has adapted in the long term. Only atlas D hacks think that demos spell the end of the GOP.I can see it giving some trouble for maybe 12 years 16 max as I said but no party can control the presidency for longer than that as a recession happens atleast once every 20 years.

Here's the thing: it's basically impossible for the GOP to survive in a setting where 3 out of the 4 largest states are Democratic and the other one is a swing state. The GOP's route will either have to be shoring up Texas (totally possible and way more likely than Dems on here think) or somehow making inroads in CA or NY or IL to at least partially make up for Texas. The latter would require what you're describing, a major realignment in who votes for which party.

The GOP is much, much better off trying to patch up its fences in TX, and the next Democratic presidency might actually do a lot towards that goal as those white suburbanites are faced with a Democratic agenda on the news every day rather than an ignorant buffoon as the face of the GOP. If the GOP does lose TX (and I hope I'm being clear that that is a big "if"), they need to swing over some heavily Dem states to make up for that loss, as TX is large and gets larger by the day. It might well go from 36 to 39 House seats next time. If TX does become a Colorado or Virginia style "safe D by 5-10 points" state (which I'm not predicting it will) while California, New York, and Illinois are all safe D, that is a massive crisis for the GOP and one without an easy solution.

EDIT: To make it 100% clear where I'm going with this, the GOP's answer to "how do we lose Texas" has to be "we can't lose Texas." There's no way to make up Texas that's easier than devoting their energy to trying to keep it.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: ░tmthforu94░ on December 07, 2018, 07:58:58 pm
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?
I think they'll learn they have to adapt, hopefully sooner rather than later. These are career politicians running the party, they're not going to just keep doing the same thing if they're losing year after year. They need jobs, too!


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Skill and Chance on December 07, 2018, 08:52:17 pm
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?
I think they'll learn they have to adapt, hopefully sooner rather than later. These are career politicians running the party, they're not going to just keep doing the same thing if they're losing year after year. They need jobs, too!

Texas -> the premier swing state for several elections in a row is far more likely than Texas -> Likely/Safe Dem overnight.  There's plenty of ground for the GOP to gain in South Texas and with rural Hispanic voters in general if/when they put the effort in.  Also, the GOP trend in Upstate NY is getting fierce.  I wouldn't discount some upsets there down the road. 

If you want to worry about a former GOP base state turning into consistent 5-10% Dem wins overnight like Virginia did, worry about Georgia. 

   


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 07, 2018, 08:58:38 pm
yeah its really tough to see the GOP winning without texas. I think it will remain swing for a while but they need to do something else. On the other hand a trend D in Texas is great for the GOP because it gives them even a better advantage in the senate relative to the nation.

Does this mean a Democrat President for an entire generation or dare I say single-party rule for 50 to 100? If Texas swings blue, is this the death kneel for the GOP and American Conservatism as we know it?

It could mean 4 straight D terms but the GOP should adjust after the next recession.. Also the senate is still winnable for the GOP thx to the small state advantage.

So two presidents then, well that does seem rather long but maybe not the end of the world for the GOP (and conservatives who could use the time to rebuild the party). Also, to be fair, Texas isn't the only problem for the Republicans. Do you think they will be able to adapt in the long-term?
I think they'll learn they have to adapt, hopefully sooner rather than later. These are career politicians running the party, they're not going to just keep doing the same thing if they're losing year after year. They need jobs, too!

Texas -> the premier swing state for several elections in a row is far more likely than Texas -> Likely/Safe Dem overnight.  There's plenty of ground for the GOP to gain in South Texas and with rural Hispanic voters in general if/when they put the effort in.  Also, the GOP trend in Upstate NY is getting fierce.  I wouldn't discount some upsets there down the road. 

If you want to worry about a former GOP base state turning into consistent 5-10% Dem wins overnight like Virginia did, worry about Georgia. 

   
Georgia has bleeding black rural. Texas has no demographic trends to help the GOP besides the last demosaurs dying in East Texas


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Left-Libertarian on December 07, 2018, 10:53:40 pm
Eventually, the Republicans would start winning Hispanics but they've done a lot of damage to their brand in the Hispanic community. No party can be shut out forever.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Noted Irishman on December 08, 2018, 06:34:25 pm
I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 08, 2018, 06:55:04 pm
I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.

using the governor race as a bench line is like using the Ohio senate race to show that Ohio is still a swing state. Lupe Valdez was a god awful candidate who didn't even bother campaigning and no one paid attention to.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Nyvin on December 08, 2018, 07:04:34 pm
I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.

Governor's races don't match up much with national politics.   It wasn't just Cruz and Beto, but the Democrats also only lost the House vote by about 3% too.   

I'd say it's a case of a reasonably popular governor being able to to distance himself from the national environment, and seeing the state trend toward Democrats again otherwise.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Noted Irishman on December 08, 2018, 07:51:05 pm
using the governor race as a bench line is like using the Ohio senate race to show that Ohio is still a swing state. Lupe Valdez was a god awful candidate who didn't even bother campaigning and no one paid attention to.

Except that OH has went from blue/purple to red and continues to elect all Rs save for 1 due to his popularity, and TX has went from red to lighter red and continues to elect all Rs. Meaningfully, there's been no change in TX where it counts in these statewide races.

It's not necessarily using any race in particular (though that was the most egregious example); you can't be a swing state or purple state unless you've actually "swung" lol (which TX hasn't yet).

Governor's races don't match up much with national politics.   It wasn't just Cruz and Beto, but the Democrats also only lost the House vote by about 3% too.  

I'd say it's a case of a reasonably popular governor being able to to distance himself from the national environment, and seeing the state trend toward Democrats again otherwise.

This seems to have become a very popular talking point on the forum this cycle, which is surprising, given that there's more correlation between the 2 now than at any point in modern history. Obviously there are states that can simultaneously tilt in both directions depending on the type of office and specific candidate, but when non-toxic candidates of a party that has been winning unilaterally for decades in a state can still pull hefty double-digit leads despite hordes of literal straight-ticket first-time voters being brought out, then it's premature to say that a state is becoming "blue" (or even purple). Jim Martin lost by the same amount that Beto did in GA 10 years ago and the state still hasn't went Democratic in a statewide contest.

There's a very good chance these margins collapse in the next election when candidates who aren't Beto can't turn out all of these immensely low-propensity voters and the straight-ticket voting option is removed from the ballot.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Senate/SCOTUS/EC Delenda Est 👁 on December 08, 2018, 09:22:04 pm
I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.

I am not going to say that is necessarily 100% wrong, but there are some nuances...

In the case of Georgia, in 2008 Democrats had more rural support than Democrats do in TX now. Over the course of the decade, rural whites in GA trended GOP, and that counter-trend against the trend of Metro Atlanta to the Dems has kept GA overall from trending Dem too much/too rapidly.

The situation in TX now, however, is very different in that respect. Republicans are already receiving very pretty close to 100% of the white vote across much of rural TX. There has been a trend of rural TX towards Rs over the past decade, and that has similarly slowed down the overall gradual shift of TX towards Dems that has been driven by the big cities. But at this point, it is pretty much impossible for that rural trend towards Rs to continue in TX, because you just mathematically cannot go above 100% support among a demographic, and Republicans are close to that with rural TX whites.

