Texas may cost Trump 2020

[Fishrrman]

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/451702-texas-may-cost-trump-2020

Texas may cost Trump 2020
BY KRISTIN TATE
07/04/19

There is a significant and growing probability that Texas will become the most consequential swing state in presidential and senatorial elections to come. A campaign in the Lone Star State could cost President Trump the White House next year, even if Texas voters will ultimately choose him.

A powerful combination of demographic forces are propelling Texas from one of the reddest states in the union into a swing state. Democrats will likely make an outside play in Texas ahead of 2020, along with a full run for its projected 41 electoral votes. Texas also stands to gain three seats in Congress after the next census, making it a crucial state for both parties.

Texas demographics today are strikingly similar to those of California in 1990, before Democrats began their seven to nothing streak of Golden State victories in presidential races. Like California in 1990, the Texas population currently hovers around 29 million and is changing rapidly in light of heavy immigration from Mexico. The second generation children of Mexican immigrants have played a major role in keeping California out of Republican reach. This same transformation is taking root in Texas.

Immigration has already had a very tangible impact on Texas politics. While illegal immigrants cannot vote, their children born in the United States are indeed citizens and make up a significant share of the new generation of voters in the southern state. There are around 35 percent of Texans under the age of 18 who are the children of immigrants, a figure that has nearly doubled in the last 30 years. This carries weight.

Young Texas voters overwhelmingly turned out for Beto O’Rourke over incumbent Ted Cruz in the Senate race last year. O’Rourke beat Cruz with 18 year olds to 24 year olds by a margin of 68 percent to 32 percent and with 25 year olds to 29 year olds by a margin of 73 percent to 26 percent. O’Rourke also outperformed the traditional edge Democrats already have among Texas Latino voters by a wide margin of 64 percent to 35 percent.

More at URL above...

[Fishrrman]

Saw this post in a long thread about this topic over at TOS.
I DID NOT write this... but if his numbers are correct...?
=======
In 2020, one third of ELIGIBLE voters will be non-white.
They consistently vote 75%-80% Democrat.

Trump will need 60% of the white vote just to be competitive. He got just 57% in 2016.

If the Democrats have high turn out in 2020, Trump and the GOP are in deep trouble.

Win or lose, Trump will be the last Republican president in USA history.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3761710/posts?page=109#109

[TomSea]

Despite all of the "Wall-Nuts" here, there really are a number of anti-wallers in TX, intrudes on the land, I even read an editorial from Baylor U, and yes, that is an editorial, college town and probably was reflecting the one person's opinion but they did not want the wall because of environmental impact. There are a lot of issues at play actually.

So, Trump's road to the WH last time was largely based on this pledge to build the wall. I would have likely voted Republican no matter who the candidate was and the wall has been so-so with me as an issue. My view, imho,  people will probably find a way around the wall, that's how it works. Will they come in by sea or plane then?  I don't know but people often get around a barrier such as a wall unless it was really, really secured and manned.

Trump needs to score in the MidWest if that is possible. I think he's done a tremendous job as president.

I read a critique this morning, "talks too much"? Valid? Perhaps but he is covered heavily. Could be a valid criticism.

[edpc]

Trump carried Texas by 10 points in 2016. If he ends up losing that state (which I doubt), you won’t be able to blame it purely on demographics. The article mentions them being similar to California, in 1990. That hardly matters, because in 92, Bush and Perot combine for 52% of the vote. Without that third-party splitting the right, Bush carries that state against the 46% received by Clinton that year.

[massadvj]

I have been reading about Texas "going blue" now for 10 years.  It still has not happened, mostly because the Hispanic vote there is much more conservative than the Hispanic vote in California.

[TomSea]

I have been reading about Texas "going blue" now for 10 years.  It still has not happened, mostly because the Hispanic vote there is much more conservative than the Hispanic vote in California.

