Jump to content
270soft Forum
Harris/Ernst 2020

Purple Texas?

Recommended Posts

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/2020-texas-biden-and-beto-in-dead-heat-in-democratic-primary

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190429/poll-biden-beto-and-bernie-running-close-to-trump-in-texas

 

Will this trend continue or will Republicans gain back ground as we get closer. We're still a year and a half away, but it could be a sign of things to come?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/2020-texas-biden-and-beto-in-dead-heat-in-democratic-primary

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190429/poll-biden-beto-and-bernie-running-close-to-trump-in-texas

 

Will this trend continue or will Republicans gain back ground as we get closer. We're still a year and a half away, but it could be a sign of things to come?

 

"Purple Texas" sounds the title of a Las Vegas lounge song. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel like the purple Texas of 2016 was a one-time thing tbh. Texas (like Utah) was one of the biggest "i'm Republican but skeptical of Trump" and I feel like he's proved himself so far. Don't see it turning blue for now, but definitely in the next 10 years.

Can't wait til landslide elections start happening again like they used to but we're gonna need better candidates before that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Can't wait til landslide elections start happening again like they used to but we're gonna need better candidates before that happens.

In the current political climate, I'm skeptical that'll happen quite as routinely as it had in the past to be honest. I think there is a better chance for third parties to grow from the divisions within the major two parties before we'll see consecutive landslides and I'm even skeptical of a major third party happening anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time both California and Texas were purple states 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Feel like the purple Texas of 2016 was a one-time thing tbh. Texas (like Utah) was one of the biggest "i'm Republican but skeptical of Trump" and I feel like he's proved himself so far. Don't see it turning blue for now, but definitely in the next 10 years. (1)

Can't wait til landslide elections start happening again like they used to but we're gonna need better candidates before that happens. (2)

  1.  I feel this is accurate to an extent. Trump did terrible in Texas, yet Clinton barely improved on Obama's numbers- majority of the voters leaving the Republican Party went to the Libertarian Party. That said, the Democratic Party had a pretty strong midterm performance within the state(flipping both Congressional Districts, and State House districts), and have tapped into a pool of volunteers that nearly flipped the Senate seat- and also a pool of donors and reinvigorated local party chapters. I feel it is a possibility it could flip; but if Texas flips, I'm sure election night overall would be terrible for Trump.
  2. I doubt we will get a unifying candidate that can win in a landslide again.Obama in the midst of the economic crash, could not replicate FDR's landslide wins. There's this great NY Times map that goes into how divided the nation is. I cannot think of a platform/politician that can unite the rural areas of West Virginia and the urban cores of Brooklyn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:
  1. I cannot think of a platform/politician that can unite the rural areas of West Virginia and the urban cores of Brooklyn. 

Pete Buttigieg!

Haha, more realistically, I think the closest our nation has to offer is Joe Biden.  I'm personally a Pete supporter, but the Joe argument is that he's the guy that brings rural West Virginia to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Pete Buttigieg!

Haha, more realistically, I think the closest our nation has to offer is Joe Biden.  I'm personally a Pete supporter, but the Joe argument is that he's the guy that brings rural West Virginia to the table.

Maybe Joe Biden. He's not my first choice- or even my third(Warren is my first just for reference)- but I can see him forming a nationwide coalition of voters. I like Pete, but I can't honestly see him winning the rural areas of PA and Ohio. He seems too cosmopolitan and culturally different than those communities. I know that might sound stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden was a disaster when he ran for President twice before.  He is currently riding the likability sheen from his time in the Obama White House.

But just like when Hillary Clinton emerged from her post-Obama Cabinet period to go be a candidate again, that positive respectability is quickly destroyed, especially by someone like Trump and the Republican political machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Joe Biden was a disaster when he ran for President twice before.  He is currently riding the likability sheen from his time in the Obama White House.

But just like when Hillary Clinton emerged from her post-Obama Cabinet period to go be a candidate again, that positive respectability is quickly destroyed, especially by someone like Trump and the Republican political machine.

Joe Biden was a nobody when he ran for President twice before.  His time with Obama significantly boosted his standing among Democrats -- which is obvious, as he's either "the" frontrunner or tied for frontrunner, depending on who you believe.

Hillary was already established as a household name pre-Obama, and therefore her connection to him wasn't as impactful on her reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm from Texas and older than most of you. Listen to me!!!!

