Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 17, 2019, 07:33:01 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  Is Texas really turning blue?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Is Texas really turning blue?  (Read 3758 times)
Republican Left
Left Wing Republican
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 81


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 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?
Logged
lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,737


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,232


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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.
Logged



The Handsome Monkey King Son Wukong weighs in on politics.
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,600
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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!
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,312
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 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. 

   
Logged
lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,737


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 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
Logged
Left-Libertarian
Xeuma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 308


Political Matrix
E: -4.19, S: -7.22

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 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.
Logged

Quote
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the notion that democracy means "my ignorance is just as good powerful as your knowledge."
Fmr. Pres. Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,717
Greece


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 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.
Logged


lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,737


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 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.
Logged
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,844
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 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.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,717
Greece


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 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.
Logged


Senate/SCOTUS/EC Delenda Est 👁
The Impartial Spectator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,815


P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 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.
Logged

Axis of Evil, Triumvirate of Tyranny: US Senate, SCOTUS, Electoral College

ORourke today is probably the most far-left candidate out there. Running of Medicare-for-all, abolishing ICE, No PAC money along with positions like impeaching Trump. In 2018, O'Rourke is to the left of Sanders & Warren & Brown !

lfromnj
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,737


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 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.
Logged
Senate/SCOTUS/EC Delenda Est 👁
The Impartial Spectator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,815


P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 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.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 10:02:10 pm by Queen Pelosi, Regina of the House, Regnant of Amerittania 👁 »Logged

Axis of Evil, Triumvirate of Tyranny: US Senate, SCOTUS, Electoral College

ORourke today is probably the most far-left candidate out there. Running of Medicare-for-all, abolishing ICE, No PAC money along with positions like impeaching Trump. In 2018, O'Rourke is to the left of Sanders & Warren & Brown !

Fmr. Pres. Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,717
Greece


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 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).
« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 10:24:04 pm by Fmr. Pres. Griff »Logged


Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,425
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 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.
Logged
C O M S T O C K
hummus_con_pita
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 673
Israel


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 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?"
Logged


The most powerful woman in Washington.

"The hardest thing in this world is to live in it. Be brave. Live..."
- Buffy Summers, The Gift
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,232


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 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.
Logged



The Handsome Monkey King Son Wukong weighs in on politics.
Joe McCarthy Was Right
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 51
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 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.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 09:23:56 pm by Joe McCarthy Was Right »Logged
TML
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,193


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 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.
Logged
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,820
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 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.  
Logged

Senator Zaybay
Zaybay
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,513
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.25, S: -6.50

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 311
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 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. 
Logged
Tintrlvr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,192
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 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.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,050


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines