If Texas flips it may set of a beginning of a totally new realignment of the map

[OSR stands with Israel]

Because the fact is Texas is not Virginia , it is not a state that the GOP can make up for losing as without TX the GOP dont have a path to 270. Due to that I think if Texas Flips,  it will set of a new realignment and within 8-12 years the entire map will look so remarkably different that we wont be able to recognize today.  Many trends we are seeing today will reverse, or there may be trends we don't even think about happening which will happen.

If Trump wins in 2020, this will probably happen and by 2032 or 2036 the map will be unrecognizable to today. On the other hand if Trump loses by even a 2012 style Romney margin EC wise then , I think the previous alignment may return (not pre 2008 but pre 2016 alignment)

[President Johnson]

I generally agree with this. Also keep in mind that the states trending Democratic like Texas, Arizona and Georgia due to population growth (especially among Democratic-friendly groups) are expected to further gain electoral votes following the 2020 census and beyond. Even if the Republicans start winning the whole Mid-West except Illinois, these states lose more and more electoral votes. The only major blue state to lose electoral votes are Illinois and to a lesser degree New York, which they can easily make up in the Sun Belt or California, whose population growth is in total numbers second to Texas.

I actually believe Trump's election was a fluke and over the next decades, the Democrats will control the presidency for the better part of the time, such as they did between 1933 and 1969 and the Republicans from 1969 to 2009.

[Virginiá]

Because the fact is Texas is not Virginia , it is not a state that the GOP can make up for losing as without TX the GOP dont have a path to 270. Due to that I think if Texas Flips,  it will set of a new realignment and within 8-12 years the entire map will look so remarkably different that we wont be able to recognize today.  Many trends we are seeing today will reverse, or there may be trends we don't even think about happening which will happen.

If Trump wins in 2020, this will probably happen and by 2032 or 2036 the map will be unrecognizable to today. On the other hand if Trump loses by even a 2012 style Romney margin EC wise then , I think the previous alignment may return (not pre 2008 but pre 2016 alignment)

Why would this happen though? What does Texas have to do with it? Is it the idea that losing Texas will force Republicans to totally change their strategy and policies? That would take a lot longer than a decade to yield results, and generally voters are a lot less focused on concrete policy than people like to think. If they were, Trump supporters would be holding dear leader's feet to the fire more often. Instead, they just go along with whatever he wants.

[Matty]

Why you guys assume ethnic groups can't change voting habits is bizarre. Literally every single group in America besides the jews has oscillated from one party to the other.

Democrats far left plunge on fringe social issues is not going to sit well with hispanics eventually.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Because the fact is Texas is not Virginia , it is not a state that the GOP can make up for losing as without TX the GOP dont have a path to 270. Due to that I think if Texas Flips,  it will set of a new realignment and within 8-12 years the entire map will look so remarkably different that we wont be able to recognize today.  Many trends we are seeing today will reverse, or there may be trends we don't even think about happening which will happen.

If Trump wins in 2020, this will probably happen and by 2032 or 2036 the map will be unrecognizable to today. On the other hand if Trump loses by even a 2012 style Romney margin EC wise then , I think the previous alignment may return (not pre 2008 but pre 2016 alignment)

Why would this happen though? What does Texas have to do with it? Is it the idea that losing Texas will force Republicans to totally change their strategy and policies? That would take a lot longer than a decade to yield results, and generally voters are a lot less focused on concrete policy than people like to think. If they were, Trump supporters would be holding dear leader's feet to the fire more often. Instead, they just go along with whatever he wants.

Losing elections tends to do that , and cause parties to change. It still will take 8-12 years though but it does happen

[Skill and Chance]

I think it would just force Republicans to go all in on the industrial/post-industrial Midwest and retirees (hold Florida, NC, maybe not get wiped out in AZ), on the assumption that the South is giving out.  There would end up being little or no difference in family income between the party coalitions.  Democrats are gradually able to contest the Plains and Republicans the Northeast (except for MA as Boston seems to be following the Southern/Western metro trajectory).  Small cities become the most important electoral battleground.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)

[OSR stands with Israel]

The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)

A new realignment could flip TX back , just with unrecognizable party coalitions

[Skill and Chance]

The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)

A new realignment could flip TX back , just with unrecognizable party coalitions

The late 19th century was also the last time we had anything like this level of urban/rural polarization.  Seems reasonable to expect most of the large states to be Dem leaning down the line.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)

A new realignment could flip TX back , just with unrecognizable party coalitions

The late 19th century was also the last time we had anything like this level of urban/rural polarization.  Seems reasonable to expect most of the large states to be Dem leaning down the line.

What I’m saying is it won’t last for long . By 2032 or 2036 we will be in a new era

[brucejoel99]

Yeah, this is all agreeable.