I was born and raised in Dallas, lived in San Marcos and in Austin for undergrad and grad school. I returned to Texas after 5 years in NYC before moving to Philadelphia.

Texas is definitely more liberal (won't say purple because it has been purple before) than it was in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 2000s. The cities are among the largest in the country--they are defiantly liberal.  The suburbs are becoming more liberal as they are filling up, many of them from the West Coast and Northern cities. The rural areas are still severely conservative, but this demographic is slowly decreasing as small towns that were only 10,000 to 20,000 people in 2000 are now at 50,000 to 100,000, and growing. The Hispanic demographic is growing considerably, and while some of the descendants have become Republicans, the grand majority are becoming Democrats. 

On top of this, the Libertarians in Texas are interesting. I see three kinds of Libertarians in Texas: Those that are single-issue anti-government, those that are double-issue free trade and deregulation, and those that are primarily non-intervention and anti-establishment. This first group rarely votes, but did vote for Trump. This second group opposed Trump and voted for Clinton or third party, and will likely not vote for Trump. The third group usually doesn't vote, but voted for Trump, and respects Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and other anti-establishment Democrats enough to vote for them if they proved to be more anti-establishment than Trump. 

I would say, since the demise of the Southern Conservative Democrat, the state has gone from Safe Red to Likely Red (as of 2016). I would say by 2025 it will be Leans Red. By 2035, it will be purple. However, this timescale may be a lot quicker, considering Texas is one of the fastest growing states, so much so that it seems like everyone in the cities were born outside of Texas. 

Being more liberal would not be unsurprising historically. Sam Houston was the most socially liberal Southern Democrat before the Civil War and supported the Union, never joining the Confederacy. During the high tide of Socialism during the Progressive Era, Texas was among one of the friendliest Eugene V. Debs states, garnering over 10% of the TX vote in 1912. Ralph Yarborough was one of the most progressive Senators during the early Cold War and the only Southern Democratic Senator to vote for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act! Let us not forget that LBJ--the most progressive president since FDR, if you consider actions/policy over rhetoric--was from Texas. Finally, Texas has three Democratic primary candidates in the 2020 election: O'Rourke, Castro, and Williamson. 

Anyone that denies that Texas  has a chance of becoming purple either hasn't lived in Texas within the last 10 to 15 years or has no clue what they're talking about. Rural Texas is losing a demographic battle with urban and suburban voters and the severely gerrymandered districts are sort of their last line of defense. 

@Harris/Ernst 2020 @Patine @HonestAbe @ThePotatoWalrus @Actinguy @Jayavarman @admin_270 @Sunnymentoaddict @Dr. Insano @SilentLiberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm from Texas and older than most of you. Listen to me!!!!

I was born and raised in Dallas, lived in San Marcos and in Austin for undergrad and grad school. I returned to Texas after 5 years in NYC before moving to Philadelphia.

Texas is definitely more liberal (won't say purple because it has been purple before) than it was in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 2000s. The cities are among the largest in the country--they are defiantly liberal.  The suburbs are becoming more liberal as they are filling up, many of them from the West Coast and Northern cities. The rural areas are still severely conservative, but this demographic is slowly decreasing as small towns that were only 10,000 to 20,000 people in 2000 are now at 50,000 to 100,000, and growing. The Hispanic demographic is growing considerably, and while some of the descendants have become Republicans, the grand majority are becoming Democrats. 

On top of this, the Libertarians in Texas are interesting. I see three kinds of Libertarians in Texas: Those that are single-issue anti-government, those that are double-issue free trade and deregulation, and those that are primarily non-intervention and anti-establishment. This first group rarely votes, but did vote for Trump. This second group opposed Trump and voted for Clinton or third party, and will likely not vote for Trump. The third group usually doesn't vote, but voted for Trump, and respects Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and other anti-establishment Democrats enough to vote for them if they proved to be more anti-establishment than Trump. 

I would say, since the demise of the Southern Conservative Democrat, the state has gone from Safe Red to Likely Red (as of 2016). I would say by 2025 it will be Leans Red. By 2035, it will be purple. However, this timescale may be a lot quicker, considering Texas is one of the fastest growing states, so much so that it seems like everyone in the cities were born outside of Texas. 

