It is ten months to the Presidential election on November 3, as the year 2020 begins.
There are strong hints that President Donald Trump is facing strong opposition in the Lone Star state of Texas in his reelection bid, and if he loses Texas in the Electoral College next fall, he is done, as there would be no way to overcome the loss of the second largest state in that vote count.
With 38 electoral votes in 2020, and likely 41 in 2024, Texas is the biggest catch for the future for the Democratic Party, but it really seems possible that it could go “Blue” this year.
If so, then the Democrats do not need the Midwest states of Michigan and Wisconsin as much as they need them if Texas stays Republican.
One can be sure that there will be major campaigning and financial efforts to switch Texas in 2020 to the Democratic Presidential nominee!
Happy New Year 2020, Ronald and all readers here at “The Progressive Professorâ€!
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
I have more than one response to this blog topic. (I cover a good amount of ground, and it is better that I post more than one comment.)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Ronald writes, “There are strong hints that President Donald Trump is facing strong opposition in the Lone Star state of Texas in his reelection bid, and if he loses Texas in the Electoral College next fall, he is done, as there would be no way to overcome the loss of the second largest state in that vote count.â€
Polls from the past several months have suggested this in terms of the state of Texas and the polling margins in the U.S. Popular Vote in which Trump is running behind. (There have been recent changes following the impeachment hearings more favorable to Trump.)
Based off the 2016 election results, and looking to 2020, the Democratic presidential nominee and challenger would have to unseat Republican incumbent Donald Trump by winning the U.S. Popular Vote by +7 percentage points (which is where 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama reached) in order to see Texas among the party’s pickup states.
I estimate, if 2020 is to end up a Democratic pickup of the presidency, the order would be (starting with all 20 states and District of Columbia which were in the 2016 Democratic column, for losing nominee Hillary Clinton, and their mathematical 232 electoral votes): 21. Michigan (cum. 248); 22. Pennsylvania (cum. 268); 23. Wisconsin (cum. 278—Tipping Point); 24. Florida (cum. 307); — Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (cum. 308); 25. Arizona (cum. 319); 26. North Carolina (cum. 334); 27. Georgia (cum. 350); 28. Iowa (cum. 356); — Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (cum. 357); and 29. Texas (cumulative 395 electoral votes).
Ronald also writes, “With 38 electoral votes in 2020, and likely 41 in 2024, Texas is the biggest catch for the future for the Democratic Party, but it really seems possible that it could go ‘Blue’ this year.â€
The 2020 Democratic presidential nominee and challenger would be unseating Republican incumbent Donald Trump in the process in order for it to be feasible that Texas delivers a 2020 Democratic pickup.
The state is trending.
In 2000 and 2004, Republican 43rd U.S. president George W. Bush, who won 30 and 31 states (and 271 and 286 electoral votes), carried Texas as his No. 10 best state. That meant, for losing Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry, Texas was the party’s No. 41 best state. In 2008, a Democratic pickup year for 44th U.S. president Barack Obama, losing Republican nominee John McCain carried Texas as his No. 15 best state. So, too, did 2012 losing Republican nominee Mitt Romney. That made Texas Barack Obama’s No. 36 best state. (He carried 28 and 26 states in 2008 and 2012.) In the 2016 Republican pickup year for 45th U.S. president Donald Trump, Texas slid down to become his and his party’s No. 22 best state. That made Texas Hillary Clinton’s and the Democrats’ No. 29 best state.
Where is Texas is trending are: Bexar County (which voted for all presidential winners from 1972 to 2012 but was a Democratic hold in 2016 to the point of performing 22.30 percentage points more Democratic than the state); Fort Bend County (Richmond)—a 2016 Democratic pickup for Hillary Clinton (with an even better margin for 2018 Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Beto O’Rourke)—marking the first time the party carried it in a presidential election since 1964 Lyndon Johnson, and performing 15.65 percentage points more Democratic than the state; and Tarrant County (Fort Worth)—the Bellwether County of Texas—which actually delivered a 2018 Democratic pickup to Beto O’Rourke with a margin of +0.69 while Republican incumbent Ted Cruz won the 2018 Texas U.S. Senate election by +2.56, making that county shade 3.25 percentage points more Democratic than the state (which is, frankly, reminding me of the trend in Maricopa County, with its county seat Phoenix, that made flipping the 2018 Arizona U.S. Senate to Kyrsten Sinema possible). In 2016, these trio of counties combined for 1,525,154 votes.