And this is not only in West TX, but throughout the entirety of rural TX as far as I can tell. Sabine County TX, along the Louisiana border, voted 87% for Cruz. That county is 86% White and 7% Black. Cruz didn't get that 87% by winning the non-white voters. Another example is Red River County, along the Oklahoma border and very near Arkansas too. Red River County voted 78% for Trump and is 73% White (17% Black). Again, Cruz did not do that by winning the Black voters there, but by winning close to 100% of the Whites (probably 90-95% or so). Another example - Robertson County in Central TX, just north of College Station. That voted 69% for Cruz and is 58% White and 21% black. Again, he didn't do that by winning the Black voters (or the Hispanics and other non-whites). And in the case of Robertson County, that is pretty much the most Demosaur part of rural TX that is left. But there is just no Demosaur left there any more. You can literally go through basically every rural TX County, and they will all be like this. You can just look at the demographics and see that in every single one of them, Republicans are basically maxed out - they have to be winning 90-95% of the White vote in these counties at this point. And many/most of these counties have rural white population loss - those that are gaining population are generally only gaining population because of Hispanic growth (with the White population declining).

In the case of Georgia's 2008 shift to the left, the dominant factor there was the incredible African American turnout that Obama was able to inspire. Whereas in the case of TX in 2018, while it is true that turnout was very high for a TX midterm, turnout was still low compared to other states. GA 2008 was a Presidential election, TX 2018 was a midterm.

You mentioned "hordes" of straight ticket Dem voters brought out by Beto in your other post. While there was some of that (particularly in some places, such as Hayes County due to the college student vote and the like), we should be very careful not to exaggerate how much that was the story. The large part of Beto's gains didn't come just from turnout, but from swinging suburban whites. Thus, whereas what was necessary to repeat GA 2008 was to have Presidential-Obama-level turnout and excitement, what is necessary to repeat TX 2018 is more a matter of swinging the suburban whites again. To be sure, suburban whites could swing back, and I would not be surprised if they do in particular when there is a Dem President again. But this is not all that likely at least in 2020 as long as Trump is still around and is still unpopular, and moreover this suburban trend is a long-running nationwide trend. In the case of TX it goes back at least to 2004-2008, so there is reason to think that the general trend will continue.

While I would agree that Dems will still face quite an uphill battle at least in midterm years going forward in TX, there is reason to hope (and reason to think) that turnout will be better in a Presidential year like 2020 than it was in 2018. Despite turnout by young voters and Hispanics being good for a midterm, it was still clearly lower than in 2016 (much less what might potentially be achievable in 2020 if Dems actually invest in TX).

So in the case of GA after 2008, Obama's performance was only replicable to the degree that African American turnout could be so high. That was certainly not achievable in 2010, because it was a midterm, and there was typical drop-off of young voters and black voters. Likewise in 2014. In 2012 and 2016, it was replicated a bit more because it was a Presidential year (albeit not with the same enthusiasm as 2008).

Whereas in TX, Beto only began to tap Texas' turnout potential in 2018. Beto's results are replicable not only by increasing turnout (which should be possible, particularly in Presidential years if there is actual investment in TX) but by riding the trend among suburban whites. And there is no counter-trend of rural Whites swinging to the GOP left to help the Republicans limit the damage.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 08, 2018, 09:38:40 pm
I think what we saw in TX this year was akin to what we saw in GA in 2008, where it suddenly lurched pretty substantially toward the Democrats but meandered a bit back in the GOP's direction before slowly continuing to inch toward its future reality. Basically, in both cases we saw Democrats in these states capitalize on what would have otherwise been multiple cycles' worth of gains in one cycle, with an obvious correction following that. As such, it could be another ten years or more before Democrats outright win there.

I definitely wouldn't describe TX as a purple state just yet: let's remember that despite all of the straight-D voters Beto turned out, Abbott still won the Governor's race by more than Rick Perry did in 2010. That underlines just how many voters mainly didn't like Cruz and/or aren't yet willing to punish the GOP up and down the ballot for the sake of Trump.

I am not going to say that is necessarily 100% wrong, but there are some nuances...

In the case of Georgia, in 2008 Democrats had more rural support than Democrats do in TX now. Over the course of the decade, rural whites in GA trended GOP, and that counter-trend against the trend of Metro Atlanta to the Dems has kept GA overall from trending Dem too much/too rapidly.

The situation in TX now, however, is very different in that respect. Republicans are already receiving very pretty close to 100% of the white vote across much of rural TX. There has been a trend of rural TX towards Rs over the past decade, and that has similarly slowed down the overall gradual shift of TX towards Dems that has been driven by the big cities. But at this point, it is pretty much impossible for that rural trend towards Rs to continue in TX, because you just mathematically cannot go above 100% support among a demographic, and Republicans are close to that with rural TX whites.

And this is not only in West TX, but throughout the entirety of rural TX as far as I can tell. Sabine County TX, along the Louisiana border, voted 87% for Cruz. That county is 86% White and 7% Black. Cruz didn't get that 87% by winning the non-white voters. Another example is Red River County, along the Oklahoma border and very near Arkansas too. Red River County voted 78% for Trump and is 73% White (17% Black). Again, Cruz did not do that by winning the Black voters there, but by winning close to 100% of the Whites (probably 90-95% or so). Another example - Robertson County in Central TX, just north of College Station. That voted 69% for Cruz and is 58% White and 21% black. Again, he didn't do that by winning the Black voters (or the Hispanics and other non-whites). And in the case of Robertson County, that is pretty much the most Demosaur part of rural TX that is left. But there is just no Demosaur left there any more. You can literally go through basically every rural TX County, and they will all be like this. You can just look at the demographics and see that in every single one of them, Republicans are basically maxed out - they have to be winning 90-95% of the White vote in these counties at this point. And many/most of these counties have rural white population loss - those that are gaining population are generally only gaining population because of Hispanic growth (with the White population declining).

In the case of Georgia's 2008 shift to the left, the dominant factor there was the incredible African American turnout that Obama was able to inspire. Whereas in the case of TX in 2018, while it is true that turnout was very high for a TX midterm, turnout was still low compared to other states. GA 2008 was a Presidential election, TX 2018 was a midterm.

You mentioned "hordes" of straight ticket Dem voters brought out by Beto in your other post. While there was some of that (particularly in some places, such as Hayes County due to the college student vote and the like), we should be very careful not to exaggerate how much that was the story. The large part of Beto's gains didn't come just from turnout, but from swinging suburban whites. Thus, whereas what was necessary to repeat GA 2008 was to have Presidential-Obama-level turnout and excitement, what is necessary to repeat TX 2018 is more a matter of swinging the suburban whites again. To be sure, suburban whites could swing back, and I would not be surprised if they do in particular when there is a Dem President again. But this is not all that likely at least in 2020 as long as Trump is still around and is still unpopular, and moreover this suburban trend is a long-running nationwide trend. In the case of TX it goes back at least to 2004-2008, so there is reason to think that the general trend will continue.

While I would agree that Dems will still face quite an uphill battle at least in midterm years going forward in TX, there is reason to hope (and reason to think) that turnout will be better in a Presidential year like 2020 than it was in 2018. Despite turnout by young voters and Hispanics being good for a midterm, it was still clearly lower than in 2016 (much less what might potentially be achievable in 2020 if Dems actually invest in TX).

So in the case of GA after 2008, Obama's performance was only replicable to the degree that African American turnout could be so high. That was certainly not achievable in 2010, because it was a midterm, and there was typical drop-off of young voters and black voters. Likewise in 2014. In 2012 and 2016, it was replicated a bit more because it was a Presidential year (albeit not with the same enthusiasm as 2008).