[darklordoftech]

It’s possible that when Texas flips, we’ll be in an era of 49-state victories.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It’s possible that when Texas flips, we’ll be in an era of 49-state victories.

WY, ID, OK will make sure that never happens

[Senator Incitatus]

Yes. I've posted this elsewhere, but purple Texas would have a monumental (cataclysmic?) impact on national politics.

It would be the most dominant/largest swing state in history, probably — only New York from 1868–1908 comes close. For a sample of what could be to come, during those 40 years, Democrats nominated five New Yorkers, one sort-of New Yorker (Winfield S. Hancock), and Williams Jennings Bryan (thrice). That's it. Republicans would be in a similar boat, where Texas would necessarily be the focus of their winning coalition. It's possible though unlikely that Democrats could also face the same problem, if a few Rust Belt states flip.

If Texas turns into a competitive state, get ready for crazy things like Lizzie Fletcher vs Dan Crenshaw 2044 and a ton of downstream implications for the national conversation and culture. Suddenly we're going to care a lot about grazing regulations and who orders what at Whataburger.

We're already getting a taste of this in the Cástro and especially O'Rourke campaigns, where the main appeal is nominating someone who can campaign in TX.

The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)

Better context: the last time a candidate won without carrying at least two of the four largest states was 1916. Wilson actually lost the three largest states to Hughes: New York (45), Pennsylvania (38), Illinois (29). He carried the fourth – Ohio – and it won him the election.

Harry Truman also came extremely close to doing this in 1948. He lost New York and Pennsylvania but carried Illinois by 33,612 votes and Ohio by just 7,107. He could have lost either state and won the election, but not both.

Richard Nixon also might qualify in 1968 if going by raw population rather than electoral votes. He lost New York (43), Pennsylvania (29), and Texas (25). He carried California (40), Illinois (26), and Ohio (26). By 1972 under the new census, Texas had passed Ohio (25) and tied Illinois with 26 EVs.

Without getting into actual detailed percentages, it seems like it's possible to win with a candidate who loses the largest states, but it takes a unique appeal to conservative rural voters as in Truman and Wilson or a strong third party candidate as in 1968. Given geographical and cultural changes since these elections, I'm not sure it's actually possible anymore, but it's clear that it's not the preferred way to run a campaign.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)

A new realignment could flip TX back , just with unrecognizable party coalitions

The late 19th century was also the last time we had anything like this level of urban/rural polarization.  Seems reasonable to expect most of the large states to be Dem leaning down the line.

What I’m saying is it won’t last for long . By 2032 or 2036 we will be in a new era

I don’t know why you’re so adamant that if Texas flips, Republicans WILL get it back. Usually once a state is gone, it’s gone for a long time. Just because Republicans magically decide they need to get less racist won’t win Texas back lol

[Politician]

I think it would just force Republicans to go all in on the industrial/post-industrial Midwest and retirees (hold Florida, NC, maybe not get wiped out in AZ), on the assumption that the South is giving out.  There would end up being little or no difference in family income between the party coalitions.  Democrats are gradually able to contest the Plains and Republicans the Northeast (except for MA as Boston seems to be following the Southern/Western metro trajectory).  Small cities become the most important electoral battleground.

LMAO no, 2016 trends are not guaranteed to repeat for 6+ cycles. By that point something will have happened to disrupt them.

[lfromnj]

I think it would just force Republicans to go all in on the industrial/post-industrial Midwest and retirees (hold Florida, NC, maybe not get wiped out in AZ), on the assumption that the South is giving out.  There would end up being little or no difference in family income between the party coalitions.  Democrats are gradually able to contest the Plains and Republicans the Northeast (except for MA as Boston seems to be following the Southern/Western metro trajectory).  Small cities become the most important electoral battleground.

LMAO no, 2016 trends are not guaranteed to repeat for 6+ cycles. By that point something will have happened to disrupt them.

They haven't repeated per se in every single election like 2012 but 2016 trends are just a further culmination of 88 to 2016 trends. The two best counties to show this are Anne Arrundel Md and Jefferson TX. Sure they actually flipped in 2016 but the margins or atleast PVI generally kept growing narrower and narrower. I wouldn't say they are certain to continue but in the medium-longish term that is exactly what has happened.This is a general idea of course. Like rural New England is a bit different.

[Politician]

I think it would just force Republicans to go all in on the industrial/post-industrial Midwest and retirees (hold Florida, NC, maybe not get wiped out in AZ), on the assumption that the South is giving out.  There would end up being little or no difference in family income between the party coalitions.  Democrats are gradually able to contest the Plains and Republicans the Northeast (except for MA as Boston seems to be following the Southern/Western metro trajectory).  Small cities become the most important electoral battleground.