I would also look toward Williamson County (Georgetown) as very possibly influential for a Democrat who flips the presidency and, with it, the state of Texas. (It previously carried in the Democratic presidential column for 1976 Jimmy Carter.) This is another populous county in the state. In 2008, John McCain carried it by +12.96, a close match to his statewide margin of +11.76. In 2012, Mitt Romney carried it by +21.45 while he won statewide by +15.78. And in 2016, Donald Trump carried Williamson County by +9.63 while he won statewide by +8.98. In both the 2016 U.S. presidential and the 2018 U.S. senatorial elections in Texas, there were over 200,000 votes cast in Williamson County. In 2018, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Beto O’Rourke flipped and carried Williamson County by +2.88 percentage points. That made Williamson County, for that particular election, 5.44 percentage points more Democratic than the state. Williamson County may be experiencing a trend that is similar to Tarrant County.
(Suggested reading: https://www.kxan.com/news/local/williamson-county/democrats-flip-2-texas-house-seats-in-williamson-county/.)
One can also look to Denton County (Denton) and Collin County (McKinney)—both in the metro area of Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington—as trending in the direction of the Democrats. These two counties, often voting with similar numbers, previously carried at the presidential level for Democrats for 1964 Lyndon Johnson. They were hardcore Republican in the 2000s.
In 2012, Mitt Romney carried Denton County by +31.56 and Collin County by +31.45 while he won statewide by +15.78. In 2016, Donald Trump carried Denton County by +20.00 and Collin County by +16.57 while he won statewide by +8.98. This means Denton County went from performing 15.78 percentage points more Republican than the state in 2012 to performing 10.02 percentage points more Republican than the state in 2016. This also means Collin County went from performing 15.67 percentage points than the state in 2012 to performing 7.59 percentage points more Republican than the state in 2016.
Both Denton County and Collin County have considerable Republican shadings. But, because they are in that Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metro area, they’re not immune to voting trends. A Democratic presidential pickup winner who likewise wins a Democratic pickup of the state of Texas will see these two counties shift strongly in his/her party’s direction. You will see it happen because we do have an example with the 2012-to-2018 U.S. Senate election from Texas. In 2012, Republican Ted Cruz carried Denton County by +32.00 and Collin County by +31.42 while he won statewide by +15.84. In 2018, Ted Cruz carried Denton County by +8.15 and Collin County by +6.12 while he won statewide by +2.56. The margins spread went from performing 16.16 and 15.64 percentage points more Republican, in 2012, to 5.59 and 3.56 percentage points more Republican, in 2018, than the state of Texas. (That “5.59†and “3.56†margins spread suggests a possible trend, should it keep up, of transforming Denton and Collin County to near-bellwether counties. That they shade just a few points more Republican than the state. That is preferable, compared to the counties’ prior voting results, for the Democrats as they move forward.)
Added to bellwether-to-the-state Tarrant County and the now-hardcore Democratic county of Dallas…well, this quartet of counties helps to explain why Texas is poised—when the timing and the circumstances are right (with a given election cycle)—to become a pickup state for a likewise pickup winning Democrat.
(Suggested reading: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/11/07/are-texas-suburbs-slipping-away-republicans/.)
By the way: I did not delve into the state’s 23rd congressional district. This area includes Democratic-aligned El Paso and San Antonio. It is where Republican congressman Will Hurd barely won re-election in 2018 and has opted to not run for possible re-election in 2020. A number of pollsters are estimating that county will flip in 2020 to the Democrats. So, Hurd is in a position like a 2016-to-2018 Darrell Issa, formerly the congressman from California’s 49th district. It’s an incumbent who know his area is trending away from his party. And, as did Issa, Hurd realized it was time to go.
Ronald also writes, “If so, then the Democrats do not need the Midwest states of Michigan and Wisconsin as much as they need them if Texas stays Republican.â€
There is a lot to touch on.
There was a recent report, just this week, from “270 to Win†about the projections for the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau’s report on populations which will change some states’ allocated numbers in congressional districts and, more to the focus here, electoral votes. (Source: https://www.270towin.com/news/2019/12/30/projected-2024-electoral-map-based-on-new-census-population-data_925.html.)
The projected change in electoral votes would apply to the United States presidential elections of 2024 and 2028.