Whereas in TX, Beto only began to tap Texas' turnout potential in 2018. Beto's results are replicable not only by increasing turnout (which should be possible, particularly in Presidential years if there is actual investment in TX) but by riding the trend among suburban whites. And there is no counter-trend of rural Whites swinging to the GOP left to help the Republicans limit the damage.
yeah I don't think people realize how bad Texas can get for the GOP. Its a VERY urban state.The few rural parts are already maxed out for the GOP(sure they can probably get a percentage or two more but it barely makes a difference in the net result. The suburbs are growing at an insane rate with minorities flooding in and voting D and also registering at rapid rates. People say these cities are liberal anyway but how liberal makes a huge difference. Sure John Kerry won Travis county in 2004 but it was by 14 points. Now Beto won it by a massive FIFTY POINTS. Sure Obama won Dallas in 08 but it was a measly 16 points. Beto won it by 32 points. Mccain won Denton and Collin by 25 points.Sure won them but it was a weak 6-7 points.Hays going from +2 Mccain to +17 Beto. That will not do at all. And the Cherry on Top of course is winning Tarrant County. This was my bold prediction of the year(Beto loses the election which would be expected but wins Tarrant)https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/28/ted-cruz-beto-orourke-fight-over-conservative-tarrant-county-texas/
Reading that article shows you how republican Tarrant was considered. That GOP chair deserves some egg on their face for claiming Tarrant was Deep red with pockets of "pink"

 the Texas GOP has no serious counter trend in the rest of Texas that can counter the suburban D surge. In other states even in virginia or colorado the SW of VA or south colorado were historically D but now trending R fast atleast able to stall the double digit win in virginia.

In Texas this will not exist and the GOP must take care now and start moderating. Kicking out Muslims when they actively want to help and join you party will not help you at all . Trying to replace a regular GOP senator with Dan patrick does not work and neither does alienating Hispanics with anti immigrant rhetoric. The bush's took good care to build reputation with the hispanics. Sure they would still lose them but by maybe 15-20 instead of the 30 points and what may soon be 40 points.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Senate/SCOTUS/EC Delenda Est 👁 on December 08, 2018, 09:57:06 pm
And BTW, here is an interesting comparison for those 3 rural TX counties that I picked out, one in South-East TX, one in North-East TX, and one in Central TX:

Red River - 61% Bush '04 ------> 78% Cruz '18

Sabine - 68% Bush '04 ------> 87% Cruz '18

Robertson - 56% Bush '04 ------> 69% Cruz '18

You can literally go through rural TX and pick any county you like, and all will show this same story. I challenge anyone to find any real counterexamples, where Cruz didn't win something close to 100% of the white rural vote, and where Cruz didn't substantially outperform Bush '04 with rural whites. Ironically, probably the closest thing to an example of that would be the ethnic German Hill Country (Kerr County etc), which is basically the only ancestrally REPUBLICAN part of rural TX.



And then, here's the difference statewide:

Statewide - 61% Bush '04 ------> 51% Cruz '18


It was not that long ago that Republicans did not have close to 100% support from rural white Texans. But now they do, so much so that even while Cruz lost 10 points statewide as compared to Bush '04, he clearly did hugely better than Bush ever did among rural whites.

Over the past decade or two, Republicans consolidated and universalized their support from white rural voters. That process is now essentially over (at least in TX, though I definitely expect it to continue in other states), because they have essentially ALL white rural voters in TX. You can go through rural TX, and every white person you see will be a Republican. You can't get more Republican than that.

And that process is the only thing that has been holding up the Republican numbers statewide. So as long as the Urban and Suburban areas continue to drift Dem, you can see where this ends.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Noted Irishman on December 08, 2018, 10:20:33 pm

...

My point was never to say GA & TX are exactly identical in terms of their performances in those years. They are, however, similar in terms of the climate and factors that pushed the shift. You are right about rural TX: it has very little room for the GOP to grow, and really hasn't changed much since 2012 (Romney won it by 46, while Cruz won it by 49; insignificant given that 6 out 7 TX voters live in metro areas). It hasn't been what's truly holding Democrats back. This was the first election in a long time where any statewide candidate won the non-rural part of the state, and while it's the overwhelming share of the state, O'Rourke only carried it by 4-5 points (compared to Romney's 10 and *presumably* Abbott's 5-7).

TX was able to make so much progress really because of 4 factors:

  • A charismatic candidate capable of mobilizing hundreds of thousands of low-propensity voters
  • A favorable climate that helped mitigate any midterm turnout disadvantages Dems usually face
  • A climate that specifically was very favorable in suburban areas (with arguably no state better-suited to benefit from that in terms of swing than TX)
  • Straight-ticket voting option (not so much an advantage in recent elections as the absence of it will be a disadvantage in future elections)

If you can recreate these four dynamics in every election going forward - coupled with the standard demographic shifts - can TX flip soon? Sure. It could flip as early as 2020. And Georgia could have flipped as soon as 2010 had everything continued lining up for us here as well. However, that's not a realistic expectation in my view, irrespective of any rural dynamics at play. Beto was a once in a generation candidate for the state, and the straight-ticket option - while not necessarily bolstering candidates for President, Governor, Senate, etc - will definitely hurt downballot candidates' chances due to the fact that Latinos disproportionately drop off the ballot after top-ticket contests. Even if you can counteract these two problems, Democrats aren't going to have favorable election cycles forever (and I do think there is a very hard ceiling on potential suburban gains in the South, with not that much more room to grow outside of demographic shifts).


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Young Conservative on December 09, 2018, 11:06:29 pm
No...its being turned off by Trump. I don't trust that suburbanites will vote for Democrats as they continue moving left once Trump is out of the picture. If the election was Nikki Haley VS Bernie Sanders, are we really supposed to expect that Dallas and Fort Worth and Fort Bend and Williamson counties would vote D?

They wouldn't, they'd deliver a Bush level victory...let's also remember Bush won the governorship by only 8 the first time, then by 30.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Comstock 2: Barbara Reloaded on December 09, 2018, 11:23:04 pm
No...its being turned off by Trump. I don't trust that suburbanites will vote for Democrats as they continue moving left once Trump is out of the picture. If the election was Nikki Haley VS Bernie Sanders, are we really supposed to expect that Dallas and Fort Worth and Fort Bend and Williamson counties would vote D?

They wouldn't, they'd deliver a Bush level victory...let's also remember Bush won the governorship by only 8 the first time, then by 30.

Unfortunately for Republicans, the cat's out of the bag. The damage Trump has done to suburbs is showing to hold up – hence the strong down-ballot performance this year. Neither Allred nor Fletcher nor Beto even really ran as conciliatory moderates, and Sessions/Culberson/Cruz weren't unapologetic Trumpists. And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, there's not much room to grow in rural areas.

Nikki Haley isn't winning a Republican presidential primary... ever. Even before Trump, but now especially. And those kinds of hypotheticals don't really prove that Texas isn't trending D. It's kinda like saying "Iowa isn't trending R... if the election was Sherrod Brown VS Tom Cotton, do we really expect such-and-so voters in Hicksville County to vote R?"


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: The Mikado on December 10, 2018, 03:17:16 am
No...its being turned off by Trump. I don't trust that suburbanites will vote for Democrats as they continue moving left once Trump is out of the picture. If the election was Nikki Haley VS Bernie Sanders, are we really supposed to expect that Dallas and Fort Worth and Fort Bend and Williamson counties would vote D?

They wouldn't, they'd deliver a Bush level victory...let's also remember Bush won the governorship by only 8 the first time, then by 30.

