More likely to go blue in 2020: Texas or IN/MO?

[cvparty]

These states will be hard fights for Democrats in 2020. But which one would be easier to win, Texas or Indiana/Missouri? (Indiana and Missouri have voted within 2% of each other in the last 12 years, nearly the same)

some stats

year 2008 2012 2016

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Texas margin +11.8 +15.8 +9.0

lean +19.0 +19.7 +11.1

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Indiana margin -1.0 +10.2 +18.9

lean +6.2 +14.1 +21.0

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Missouri margin +0.0 +9.4 +18.6

lean +7.2 +13.3 +20.7

edit: blue, i.e. non-atlas blue

[Tekken_Guy]

Texas.

[RINO Tom]

Assuming Trump runs for reelection, Texas ... but neither will be close.

[Xing]

I guess Texas, but none are remotely likely to flip. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Indiana ended up being slightly more Democratic than Texas, though.

[Figueira]

Texas. I actually thing Democratic chances there are somewhat underrated.

Iowa and Ohio are still more likely to flip than Texas, though.

[TheSaint250]

I guess Texas, but none are remotely likely to flip.

[Skill and Chance]

Texas. I actually thing Democratic chances there are somewhat underrated.

Iowa and Ohio are still more likely to flip than Texas, though.

Broadly agree, but I think Texas is more likely that Iowa at this point.  Ohio is still more likely than Texas, though.  A Sanders-flavored Dem winning by about 5 nationwide would carry Ohio, while Texas would take a suburban-flavored Dem winning by at least the Obama 2008 margin.

[AppleJackass]

Assuming Trump runs for reelection, Texas ... but neither will be close.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

None. Dems, as I've said over and over again, are not going to spend the money it takes to campaign seriously in Texas when they could spend that money in 5-6 other states instead.

[exopolitician]

None. Dems, as I've said over and over again, are not going to spend the money it takes to campaign seriously in Texas when they could spend that money in 5-6 other states instead.

They've got a good chance to make Cruz's seat pretty competetive, coupled with rising Democratic enthusiasm they have a chance to make some inroads in the state. They should go for it this time.

[Orser67]

I think that a ten-point popular victory (e.g. 54-44) is roughly the ceiling for either party. If Dems won the popular vote by ten points, I think they'd probably take Texas but not Indiana or Missouri.

[BaldEagle1991]

None. Dems, as I've said over and over again, are not going to spend the money it takes to campaign seriously in Texas when they could spend that money in 5-6 other states instead.

They've got a good chance to make Cruz's seat pretty competetive, coupled with rising Democratic enthusiasm they have a chance to make some inroads in the state. They should go for it this time.

True.

People also don't realize that Trump isn't super popular in Texas overall.

[Sir Mohamed]

TX will be closer, especially with Drumpf, but neither will be within a margin of seven points.

[RINO Tom]

None. Dems, as I've said over and over again, are not going to spend the money it takes to campaign seriously in Texas when they could spend that money in 5-6 other states instead.

They've got a good chance to make Cruz's seat pretty competetive, coupled with rising Democratic enthusiasm they have a chance to make some inroads in the state. They should go for it this time.

True.

People also don't realize that Trump isn't super popular in Texas overall.

I think people realize that ... they just also realize that a significant segment of Trump's unpopularity comes from Republican and Republican-leaning voters.

[AGA]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

[mieastwick]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Not Texas lol, people forget Indiana went democratic in 2008 and Missouri was like less than a point from doing so, Texas hasn't gone democratic since 1976 on a Presidential level.

[mieastwick]

Texas hasn't gone democratic since 1976 on a Presidential level.

This is literally what they said about Virginia back in the day, with a much longer track record to boot.
I still think IN/MO's much more likely in 2020. But not 2028.

[RINO Tom]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

Not sure about Indiana ... Obama had a lot of "neighboring state appeal," and Indiana isn't that populist.  The bulk of its Republican votes come from the Indianapolis suburbs (and Indy itself).  The state GOP is very pro-business.  However, I think Clinton could have also won Arkansas and West Virginia, personally.

[Skill and Chance]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

Not sure about Indiana ... Obama had a lot of "neighboring state appeal," and Indiana isn't that populist.  The bulk of its Republican votes come from the Indianapolis suburbs (and Indy itself).  The state GOP is very pro-business.  However, I think Clinton could have also won Arkansas and West Virginia, personally.

In a >5 point win (particularly in a >10 point win) for either side, some states that flip will just be flukes.  Indiana in 2008 was like MT in 1992 or AZ in 1996.  It didn't really mean anything about the party coalitions going forward.

While 2008 was simply an automatic Dem win after the financial crisis, I think it's clear now that Hillary would have had an equal or lower margin of victory compared to Obama.

[RINO Tom]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

Not sure about Indiana ... Obama had a lot of "neighboring state appeal," and Indiana isn't that populist.  The bulk of its Republican votes come from the Indianapolis suburbs (and Indy itself).  The state GOP is very pro-business.  However, I think Clinton could have also won Arkansas and West Virginia, personally.

In a >5 point win (particularly in a >10 point win) for either side, some states that flip will just be flukes.  Indiana in 2008 was like MT in 1992 or AZ in 1996.  It didn't really mean anything about the party coalitions going forward.

While 2008 was simply an automatic Dem win after the financial crisis, I think it's clear now that Hillary would have had an equal or lower margin of victory compared to Obama.

But that could have come in the form of winning WV and MO and losing VA, IN and CO, for example.

[MT Treasurer]

The only McCain state Clinton might have won is Missouri - and even that one could have gone to McCain, especially with lower AA turnout. She would have lost IN and NC for sure. Not sure about CO, honestly. VA stays Democratic, though.

[RINO Tom]

It depends on the Democratic nominee. Part of the reason why Clinton did so badly in MO and IN was that she was a bad fit for the state. A Midwestern Democrat could probably make them closer than Texas.

I'm certain that had Clinton been the nominee in 2008, using her strategy then, she would have won both IN and MO.

Not sure about Indiana ... Obama had a lot of "neighboring state appeal," and Indiana isn't that populist.  The bulk of its Republican votes come from the Indianapolis suburbs (and Indy itself).  The state GOP is very pro-business.  However, I think Clinton could have also won Arkansas and West Virginia, personally.

In a >5 point win (particularly in a >10 point win) for either side, some states that flip will just be flukes.  Indiana in 2008 was like MT in 1992 or AZ in 1996.  It didn't really mean anything about the party coalitions going forward.

While 2008 was simply an automatic Dem win after the financial crisis, I think it's clear now that Hillary would have had an equal or lower margin of victory compared to Obama.

But that could have come in the form of winning WV and MO and losing VA, IN and CO, for example.

Colorado and Virginia aren't the best counterexamples. Clinton probably would've won those too. Look how Democrats crushed it there. I think the obvious tradeoffs are NC and IN fact r MO and WV/AR

I just had a faint memory of polls showing McCain beating her in those states but losing in AR and WV.

[TDAS04]

I guess Texas, but none are remotely likely to flip.