LMAO no, 2016 trends are not guaranteed to repeat for 6+ cycles. By that point something will have happened to disrupt them.

They haven't repeated per se in every single election like 2012 but 2016 trends are just a further culmination of 88 to 2016 trends. The two best counties to show this are Anne Arrundel Md and Jefferson TX. Sure they actually flipped in 2016 but the margins or atleast PVI generally kept growing narrower and narrower. I wouldn't say they are certain to continue but in the medium-longish term that is exactly what has happened.This is a general idea of course. Like rural New England is a bit different.

Sure, but there are plenty of counties that have had their trends reversed throughout the decade. The Driftless region was actually trending blue before 2016. Same with Eastern ND, Western MN, Upstate NY, and rural New England like you mentioned.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The last time a Republican won without California or Texas (with 93 EVs now and all but certain to gain more after reapportionment) was in 1880 (when they had 14)

A new realignment could flip TX back , just with unrecognizable party coalitions

The late 19th century was also the last time we had anything like this level of urban/rural polarization.  Seems reasonable to expect most of the large states to be Dem leaning down the line.

What I’m saying is it won’t last for long . By 2032 or 2036 we will be in a new era

I don’t know why you’re so adamant that if Texas flips, Republicans WILL get it back. Usually once a state is gone, it’s gone for a long time. Just because Republicans magically decide they need to get less racist won’t win Texas back lol

They will need one of TX/CA/NY to win elections and what I mean by flip doesnt mean flip like VA has , just vote the other way.

And I said it will take 8-12 years which isnt quick either

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think it would just force Republicans to go all in on the industrial/post-industrial Midwest and retirees (hold Florida, NC, maybe not get wiped out in AZ), on the assumption that the South is giving out.  There would end up being little or no difference in family income between the party coalitions.  Democrats are gradually able to contest the Plains and Republicans the Northeast (except for MA as Boston seems to be following the Southern/Western metro trajectory).  Small cities become the most important electoral battleground.

LMAO no, 2016 trends are not guaranteed to repeat for 6+ cycles. By that point something will have happened to disrupt them.

They haven't repeated per se in every single election like 2012 but 2016 trends are just a further culmination of 88 to 2016 trends. The two best counties to show this are Anne Arrundel Md and Jefferson TX. Sure they actually flipped in 2016 but the margins or atleast PVI generally kept growing narrower and narrower. I wouldn't say they are certain to continue but in the medium-longish term that is exactly what has happened.This is a general idea of course. Like rural New England is a bit different.

The 1980s were a further culmination of trends that began in 1952 as well and in 1992 it stopped to continue. 1984/88 were the tipping points of when the Dems realized they had no path to 270 anymore and then began to correct course which the GOP will do as well.

[Annatar]

This meme that 2016 was simply a continuation of previous trends needs to stop, there were entire areas of the country that were trending democrat that trended hard Republican in 2016, there were counties in Appalachian Ohio that swung towards Obama from 2008-2012 which meant they trended democratic in a big way that swung 20-30 points towards Trump. There were counties in Wisconsin that had been trending democrat for decades that swung hard towards Trump.

[Skill and Chance]

This meme that 2016 was simply a continuation of previous trends needs to stop, there were entire areas of the country that were trending democrat that trended hard Republican in 2016, there were counties in Appalachian Ohio that swung towards Obama from 2008-2012 which meant they trended democratic in a big way that swung 20-30 points towards Trump. There were counties in Wisconsin that had been trending democrat for decades that swung hard towards Trump.

This is why I think if/when Texas does flip (assuming it's not just a double digit Dem landslide scenario), it will be gone for a generation or more like it was from 1980-2016 and Republicans will look elsewhere to rebuild after a cycle or 2, probably to NY and the NE more generally.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This meme that 2016 was simply a continuation of previous trends needs to stop, there were entire areas of the country that were trending democrat that trended hard Republican in 2016, there were counties in Appalachian Ohio that swung towards Obama from 2008-2012 which meant they trended democratic in a big way that swung 20-30 points towards Trump. There were counties in Wisconsin that had been trending democrat for decades that swung hard towards Trump.

This is why I think if/when Texas does flip (assuming it's not just a double digit Dem landslide scenario), it will be gone for a generation or more like it was from 1980-2016 and Republicans will look elsewhere to rebuild after a cycle or 2, probably to NY and the NE more generally.

The Demographics are much much worse for the GOP in NY than TX . Dems made up losing TX by winning CA (which had signs of being a future Dem state in 1972 , Carter and Reagan just delayed it another 8 years )GOP just doesn’t have another option .

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Alternatively, there might be a bipartisan cause to end the electoral college.

[brucejoel99]

Alternatively, there might be a bipartisan cause to end the electoral college.

Let's f**king hope!