Haley wouldn't win TX by 23 points vs Bernie Sanders. (Bush 2004 margin) Maybe she'd win it by 12 or 13.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Joe McCarthy Was Right on December 10, 2018, 08:48:14 pm
I don't know because white suburbanites still voted 65% for Trump at a minimum (the exit poll said suburbs went 58-37 for Trump in Texas). If they still leaned toward a Republican like Trump, what kind of Republican would they not vote for? But if you assume that this group would continue trending Democrat, they're still declining in percentage of the population.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: TML on December 17, 2018, 02:44:25 am
In 2018, aside from O'Rourke's narrow losing margin, Democrats gained a net of two seats in the US House, two seats in the state Senate, as well as 12 seats in the state House.

If Democratic strength continues to grow in suburban areas (where most of the Democratic gains occurred this year), then I can definitely foresee TX becoming more competitive in the near future.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Frodo on December 17, 2018, 06:11:59 pm
Anything can happen in the long run.

^^^^

This, but I think it more likely that Texas becomes a purple swing state within the next decade (not unlike Florida), which is all I am asking for.  


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Former Senator Zaybay on December 17, 2018, 07:11:22 pm
Someone has to explain to me where the idea that Texas will function like FL comes from. There are incredibly specific factors that cause FL to stay in the (relative) middle of the country, when it comes to voting:
D
Cubans voting more D on the federal level
The state's increasing Hispanic population
The state's booming urban areas
R
Most Hispanics are Cubans
The influx of White retirees
The large amount of rural areas, such as the panhandle

TX, meanwhile, is much closer to CA when it comes to makeup, not FL. Texas is mostly an urbanized state, with only 19% of its pop. living in designated rural areas. The Rs win in TX thanks to weak D margins in the Urban areas, and their stranglehold on the suburbs.

This is rather similar to CA back in the 1980s and 1990s, with the area of San Francisco being comparable to Austin(a Liberal Stronghold, but not powerful enough to exercise enough influence), and LA with Houston(a tossup area thats rapid D trend causes the state to flip). Not to mention the fact that the Hispanics in TX arent Cubans, or Venezuelans, or other Hispanic groups with a famed hatred of left wing practices, but Mexican Americans, and Central Americans, the most pro-D Hispanics in the US. It also should be noted that the areas exploding in population are the urban areas and its close suburbs, the areas trending rapidly D.

If TX flips, IMO, and we are still in the same party system as today, it goes the way of CA, not FL.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: dpmapper on December 17, 2018, 08:53:21 pm

TX, meanwhile, is much closer to CA when it comes to makeup, not FL. Texas is mostly an urbanized state, with only 19% of its pop. living in designated rural areas. The Rs win in TX thanks to weak D margins in the Urban areas, and their stranglehold on the suburbs.

This is rather similar to CA back in the 1980s and 1990s, with the area of San Francisco being comparable to Austin(a Liberal Stronghold, but not powerful enough to exercise enough influence), and LA with Houston(a tossup area thats rapid D trend causes the state to flip). Not to mention the fact that the Hispanics in TX arent Cubans, or Venezuelans, or other Hispanic groups with a famed hatred of left wing practices, but Mexican Americans, and Central Americans, the most pro-D Hispanics in the US. It also should be noted that the areas exploding in population are the urban areas and its close suburbs, the areas trending rapidly D.

If TX flips, IMO, and we are still in the same party system as today, it goes the way of CA, not FL.

You make good points, but also:

** TX is much more religious than in CA ever was, particularly in rural areas but also in cities. 

** Many more Hispanics in TX have deep roots in the state and are therefore more likely to be  moderate or conservative.  GWB did well with them, for instance. 

** The major industries attracting people to TX are not as left-wing as those in CA. 

** TX also attracts people who value low taxes. 


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Tintrlvr on December 17, 2018, 09:47:50 pm

TX, meanwhile, is much closer to CA when it comes to makeup, not FL. Texas is mostly an urbanized state, with only 19% of its pop. living in designated rural areas. The Rs win in TX thanks to weak D margins in the Urban areas, and their stranglehold on the suburbs.

This is rather similar to CA back in the 1980s and 1990s, with the area of San Francisco being comparable to Austin(a Liberal Stronghold, but not powerful enough to exercise enough influence), and LA with Houston(a tossup area thats rapid D trend causes the state to flip). Not to mention the fact that the Hispanics in TX arent Cubans, or Venezuelans, or other Hispanic groups with a famed hatred of left wing practices, but Mexican Americans, and Central Americans, the most pro-D Hispanics in the US. It also should be noted that the areas exploding in population are the urban areas and its close suburbs, the areas trending rapidly D.

If TX flips, IMO, and we are still in the same party system as today, it goes the way of CA, not FL.

You make good points, but also:

** TX is much more religious than in CA ever was, particularly in rural areas but also in cities. 


This isn't true. Orange County was the beating heart of the evangelical movement in the 60s through the 80s, and the Central Valley, Inland Empire, San Diego area and many LA suburbs likewise were populated by religious transplants from the South and Plains and their descendants (Okies, Arkies, etc.) who had originally moved to the area during the Dust Bowl. And much of rural and small city northern California (e.g., Redding) is likewise very religious.

Quote
** Many more Hispanics in TX have deep roots in the state and are therefore more likely to be  moderate or conservative.  GWB did well with them, for instance. 

This has been true for select candidates but is less and less true as time goes on. Abbott, for example, is known to have a similarly close relationship with institutional Hispanic groups in Texas to the way Bush did but vastly underperformed Bush in Hispanic areas of Texas, even South Texas, despite in some ways being more potentially appealing to them (his wife is Mexican-American and he speaks fluent Spanish, e.g.). Moreover, the long-term Hispanic residents of Texas are not increasing the number; the new immigrants are.

Quote
** The major industries attracting people to TX are not as left-wing as those in CA.

This is true to a degree, although oil and gas are not as major growth areas of employment as they have been as energy balances shift away from fossil fuels generally (and oil especially), and Texas's economy is diversifying rapidly with many "liberal" industries being the fastest growing (witness Apple's announcement of 7,000 new hires in Austin recently, e.g.).  

Quote
** TX also attracts people who value low taxes. 

This is a vastly overrated reason for people to migrate to one state over another and doesn't really matter.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Beet on December 17, 2018, 09:50:27 pm
Whether Texas goes blue at a statewide level doesn't really matter, a long as the Republicans control the state legislature. You could theoretically have a Democratic Governor and Lieutenant Governor elected, only for their powers to be stripped in a lame duck session, as you saw in other states. Or you could have Texas lean blue in the Electoral College, only for the state legislature to decide that Texas' EVs will be apportioned by congressional district, and then gerrymander those congressional districts. You could have 55% of Texas going for the Democrat for president, but the Republican win the EC because most EVs went to the Republican.

The only area where the statewide vote matters, thanks to the 17th Amendment, is the Senate, but there, Texas is no more significant than any other state.

The real question in Texas, like in so many other states, is whether the state legislature will go blue.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 17, 2018, 09:57:12 pm
Whether Texas goes blue at a statewide level doesn't really matter, a long as the Republicans control the state legislature. You could theoretically have a Democratic Governor and Lieutenant Governor elected, only for their powers to be stripped in a lame duck session, as you saw in other states. Or you could have Texas lean blue in the Electoral College, only for the state legislature to decide that Texas' EVs will be apportioned by congressional district, and then gerrymander those congressional districts. You could have 55% of Texas going for the Democrat for president, but the Republican win the EC because most EVs went to the Republican.

The only area where the statewide vote matters, thanks to the 17th Amendment, is the Senate, but there, Texas is no more significant than any other state.