Being more liberal would not be unsurprising historically. Sam Houston was the most socially liberal Southern Democrat before the Civil War and supported the Union, never joining the Confederacy. During the high tide of Socialism during the Progressive Era, Texas was among one of the friendliest Eugene V. Debs states, garnering over 10% of the TX vote in 1912. Ralph Yarborough was one of the most progressive Senators during the early Cold War and the only Southern Democratic Senator to vote for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act! Let us not forget that LBJ--the most progressive president since FDR, if you consider actions/policy over rhetoric--was from Texas. Finally, Texas has three Democratic primary candidates in the 2020 election: O'Rourke, Castro, and Williamson. 

Anyone that denies that Texas  has a chance of becoming purple either hasn't lived in Texas within the last 10 to 15 years or has no clue what they're talking about. Rural Texas is losing a demographic battle with urban and suburban voters and the severely gerrymandered districts are sort of their last line of defense. 

@Harris/Ernst 2020 @Patine @HonestAbe @ThePotatoWalrus @Actinguy @Jayavarman @admin_270 @Sunnymentoaddict @Dr. Insano @SilentLiberty

Also to mention at the current state that has the largest growth in DSA ( Democratic Socialist Alliance) membership is Texas.  Texas I believe definitely will be a swing state by 2024 maybe earlier 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I expect Texas to eventually drift back to a likely Dem state, probably before 2030.  As the ratio of city dwellers to rural dwellers shifts significantly.  This will counter balance the shifting back red of places in the midwest that "may" be becoming more likely.  

Eventually California, Texas, and NY will be democratic safety nets.  It'll be interesting to see the big state v. small state dynamic that will be inevitable once all the big boys are controlled by 1 party.  Those three states by 2030 will make up nearly half of the 270 needed to win.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm from Texas and older than most of you. Listen to me!!!!

I was born and raised in Dallas, lived in San Marcos and in Austin for undergrad and grad school. I returned to Texas after 5 years in NYC before moving to Philadelphia.

Texas is definitely more liberal (won't say purple because it has been purple before) than it was in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 2000s. The cities are among the largest in the country--they are defiantly liberal.  The suburbs are becoming more liberal as they are filling up, many of them from the West Coast and Northern cities. The rural areas are still severely conservative, but this demographic is slowly decreasing as small towns that were only 10,000 to 20,000 people in 2000 are now at 50,000 to 100,000, and growing. The Hispanic demographic is growing considerably, and while some of the descendants have become Republicans, the grand majority are becoming Democrats. 

On top of this, the Libertarians in Texas are interesting. I see three kinds of Libertarians in Texas: Those that are single-issue anti-government, those that are double-issue free trade and deregulation, and those that are primarily non-intervention and anti-establishment. This first group rarely votes, but did vote for Trump. This second group opposed Trump and voted for Clinton or third party, and will likely not vote for Trump. The third group usually doesn't vote, but voted for Trump, and respects Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and other anti-establishment Democrats enough to vote for them if they proved to be more anti-establishment than Trump. 

I would say, since the demise of the Southern Conservative Democrat, the state has gone from Safe Red to Likely Red (as of 2016). I would say by 2025 it will be Leans Red. By 2035, it will be purple. However, this timescale may be a lot quicker, considering Texas is one of the fastest growing states, so much so that it seems like everyone in the cities were born outside of Texas. 

Being more liberal would not be unsurprising historically. Sam Houston was the most socially liberal Southern Democrat before the Civil War and supported the Union, never joining the Confederacy. During the high tide of Socialism during the Progressive Era, Texas was among one of the friendliest Eugene V. Debs states, garnering over 10% of the TX vote in 1912. Ralph Yarborough was one of the most progressive Senators during the early Cold War and the only Southern Democratic Senator to vote for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act! Let us not forget that LBJ--the most progressive president since FDR, if you consider actions/policy over rhetoric--was from Texas. Finally, Texas has three Democratic primary candidates in the 2020 election: O'Rourke, Castro, and Williamson. 

Anyone that denies that Texas  has a chance of becoming purple either hasn't lived in Texas within the last 10 to 15 years or has no clue what they're talking about. Rural Texas is losing a demographic battle with urban and suburban voters and the severely gerrymandered districts are sort of their last line of defense. 

@Harris/Ernst 2020 @Patine @HonestAbe @ThePotatoWalrus @Actinguy @Jayavarman @admin_270 @Sunnymentoaddict @Dr. Insano @SilentLiberty

I agree, though 2016 taught me to lower my expectations.