The 2016 United States presidential election, with original electoral-vote scores of 306 for Republican pickup winner Donald Trump vs. 232 for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, would reallocate what specifically they carried to 309 for the Republicans and 229 for the Democrats.
States moving up (cumulative +10 electoral votes):
• Texas (+3): from 38 to 41 electoral votes
• Florida (+2): from 29 to 31 electoral votes
• North Carolina (+1): from 15 to 16 electoral votes
• Arizona (+1): from 11 to 12 electoral votes
• Colorado (+1): from 9 to 10 (first time in state history it will receive allocated double-digit electoral votes; states allocated with double-digit electoral votes comprise nearly 70 percent of the entire nation’s citizens)
• Oregon (+1): from 7 to 8 electoral votes
• Montana (+1): from 3 to 4 electoral votes (moving from one at-large congressional district to two)
States going down (cumulative –10 electoral votes):
• California (–1): from 55 to 54 electoral votes (first time in state history it suffers a decline)
• New York (–1): from 31 to 28 electoral votes
• Pennsylvania (–1): from 20 to 19 electoral votes
• Illinois (–1): from 20 to 19 electoral votes
• Ohio (–1): from 18 to 17 electoral votes
• Michigan (–1): from 16 to 15 electoral votes
• Minnesota (–1): from 10 to 9 electoral votes (the opposite of Colorado, which supplanted Minnesota to become ranked as the nation’s No. 21 most-populous state)
• Alabama (–1): from 9 to 8 electoral votes
• West Virginia (–1): from 5 to 4 electoral votes
• Rhode Island (–1): from 4 to 3 electoral votes (the opposite of Montana)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Quoting myself: “The 2016 United States presidential election, with original electoral-vote scores of 306 for Republican pickup winner Donald Trump vs. 232 for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, would be reallocated with what they carried to 309 for the Republicans and 229 for the Democrats.â€
Let us suppose Election 2020 ends up a Republican hold for re-electing 45th U.S. president Donald Trump. What I mean by that is that the next Democratic presidential pickup would happen not in 2020 but in 2024. And it would be timed with the reallocations of electoral votes, for affected states, as suggested in the above listing.
What I can picture, for a 2024 Democratic presidential pickup, could be a bit twisty.
A tipping-point state in a presidential election can be explained as follows: After a given U.S. presidential election is over, with all votes official, one can list in descending order all which carried for the winning Republican or Democrat by their percentage-points margins. Track their cumulative electoral votes along the way to determine which state was the tipping-point which delivered the 270th electoral vote and that election.
In most presidential elections in which the White House switches parties, the tipping-point will be a pickup state for a likewise pickup winning Republican or Democrat. This was true of 1960 Democratic presidential pickup winner John Kennedy (Missouri); 1968 Republican presidential pickup winner Richard Nixon (Ohio); 1976 Democratic presidential pickup winner Jimmy Carter (Wisconsin); 1992 Democratic presidential pickup winner Bill Clinton (Tennessee); 2000 Republican presidential pickup winner George W. Bush (Florida); 2008 Democratic presidential pickup winner Barack Obama (Colorado); and 2016 Republican presidential pickup winner Donald Trump (Wisconsin).
For 1980 Republican presidential pickup winner Ronald Reagan, his tipping-point state was Illinois. That was in the 1976 Republican column for the unseated Gerald Ford. Illinois, carried by Reagan by +7.93, gave him his 281st electoral vote. The state which followed was Pennsylvania, carried by Reagan by +7.11, and it was a 1980 Republican pickup. Had the two traded slots, with Pennsylvania his 282nd electoral vote, Reagan would have been listed in the previous paragraph.
I have observed the following pattern:
Since 1968, every time the White House switched parties, there was at least one state flipped by a pickup winning Republican or Democrat which has since not flipped back to the party which lost it. 1968 Republican pickup for Richard Nixon included pickups of *Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska (statewide), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. 1976 Democratic pickup for Jimmy Carter included his pickup of Minnesota. 1980 Republican pickup for Ronald Reagan included pickups of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. 1992 Democratic pickup for Bill Clinton included pickups of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine (statewide), Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont. 2000 Republican pickup for George W. Bush included pickups of **Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 2008 Democratic pickup for Barack Obama included pickups of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia. (*Alaska, which first voted in 1960, has carried Democratic only once—for 1964 Lyndon Johnson, who won the U.S. Popular Vote by +22.58 percentage points and carried 44 states, District of Columbia, and 486 electoral votes. **Arizona, a bellwether during the 1910s to 1950s, has carried only once for the Democrats since 1960—for a 1996 re-elected Bill Clinton. The state’s margins, in 1992 and 1996, were less two points for both major political parties.)