The real question in Texas, like in so many other states, is whether the state legislature will go blue.
The Texas state house flips before statewide imo in 2020. Republicans  are self packed in rural areas more than dems are in cities.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: MB on December 17, 2018, 11:04:25 pm
No sh**t it's turning blue. It'll take a Virginia-like path, being a swing state for a decade and a half or so, and then become solidly Democratic. Also, it's pretty likely the state house flips next year.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: ajc0918 on December 18, 2018, 08:39:13 am
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 18, 2018, 10:03:08 am
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: The Mikado on December 18, 2018, 12:02:31 pm
Whether Texas goes blue at a statewide level doesn't really matter, a long as the Republicans control the state legislature. You could theoretically have a Democratic Governor and Lieutenant Governor elected, only for their powers to be stripped in a lame duck session, as you saw in other states. Or you could have Texas lean blue in the Electoral College, only for the state legislature to decide that Texas' EVs will be apportioned by congressional district, and then gerrymander those congressional districts. You could have 55% of Texas going for the Democrat for president, but the Republican win the EC because most EVs went to the Republican.

The only area where the statewide vote matters, thanks to the 17th Amendment, is the Senate, but there, Texas is no more significant than any other state.

The real question in Texas, like in so many other states, is whether the state legislature will go blue.

If Dems win the Lt. Governor seat, it'd require a state constitutional amendment (and referendum) to get rid of the Lt. Governor's most important role: being de facto State Senate Majority Leader. Alternately, if the GOP still holds the State Senate, Lt. Gov is kind of irrelevant.

The TX Governor's only real power is the veto and calling special legislative sessions, outside of that there's no real authority in the governor's hands because almost all of the statewide officials are elected rather than appointed.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Republican Left on December 18, 2018, 02:16:03 pm
Does this mean "game over" for the GOP if Texas is lost?


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 18, 2018, 07:43:49 pm
Does this mean "game over" for the GOP if Texas is lost?

For a couple of cycles, yes.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Tintrlvr on December 18, 2018, 09:12:54 pm
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

I think Beto won an easy majority of state legislative districts. The gerrymander really backfired on the Republicans. That said, unless the Dems can break through in 2020, the Republicans probably just re-gerrymander in 2022 and it's all moot - though a 2022 gerrymander may not survive all the way until 2030 (and would by necessity be less aggressive than the 2012 gerrymander in any case).


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: The Mikado on December 18, 2018, 09:57:00 pm
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

I think Beto won an easy majority of state legislative districts. The gerrymander really backfired on the Republicans. That said, unless the Dems can break through in 2020, the Republicans probably just re-gerrymander in 2022 and it's all moot - though a 2022 gerrymander may not survive all the way until 2030 (and would by necessity be less aggressive than the 2012 gerrymander in any case).

I think people are really overestimating how easy TX will be to redraw for the GOP, even on the House end. A new TX GOP-drawn map is going to have to be very, very conservative with a focus on creating Dem sink districts. It's not just the state's changing partisan lean as it is where the obscenely quick population growth is happening: the same suburban counties that are trending Dem, along with the already Dem urban counties, are going to have a massive increase in number of seats allocated.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Tintrlvr on December 18, 2018, 10:15:37 pm
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

I think Beto won an easy majority of state legislative districts. The gerrymander really backfired on the Republicans. That said, unless the Dems can break through in 2020, the Republicans probably just re-gerrymander in 2022 and it's all moot - though a 2022 gerrymander may not survive all the way until 2030 (and would by necessity be less aggressive than the 2012 gerrymander in any case).

I think people are really overestimating how easy TX will be to redraw for the GOP, even on the House end. A new TX GOP-drawn map is going to have to be very, very conservative with a focus on creating Dem sink districts. It's not just the state's changing partisan lean as it is where the obscenely quick population growth is happening: the same suburban counties that are trending Dem, along with the already Dem urban counties, are going to have a massive increase in number of seats allocated.

You have less faith in gerrymandering abilities. The Republicans managed to gerrymander themselves into control of the *New York* state Senate for most of the past decade (and before then), after all. On a state legislative level they can also rely on malapportionment (which I don't think they do now). The Supreme Court has allowed fairly significant variances in state legislative districts, even on a systematic level (again, witness the New York state Senate).


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Republican Left on December 19, 2018, 12:20:00 am
Does this mean "game over" for the GOP if Texas is lost?

For a couple of cycles, yes.

You mean for like a couple of decades or 12 to 16 years at most? Is conservatism lost then?


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 19, 2018, 08:56:17 am
Does this mean "game over" for the GOP if Texas is lost?

For a couple of cycles, yes.

You mean for like a couple of decades or 12 to 16 years at most? Is conservatism lost then?

I would say two to four elections.

Depends on what you mean by "Conservatism". Conservatism always has a way of coming back within the confines of new political context. If by Conservatism you mean the movement which has for the past 30 years dominated Republican politics and takes to using that term to describe itself, then to an extent yes but that has a lot more working against it than just Texas turning purple/blue.



Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: The Mikado on December 19, 2018, 12:43:47 pm
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

I think Beto won an easy majority of state legislative districts. The gerrymander really backfired on the Republicans. That said, unless the Dems can break through in 2020, the Republicans probably just re-gerrymander in 2022 and it's all moot - though a 2022 gerrymander may not survive all the way until 2030 (and would by necessity be less aggressive than the 2012 gerrymander in any case).

I think people are really overestimating how easy TX will be to redraw for the GOP, even on the House end. A new TX GOP-drawn map is going to have to be very, very conservative with a focus on creating Dem sink districts. It's not just the state's changing partisan lean as it is where the obscenely quick population growth is happening: the same suburban counties that are trending Dem, along with the already Dem urban counties, are going to have a massive increase in number of seats allocated.

You have less faith in gerrymandering abilities. The Republicans managed to gerrymander themselves into control of the *New York* state Senate for most of the past decade (and before then), after all. On a state legislative level they can also rely on malapportionment (which I don't think they do now). The Supreme Court has allowed fairly significant variances in state legislative districts, even on a systematic level (again, witness the New York state Senate).

I'll just point out some stuff from my area:

DFW currently has two seats designed to be Dem sink seats (TX-30 and TX-33).

(
Img
)

(
Img
)

TX-30 is centered on heavily black and Hispanic South Dallas, as well as the heavily black suburbs south of Dallas, while TX-33 is centered on heavily Hispanic West Dallas and western suburbs as well as big chunks of Fort Worth.

All of these areas are growing and growing faster than the state average, even if not growing faster than the suburban boom areas. TX-30 and TX-33 will both have to be significantly physically smaller in their next iterations (TX-33 might well be kicked mostly out of Dallas to just be a Fort Worth and Mid Cities district due to Ft Worth's growth). This is a huge problem to the GOP because these seats are as Dem packed as can be. TX-30 can either take itself further south, giving the northern parts of it to TX-32 and TX-05, or pull itself north and give all of the suburbs south of Dallas to TX-06, dragging TX-06 into Dallas County. TX-33 shrinking in west Dallas and the west Dallas suburbs risks dragging TX-06 again or TX-24 into those areas.

When districts that are already as packed as can be have to shrink physically, it drags Republican seats into heavily Democratic turf. The GOP can get around this by moving TX-32 south and west and making it another Dem sink seat at the cost of giving up winning it again (shoring up TX-24 in the process), but even that has its own negative costs.