That may be so but the basic studies show that Hispanics have a low turnout in TX actually. Beto probably did get out the vote and we see how close that was with a lot of funding of course, but still.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/02/23/texas-voter-turnout-electorate-explainer/

You may have read about this for 10 years but the state did become a minority-majority state cerca 2006 or so.

One might look at all minority-majority states and surmise, almost all are Democrat.

California, New Mexico, Hawaii and there are some others? NY? I'm not sure.

[libertybele]

With the massive influx of illegals into TX, I think it is highly likely and probable that the demographics of TX now lean Hispanic and non-white.  Only data that I could find was based on 2010 data which is 10 years old.  Any illegals coming in during the period from 2010-2019 seeking asylum and have applied for citizenship are now eligible to vote.

I think the best measure of the demographics changing was the very narrow margin that Cruz won by in '16 -- thousands of additional illegals have certainly made in to TX in the past 3 years.

[libertybele]

I have been reading about Texas "going blue" now for 10 years.  It still has not happened, mostly because the Hispanic vote there is much more conservative than the Hispanic vote in California.

That may be true, but we are now experiencing a massive unprecedented invasion of ILLEGALS from over 50 different countries. Those granted asylum are eligible to apply for citizenship within a 5 year period.  This invasion IMHO has been well orchestrated to ensure the DEM vote and to turn red states purple and eventually blue; especially in TX.

[libertybele]

I did find a projection for TX:

Hispanics, already a major group, are expected to become the majority by 2020, while the population also grows older as the baby boomer generation ages. By 2040, Texas is projected to have a population over 45 million.

Considering that the DEMS have a presidential candidate that is Hispanic and is mother was instrumental in the formation of LaRaza, I think that the GOP has every reason to worry that TX could very easily cost Trump in 2020.

TX, CA, NY -- how in the world would the GOP ever get a foothold again?  FL may be the next state to go blue.  Certainly I don't think that the GOP can count on PA again.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/texas-population/

[TomSea]

2024 is actually the target date for the Democrats in TX. Perhaps, 2020 is not the time to worry about yet.

Just speaking for New Mexico and really, nowhere else, Demographics are formidable in some cases, I think that New Mexico has gone from about a half-white/half-Hispanic state in the 1970s to say, having an under 30% white population in the forecasted future.

In ways, the oil renaissance helps this area I would think but...sometimes I wonder about the net effect, more workers coming in but then, so do all of the side businesses, hotels, restuarants, convenience stores and so on.  Something to think about at least.

[catfish1957]

Saw this post in a long thread about this topic over at TOS.

TOS?

Thanks....   that confirms a lot of our suspicions.

[Fishrrman]

Victor wrote:
"I have been reading about Texas "going blue" now for 10 years.  It still has not happened, mostly because the Hispanic vote there is much more conservative than the Hispanic vote in California."

You are correct to observe that much of the "legal/Hispanic" TX population votes "on the red side".

But you're not taking into consideration that those Hispanics have a heritage of "being legal". Some go 'way back.

The FLOOD of newcomer Hispanics are overwhelmingly ILLEGAL. They can't vote (legally), but their CHILDREN (who will soon outnumber white children in TX) WILL eventually become legal voters.

Do you think that the political perspective of these children of illegals will be different from that of illegal Hispanics in other states? Or is there something magic in the Texas water that will make them "red voters", as well?

Got news for you Texas folks. As unique as your heritage is, you're subject to the same demographic problems and destiny as the rest of America, and it's coming at you all-the-more faster because you're right there on the border.

California used to be one of the more conservative states in the Union.
In 50 years, they've gone from "Governor Reagan" to "Governor Newsom".

The politics sure have changed in that state.
But... what MADE them change?

Look around, Texans.
Demography is destiny.
Do you think you're somehow immune?

Better get started on that wall !!!

[sneakypete]

While illegal immigrants cannot vote,

ROFLMAO! Who is going to stop them?

Especially after they get handed a 20 for their trouble.