The 2016 Republican pickup for Donald Trump included pickups of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. (He also flipped Maine’s 2nd Congressional District.) If Trump gets re-elected in 2020, he is in a position in which he would more likely carry them all for re-election. (In 2016, Trump won 30 states. His No. 27 Florida was his 260th electoral vote. He has to carry it. That state was followed by No. 28 tipping-point state Wisconsin, for his 270th electoral vote. No. 29 Pennsylvania was his 290th electoral vote. And No. 30 Michigan was his original 306th electoral vote.)
If any of those 2016 Republican pickups realign to the Republicans, and carry even in elections the party loses, most cite Ohio as most probable. Some are also thinking Iowa.
Now, when it comes to companion states, Ohio and Florida have been the best longterm bellwethers in the nation (Ohio, with two exceptions, since 1896; Florida, with two exceptions, since 1928). But, numbers wise beginning in 2016, Ohio ran 7 points more Republican than Florida and, in the 2018 midterm elections, not Ohio but Florida mirrored the national results for prevailing parties: U.S. House—a Democratic pickup with +40 net gains in seats between 21 involved states with a net gain of +2 in Florida (but none in Ohio); U.S. Senate—a net gain of +2 for the Republicans which included flipping Florida; and U.S. Governors—the Republicans retaining majority, with 27, and the Democrats at 23 which called for Team Blue to need three additional percentage points, in the U.S. Popular Vote (they won by +3.07 and needed +6.) that would have delivered a No. 24-ranked Florida followed by two more states (neither of which included Ohio) to reach that new majority of 26.
When it comes to Iowa, its best companion state, among all likewise 2016 Republican pickups, is Wisconsin. Since 1944, but with two exceptions (1976 and 2004), they have carried the same. When they did not vote the same, there was a small difference (less than 3 percentage points) which explains why they carried and colored differently. (In 1976, unseated Republican Gerald Ford carried Iowa by +1.01 while Democratic challenger and pickup winner Jimmy Carter flipped Wisconsin by +1.67, a margins spread of 2.78 percentage points, while Carter won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2.06. In 2004, re-elected Republican George W. Bush flipped and carried Iowa by +0.67 while Democratic nominee John Kerry carried Wisconsin by +0.38, a margins spread of 1.05 percentage points, while Bush won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2.46.) If Trump gets re-elected, and he carries both Iowa and Wisconsin, we may end up seeing the +9.41 margin in Iowa shift Democratic while the +0.76 margin in Wisconsin shifts Republican by about 3 percentage points in opposite directions (with Iowa at, say, +6.41 and Wisconsin at, say, +3.76 for re-elected Trump), just so that their 2016 margins spread of 8.65 stabilizes to a more closer 2020 spread of, say, 2.65 percentage points.
What could this mean, should Trump win re-election, for the 2024 Democrats?
It can mean the 2024 Democratic presidential pickup winner may see his/her tipping-point state be not Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Michigan but one that is among the trending states which ranked, in 2016, between Nos. 25 to 29 for the 2016 Democrats. That Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, at Nos. 21 to 23, could slide down for the Democrats to, say, Nos. 26, 27, and 28 (with Iowa at No. 29 and Ohio at No. 30)—while the likes of 2016’s No. 25 Arizona, No. 26 North Carolina, No. 27 Georgia, and No. 29 Texas move up for the Democrats and that 2024 Democratic presidential pickup winner.
Imagine: A 2024 map, for a Democratic pickup of the presidency, includes winning back any states which flipped to 2020 Republican (most probable would be New Hampshire) for a beginning score of 229 electoral votes between 20 carried states and District of Columbia. A potential order of how the pickups come in are as follows:
• — Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (cum. 230)
• No. 21: North Carolina (cum. 246)
• No. 22: Georgia (cum. 262)
• No. 23: Arizona (cum. 274)—Tipping-point state in this scenario
• No. 24: Florida (cumulative 305 electoral votes)
• No. 25: Texas (from Republican to bellwether state beginning in 2016; cum. 346)
• No. 26: Michigan (probable bellwether state, with a pattern of consecutive cycles of backing the winner dating back to 2008; cum. 361)
• No. 27: Pennsylvania (probable bellwether state, with a pattern of consecutive cycles of backing the winner dating back to 2008; cum. 380)
• No. 28: Wisconsin (carried or not, the cum. 390th electoral vote)
• No. 29: Iowa (carried or not, the cum. 396th electoral vote)
• — Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (carried or not, the cum. 397th electoral vote
• No. 30: Ohio (carried or not, the cum. 414th electoral vote)
Let us keep in mind that, since 1992, the range of carried states have been between 26 (a 2012 re-elected Barack Obama) and 32 (a first-term-elected Bill Clinton) with the average number 29.