(
Img
)

TX-05 is a safe GOP seat under its current configuration as a pairing of heavily Dem east Dallas, still heavily R but shifting suburban Kaufman County, and a bunch of blood red rural areas, but east Dallas and Kaufman are growing and the rurals aren't. The next iteration of this district will have to have way less rural land if it intends to keep East Dallas and Kaufman, and while Kaufman is safe R today, who the hell knows by 2030? If present suburban trends continue, it'll likely be a swing county by the end of the next map.

These are just examples. This new map is going to be tough to draw in part just because the Dem sink seats are going to be geographically smaller and a lot of those precincts are going to have to spill into neighboring districts.

(
Img
)

If TX-06 is forced to crawl into southern Dallas County, it's immediately a ticking time bomb. Maybe it wouldn't be a swing state in 2022, but it certainly would be by the end of the decade.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 19, 2018, 12:47:19 pm
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

I think Beto won an easy majority of state legislative districts. The gerrymander really backfired on the Republicans. That said, unless the Dems can break through in 2020, the Republicans probably just re-gerrymander in 2022 and it's all moot - though a 2022 gerrymander may not survive all the way until 2030 (and would by necessity be less aggressive than the 2012 gerrymander in any case).

I think people are really overestimating how easy TX will be to redraw for the GOP, even on the House end. A new TX GOP-drawn map is going to have to be very, very conservative with a focus on creating Dem sink districts. It's not just the state's changing partisan lean as it is where the obscenely quick population growth is happening: the same suburban counties that are trending Dem, along with the already Dem urban counties, are going to have a massive increase in number of seats allocated.

You have less faith in gerrymandering abilities. The Republicans managed to gerrymander themselves into control of the *New York* state Senate for most of the past decade (and before then), after all. On a state legislative level they can also rely on malapportionment (which I don't think they do now). The Supreme Court has allowed fairly significant variances in state legislative districts, even on a systematic level (again, witness the New York state Senate).
the NY state senate depended a lot on retail politics. Obama won like 50/60 senate seats and Clinton won like 40. It was very retail based.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Comstock 2: Barbara Reloaded on December 19, 2018, 02:54:09 pm
[...]

Excellent analysis. Additionally, a lot of the northern metroplex seats are severely overpopulated and shifting quickly;


(
Img
)

TX-03 (my district) has more than 850,000 people.

(
Img
)

TX-24 (Marchant) has more than 800,000.


(
Img
)

TX-26 (Burgess) has more than 850,000.


These districts are now overpopulated compared to others, and the fact that Texas is poised to gain 3 seats means that even if Republicans try to draw 3 sinks in DFW (Johnson, Veasey, and Allred) they’d still remain very vulnerable in the other DFW districts - it’ll mean to be safe they’ll have to sacrifice at least one more semi-sink district and that’ll likely not even be enough for the decade.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Senate/SCOTUS/EC Delenda Est 👁 on December 20, 2018, 01:09:32 am
TX-30 is centered on heavily black and Hispanic South Dallas, as well as the heavily black suburbs south of Dallas, while TX-33 is centered on heavily Hispanic West Dallas and western suburbs as well as big chunks of Fort Worth.

All of these areas are growing and growing faster than the state average, even if not growing faster than the suburban boom areas. TX-30 and TX-33 will both have to be significantly physically smaller in their next iterations (TX-33 might well be kicked mostly out of Dallas to just be a Fort Worth and Mid Cities district due to Ft Worth's growth). This is a huge problem to the GOP because these seats are as Dem packed as can be. TX-30 can either take itself further south, giving the northern parts of it to TX-32 and TX-05, or pull itself north and give all of the suburbs south of Dallas to TX-06, dragging TX-06 into Dallas County. TX-33 shrinking in west Dallas and the west Dallas suburbs risks dragging TX-06 again or TX-24 into those areas.

That is actually not quite true. From 2017 population estimates by CD, the TX statewide growth rate from 2010 to 2017 was 12.6%. The national growth rate was 5.5%. TX-30 (10.9% growth rate) and TX-33 (7.9% growth rate) are both slower growing than the state average, although they are a bit faster growing than the national average. Since they are still faster growing than the national average, it is nonetheless probably (depending on rounding error in reapportionment) true that they will indeed have to give up a bit of territory in redistricting, but not all that much.

The Houston area is a bigger problem for the GOP in this respect than the Metroplex. In Houston, TX-18 (14.6% growth) and TX-09 (13.0% growth) are both growing faster than the statewide average, although TX-29 is a bit slower though still faster than the national average (9.1% growth).


More broadly, the real problem for the GOP is that out of the 3.2 million people TX gained since 2000, only 458K (14.5%) of them were white. Just the black population growth of 443K (14.0% of the total growth) is enough to offset the political effect of the white growth, even if you assume that Republicans are overwhelmingly winning the new White growth by 80%-20% or so - which is not a sensible assumption.

What white population growth there is tends to be a bit more concentrated in the most white-liberal of the big TX metro areas - Austin, with white population loss across the rural districts (and rural parts of non-rural districts) and also some white gains in the fastest growing and most Dem-trending suburban districts (where the white share of the population is nonetheless quickly decreasing because the non-white growth is much higher - like TX-03, for example, which although it gained 56k whites, it also gained 116k non-whites, and has been one of the most strongly Dem trending areas of TX in 2016 and 2018).

It is interesting to make a list of all the Congressional districts where the White share of the district's population growth is higher than the statewide average:

TX-25 (56% of the population growth there is White) --- White liberal Austin population growth.
TX-26 (46% of the population growth there is White) --- Denton/DFW suburbs that have trended strongly Dem
TX-08 (41% of the population growth there is White) --- This is basically the only real counterexample where the GOP is okayish in terms of the population growth and people voting R.
TX-31 (37% of the population growth there is White) --- North Austin Williamson County suburbs, where Beto shockingly won Williamson County...
TX-04 (35%) --- This is the 2nd best counterexample other than TX-08, but all the white population growth is basically in Rockwall County in the Dallas suburbs, ie the only part of TX-04 that has trended D.
TX-21 (33%) --- More Austin white liberals.
TX-03 (33%) --- Collin County.
TX-35 (32%) --- Dem Austin Hispanic VRA vote sink getting more white liberals.
TX-12 (29%) --- Fort Worth/suburbs.
TX-10 (26%) --- Austin white liberals and some NW Houston.
TX-22 (23%) --- Fort Bend.
TX-17 (20%) --- All the white population growth in this district is in the North Austin part of the district and in College Station, both of which trended strongly Dem in 2016 and 2018.

That is it. The complete list of all Congressional Districts where White growth is a greater share of the growth than the statewide TX average. Other than TX-08 and TX-04, every last one of them is trouble for the GOP, and about half of those districts are districts where the White growth is in the Austin area.

Every other district has either a lower White share of the growth, or has outright White population loss (Fully 17 Congressional districts in TX have outright White population loss, despite having overall population gain thanks to non-white growth).

TX-24 is probably the best example of this GOP problem with white population growth either not existing, consisting of Austin white liberals, or just getting swamped. Although TX-24 gained 102k people since 2000, it actually had outright white population loss of -8k. And 30k of the 120k non-whites it gained were black. That is obviously not a winning long term formula for a whites-only Republican party.

So I would say that the major part of the problem is simply that these suburban areas like TX-24 are just shifting under the feet of their R incumbents, less so than whether they have to take more territory from districts like TX-30/TX-33. The problem is not new territory, it is the territory that they already have, and that used to be much safer R than it now is. The problem for the GOP is places like Sugar Land are now starting to vote Dem, and you are starting to see Dem-voting precincts spring up in places like... Frisco !?!?!


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 20, 2018, 09:52:39 am
wait does anyone have the highland park numbers in Dallas for
2012 pres, 2016 pres and 2018 senate.  I want to see these lifelong republicans voting for Beto because Drumpf.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 20, 2018, 09:58:31 am
I also read a medium post about a person who canvassed for Beto in the end.
The Texas dems had so little infrastructure and Texas was growing so fast the Minivan app had very inaccurate data. The GOTV operation Beto did should refresh the dems on that and they now have a much better list on who to target. In 2020 setting a GOTV operation is much easier. If Beto decides against running for president or senate he should pull a mark warner and run for leader of the TX dems.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Senate/SCOTUS/EC Delenda Est 👁 on December 20, 2018, 12:02:04 pm
I also read a medium post about a person who canvassed for Beto in the end.
The Texas dems had so little infrastructure and Texas was growing so fast the Minivan app had very inaccurate data. The GOTV operation Beto did should refresh the dems on that and they now have a much better list on who to target. In 2020 setting a GOTV operation is much easier. If Beto decides against running for president or senate he should pull a mark warner and run for leader of the TX dems.

Moreover, there is still a lot of improvement that can be made to Dem voter file data simply by running a proper campaign there in 2020. Even though Beto's campaign was huge in comparison to previous TX campaigns, TX is a huge state and they nonetheless missed a lot of people. With another year or so of additional voter contact on top of what Beto already did, the Dem data can actually be substantively improved by the time of election day 2020, whereas in states like Ohio and Florida that have had large scale properly run campaigns for many cycles, Dems are already at or close to their "data ceiling."


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Senate/SCOTUS/EC Delenda Est 👁 on December 20, 2018, 12:28:27 pm
wait does anyone have the highland park numbers in Dallas for
2012 pres, 2016 pres and 2018 senate.  I want to see these lifelong republicans voting for Beto because Drumpf.

Highland Park is 4 precincts.

2012:

Romney 4248 (79.4%)
Obama 1041 (19.5%)
Total 5350

Romney margin of 3207 votes (59.9%)


2018:

Cruz 3075 (64.6%)
Beto 1641 (34.5%)
Total 4757

Cruz margin of 1434 votes (30.1%).


So as compared to 2012, although Highland Park still voted 2 to 1 Republican, Beto cut the Republican margin in half, and got a 30% swing. So 2 to 1 Republican is quite a bit better than 4 to 1 Republican.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on December 20, 2018, 02:34:50 pm
wait does anyone have the highland park numbers in Dallas for
2012 pres, 2016 pres and 2018 senate.  I want to see these lifelong republicans voting for Beto because Drumpf.

Highland Park is 4 precincts.

2012:

Romney 4248 (79.4%)
Obama 1041 (19.5%)
Total 5350

Romney margin of 3207 votes (59.9%)


2018:

Cruz 3075 (64.6%)
Beto 1641 (34.5%)
Total 4757

Cruz margin of 1434 votes (30.1%).


So as compared to 2012, although Highland Park still voted 2 to 1 Republican, Beto cut the Republican margin in half, and got a 30% swing. So 2 to 1 Republican is quite a bit better than 4 to 1 Republican.
and afaik these people aren't really moving out in vast numbers and there isn't a large amount of growth in the area. It is also very white so that suggests hundreds of rich republicans switching to the dem party because of Trump. The turnout here is very high due to the wealth and affluence of the area so there isn't an incredible turnout difference(although it seems like some rich RINO's want tax cuts but hate Trump so they didn't vote at all or it could be the normal midterm loss..Losing these donors are devastating for the DFW GOP. Without a large gap in Highland Park Marchant can't fundraise for 2020.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Lognog on December 26, 2018, 05:30:15 pm
The senate margins mirror the presidential margins very closely, like under 1 percent in 08 and 12, and with increased polarization, Cornyn has the same incumbent advantage as trump


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: olowakandi on December 28, 2018, 06:46:06 pm
It's not a blue state at the presidential level, and Dems would be better served to spending time in PA, than TX.  It's foolsgold, taking resources out of the tipping point states.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: TX more competitive than OH on January 04, 2019, 10:29:08 am
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

Has anyone figured out if O’Rourke won a majority of state House seats? It looks like he did, but it’s a close call just from eye-balling it


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: All States will be D on January 04, 2019, 10:45:56 am
Do texas dems have a path to winning the state house? I haven't read that

yeah the dems should invest heavily into it for fair maps in the 20's

Its easier than statewide due to the gerrymanders becoming dummymanders
Dallas went from 8R-6D to 12D-2R.  Get houston and San Antonio and the dems have a majority.

Has anyone figured out if O’Rourke won a majority of state House seats? It looks like he did, but it’s a close call just from eye-balling it

Im gonna assume every currrent district held by D's is a Beto district. Not a bold assumption
THats 67 seats

Lets look at the remaining where the GOP won by 5 or less.

The 26th  was a 5 point win for the GOP incumbent
66 and 67th was a bare win
92 and 96
108
112
134 was a 6 point win but it 100% voted for Beto as its a clinton +15 district
138

Anyway those 9 all probably voted for Beto so yeah RIP Texas GOP gerrymander. There might be more.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Sbane on January 04, 2019, 11:28:34 am
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Gass3268 on January 04, 2019, 12:18:55 pm
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Looking at the Congressional maps, I imagine this only applies to the state maps?


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Sbane on January 04, 2019, 12:44:08 pm
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Looking at the Congressional maps, I imagine this only applies to the state maps?

That is correct.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Tintrlvr on January 04, 2019, 01:35:53 pm
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Looking at the Congressional maps, I imagine this only applies to the state maps?

That is correct.

Is that a state constitutional requirement or just statutory?


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: TX more competitive than OH on January 04, 2019, 02:30:15 pm
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Oh damn then yeah, they can’t really do a whole lot to re-gerrymander the maps before 2020 with that restriction if true. I was thinking they’d for sure try to do a mid-decade redistricting and try to draw out the new Dems in seats in Williamson and Denton County but that would just open them up to even more dummymander potential if they are restricted to keeping those seats within those counties since these places are zooming left fast.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Tintrlvr on January 04, 2019, 03:29:23 pm
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Oh damn then yeah, they can’t really do a whole lot to re-gerrymander the maps before 2020 with that restriction if true. I was thinking they’d for sure try to do a mid-decade redistricting and try to draw out the new Dems in seats in Williamson and Denton County but that would just open them up to even more dummymander potential if they are restricted to keeping those seats within those counties since these places are zooming left fast.

I think they'd have to try for one safe D seat in each of the suburban counties and hope they can hold on to the rest for a decade in the 2020 redistricting regardless.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Oryxslayer on January 04, 2019, 04:27:49 pm
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Oh damn then yeah, they can’t really do a whole lot to re-gerrymander the maps before 2020 with that restriction if true. I was thinking they’d for sure try to do a mid-decade redistricting and try to draw out the new Dems in seats in Williamson and Denton County but that would just open them up to even more dummymander potential if they are restricted to keeping those seats within those counties since these places are zooming left fast.

I think they'd have to try for one safe D seat in each of the suburban counties and hope they can hold on to the rest for a decade in the 2020 redistricting regardless.

And that's of course assuming that Dems don't flip the chamber, which if Betos coalition holds, it can probably be done with 47%. If it does, then things get weird: everything from fair maps to a dirty deal that has Pubs Gerry Congress/Senate and Dems Gerry the House is a possibility.