Nos. 25 to 27, from the list, are interesting. It is a little tough to imagine Texas becoming even the slightest bit bluer than Michigan and Pennsylvania. When you look at what is ahead of these two Rust Belt states, it shows how some realigning voting patterns can possibly take shape. This is not impossible. We will see how this plays, say, over the next ten years (and with consideration that we have just entered a new decade).
Encouraging for Michigan and Pennsylvania is that I have not written them off as having decamped to the Republican side on a regular basis. Michigan, in particular, gave the 1992 to 2012 Democrats a partisan advantage of 5 to 6 percentage points in excess of how they performed nationwide. It is looking more like 2 points now. Pennsylvania is pretty much one point less than Michigan. Keep in mind: In 2018, the Democrats flipped the U.S. House with a popular-vote margin of +8.56. The margins in Michigan and Pennsylvania were +7.68 and +10.28. (Some finer details on the two states, and how the districts were previously drawn, make it look like Pennsylvania is a bit bluer than Michigan. But, since the 1996 U.S. presidential election, the opposite has played out.) They both had 2018 Democratic pickups for U.S. House. And Michigan experienced one for its governorship. I haven’t lately scrutinized details of the map with Pennsylvania (for trending counties, other than noting Luzerne County, with its county seat Wilkes–Barre, is trending toward the Republicans); but, with Michigan, that state is realigning Monroe County (Monroe) to the Republicans while Kent County (Grand Rapids) is trending toward the Democrats. (Kent Country used to perform between 15 to 25 points more Republican vs. the state of Michigan. In 2016 and 2018, it was closer to 5 points more Republican. In fact, re-elected U.S. senator Debbie Stabenow underperformed her statewide 2012-to-2018 margins by 14 points and lost Monroe County, which she carried in 2012, while she counter-flipped Kent County. The two counties have pretty much flipped with each other for their partisan-advantage margins. That is an example of some realigning voting patterns in just one state—one which ranks among the Top 10 in the nation’s populations. I can also add that Gretchen Whitmer, the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial pickup winner, also flipped and carried Kent County. Given the fact Kent County is Michigan’s No. 4 most-populous county, this should help Democrats to not regularly lose Michigan, at the presidential level, for it to realign with the Republicans.)
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
I covered a lot of ground. To me, this is not only about Texas. And the reason for that is because there have always been trade-offs. I like to look at some trends—and Ronald’s writings on this topic (as well as his writing about the trending for the Democrats in numerous Sun Belt states) suggests he is also interested—perhaps because it helps to anticipate what may come as this new decade will hold not two but three United States presidential elections. A lot has happened in the last 10 to 20 years. (For example: Colorado and Virginia, which have carried the same in all but one presidential election since 1948, transitioned from reliably Republican to Bellwether to reliably Democratic. Numerous former bellwether states gave up their status to partisan-identify with either Team Red or Team Blue.) A lot can also happen in the next 10 to 20 years. (Democrats are excited for Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. Okay. But prepare to look out for, say, Ohio, Iowa, statewide Maine, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and—gulp!—Minnesota.) This may become even more interesting because I think this can impact some or much of the overall politics in the United States.
Julian Castro has called it quits.
I’m in agreement with this. The strangle hold on IA/NH needs to be broken. It is unrepresentative of the Party as a whole.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/02/iowa-and-new-hampshire-are-skewing-coverage-of-the-democratic-primary/
Next debate is next week. Only 5 have qualified so far.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/democratic-debate-lineup.html
I hear that Julian Castro has endorsed Elizabeth Warren.
I second this criticism of AOC. She has a poor understanding of how progressive Biden truly is on certain issues.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/opinions/aoc-biden-democratic-party-harrop/index.html
This nails why Biden is consistently leading in the polls. After the disaster known as Trump, people want some reassurance.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/12/joe-biden-2020-race-anti-trump