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: Sbane on January 09, 2019, 12:10:28 am
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Looking at the Congressional maps, I imagine this only applies to the state maps?

That is correct.

Is that a state constitutional requirement or just statutory?

Sorry for the late response but here you go:

Quote
House District Requirements
Section 26, Article III, of the Texas Constitution, as applied by the state and federal courts in conjunction with federal law, requires that house districts be apportioned among the counties according to the federal census population and the following rules:

  (1) a county with sufficient population for exactly one district must be formed into a single   district;

  (2) a county with a population smaller than the population needed for a whole district   must be kept whole and combined with one or more contiguous counties to form a district;

  (3) a county that has sufficient population for two or more whole districts must be divided   into that number of districts, with no district extending into another county; and

  (4) each county with a population sufficient for one or more whole districts plus a fraction   of another district must be divided into that many whole districts, with the excess   population added to one or more contiguous counties to form an additional district.

In practice, it is sometimes impossible to draw a statewide plan that completely satisfies these rules while maintaining districts with equal populations. The Texas courts have allowed a house plan to violate these rules to the extent necessary to draw a plan that complies with the one-person, one-vote requirement.

Section 28, Article III, of the Texas Constitution requires the legislature to redistrict state house districts during the first regular session following publication of the decennial census. If the legislature fails to do so, the redistricting task falls to the Legislative Redistricting Board.

https://tlc.texas.gov/redist/requirements/house.html


Title: Re: Is Texas really turning blue?
Post by: jimrtex on January 13, 2019, 10:56:34 pm
The rules for drawing house districts really hampers the Texas GOP. You can't just connect Dallas, Harris and Travis counties with exurban/rural areas and create GOP districts that way. They have to stay within the county, which was fine when there were plenty of Republican leaning suburbs within those counties. Not the case anymore.

Looking at the Congressional maps, I imagine this only applies to the state maps?

That is correct.

Is that a state constitutional requirement or just statutory?
It is in the constitution (with adjustments to comply with OMOV) and applies to the House only.

Under the Constitution, there are two kinds of districts.

(1) Single counties entitled to one or more representatives.
(2) Multi-county districts entitled to one representative. This can include the surplus of a larger county above a whole number of quotas.

If County A was entitled to 2.5 representatives and County B was entitled to 1.5 representatives, then under the constitution County A would have 2 representatives, County B would have one representative and Counties A+B would elect one representative.

There used to be a provision that counties entitled to more than 7 representatives, would be limited to one additional representative for every 100,000 persons. This was enacted at a time when the quota was around 39,000; so that these counties would get 7 representatives for the first 39,000 x 7 = 273,000 population, and one additional for every 100,000. This provision was added after Harris, Dallas, and Bexar would have been entitled to more than seven representatives. Were it still in place, large counties would get extra representation since the quota is nearly 170,000.

This provision was ruled unconstitutional after 'Reynolds v Sims', and has since been removed from the constitution.

After this decision. the representation of Harris, Dallas, Bexar, and Tarrant increased from 38 (of 150) to 51 (of 150).

Floterial districts, which are apportioned on the basis of the surplus population were also ruled to violate OMOV. In our example above, the representative from counties A+B would  be elected by all the voters from counties A and B. While each contributed 50% of the apportionment population, county A had 62.5% of the voters, and likely would have controlled the election, such that there would be 3 representatives from A, and one from B.

Following this decision, the floterial districts were patched up by taking an area of a county with a surplus population and combining it with adjacent counties or parts of counties.

For example, Brazoria County had elected one representative, and Brazoria + Fort Bend elected another. Collectively, the two counties had a population equivalent to two representatives so the apportionment was correct, but Brazoria had almost twice the population for Fort Bend.

So afterwards an area of Brazoria County containing about 1/4 the population was attached to Fort Bend County, and the remainder of Brazoria County elected the other representative. It appears that the changes that were made were just to address the issue of the floterial districts, enough to get through the remainder of the decade (this was the 3rd map for the 1960s).

Following the 1970 census, the Democrats decided to ignore the constitution and draw 150 districts dividing many small counties. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Texas constitution could be be harmonized with OMOV, by attaching an area of a larger county containing a surplus of population to surplus areas in other large counties and/or other small counties to form a single-member district, but this can only be done to comply with OMOV.

Large counties might be able to be within 5% average deviation without recognizing a surplus. A county entitled to 10.4 representatives would have a 4% deviation if apportioned 10 representatives, and a county entitled to 10.6 representatives would have a -3.6% deviation if apportioned 11 representatives. So even though they had a surplus, the surplus would not be recognized because it would violate the Texas constitution.

The largest counties: Harris(24), Dallas(14), Tarrant(11), and Bexar(10) can never have a surplus recognized.

Some larger counties: Travis(6), El Paso(5), and Denton(4) have all their districts within the county. Travis an have 6 representatives if its population is between 5.7 and 6.3 representatives. It can have 7 representatives if its population is between 6.65 and 7.35 representatives. So it is only in a gap between 6.30 and 6.65 that Travis would have a district that reached into a neighboring county.

Other larger counties: Collin(4+), Hidalgo(4+), and Fort Bend(3+) have a district that extends into a neighboring county.

Most of the counties that have a district into another county have either (2+) districts - Williamson, Cameron, Motgomery, or (1+) districts: Lubbock, Bell, McLennan, Smith, Jefferson, Brazoria, Galveston, and Brazos.

After the Texas Supreme Court ruled, a district was drawn that included the fringes of Tarrant County (representing its surplus) which was attached to Parker County. The remainder of Tarrant County (Fort Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie) and other cities formed another district that elected 7 representatives.

This map was upheld by the SCOTUS. This decision established the 5% maximum deviation, because that was what Texas used. In essence the SCOTUS said the map had reasonable about of deviation given that Texas was trying to follow county lines based on the Constitution.

Actually the decision established a 10% range, since the largest Texas districts had a deviation of 5.1% and the smallest a deviation of -4.9%.

After this, federal courts ruled that multi-member districts could not be used in areas where there were concentrations of minority voters. After an analysis was done, all but Hidalgo had to be divided. So that area in Parker County that had 9 representatives, who were elected by place, was divided up into single-member districts. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that election by district is a manner regulation. The constitution specifies apportionment of representatives among the counties, not how those representatives are elected. Even before the court decisions, Harris County had been divided into three districts electing 6 or 7 representatives, rather than electing 19 representatives countywide.

So in Texas, the rules are:

(1) Single-county 1 or more representatives.
(2) Multi-county single representatives.

Unless some of these don't comply with OMOV.

(3) Multi-county small counties, or areas of larger counties with a surplus population with a single representative. The remnant of the larger county may have 1 or more representatives.

These districts are not fully compliant with the Texas Constitution, but are consistent with apportionment principles of floterial districts. In effect, the Texas Constitution is stretched in order to comply with OMOV principles of the US Constitution, but only to the extent necessary.

It may be required to make an exception or two to comply with OMOV. This is why Henderson County is divided, even though it has a population less than a district.

Because most larger counties are clustered in the DFW, Houston, and I-35 corridor (Waco to San Antonio) there are often real constraints on how counties may be grouped. For example, Hays, Comal, and Guadalupe counties are not large enough for their own district, but too large to share a district, so their districts have to spread outwards.

These rules greatly restrict which counties may form a district. It might be possible to form a district with A, B, and C counties, or A, B, and D counties. But if C must be in a district with E county, then the A, B, C district can not be used, and A, B, D must be used.

Note: I disagree with Sbane's initial analysis.