When I was in the military, I met many new friends from Texas.  Despite being from Texas and serving in the right-leaning military (this was during the George W Bush era), they all had a liberal streak to them, to one degree or another.  In 2012, some of them still backed Romney -- but by 2016, not a single one was on board with Trump.  Some of them were very active campaigners for Beto's Senate run.  I don't like Beto as a candidate, but if you want to swing Texas, there's your guy -- as far as I can tell from my Texas Veteran friends.  Most of them haven't chosen a specific candidate yet -- Beto seems the most likely -- but they're all on the "Fuck Trump" train.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm from Texas and older than most of you. Listen to me!!!!

I was born and raised in Dallas, lived in San Marcos and in Austin for undergrad and grad school. I returned to Texas after 5 years in NYC before moving to Philadelphia.

Texas is definitely more liberal (won't say purple because it has been purple before) than it was in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 2000s. The cities are among the largest in the country--they are defiantly liberal.  The suburbs are becoming more liberal as they are filling up, many of them from the West Coast and Northern cities. The rural areas are still severely conservative, but this demographic is slowly decreasing as small towns that were only 10,000 to 20,000 people in 2000 are now at 50,000 to 100,000, and growing. The Hispanic demographic is growing considerably, and while some of the descendants have become Republicans, the grand majority are becoming Democrats. 

On top of this, the Libertarians in Texas are interesting. I see three kinds of Libertarians in Texas: Those that are single-issue anti-government, those that are double-issue free trade and deregulation, and those that are primarily non-intervention and anti-establishment. This first group rarely votes, but did vote for Trump. This second group opposed Trump and voted for Clinton or third party, and will likely not vote for Trump. The third group usually doesn't vote, but voted for Trump, and respects Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and other anti-establishment Democrats enough to vote for them if they proved to be more anti-establishment than Trump. 

I would say, since the demise of the Southern Conservative Democrat, the state has gone from Safe Red to Likely Red (as of 2016). I would say by 2025 it will be Leans Red. By 2035, it will be purple. However, this timescale may be a lot quicker, considering Texas is one of the fastest growing states, so much so that it seems like everyone in the cities were born outside of Texas. 

Being more liberal would not be unsurprising historically. Sam Houston was the most socially liberal Southern Democrat before the Civil War and supported the Union, never joining the Confederacy. During the high tide of Socialism during the Progressive Era, Texas was among one of the friendliest Eugene V. Debs states, garnering over 10% of the TX vote in 1912. Ralph Yarborough was one of the most progressive Senators during the early Cold War and the only Southern Democratic Senator to vote for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act! Let us not forget that LBJ--the most progressive president since FDR, if you consider actions/policy over rhetoric--was from Texas. Finally, Texas has three Democratic primary candidates in the 2020 election: O'Rourke, Castro, and Williamson. 

Anyone that denies that Texas  has a chance of becoming purple either hasn't lived in Texas within the last 10 to 15 years or has no clue what they're talking about. Rural Texas is losing a demographic battle with urban and suburban voters and the severely gerrymandered districts are sort of their last line of defense. 

@Harris/Ernst 2020 @Patine @HonestAbe @ThePotatoWalrus @Actinguy @Jayavarman @admin_270 @Sunnymentoaddict @Dr. Insano @SilentLiberty

I completely agree. With Trump at the top of the ticket for 2020 I honestly believe that Texas has the possibility of being in play, though likely to still go for Republican. By 2024-2028 I believe that it will be a true swing state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The shift to Texas to blue will cause the next big shift in Dem/Republican dynamics.  We use to see North v. South, now it's largely Urban v. Rural.   The shift of Texas will bring Large v. Small state.  The fights will be heavily about removing control v. keeping control in say for smaller states.  It'll be interesting to live in the mid 21st century.  I'll be old or maybe even dead by then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm from Texas and older than most of you. Listen to me!!!!

I was born and raised in Dallas, lived in San Marcos and in Austin for undergrad and grad school. I returned to Texas after 5 years in NYC before moving to Philadelphia.

Texas is definitely more liberal (won't say purple because it has been purple before) than it was in the 1980s, 1990s, and the first decade of the 2000s. The cities are among the largest in the country--they are defiantly liberal.  The suburbs are becoming more liberal as they are filling up, many of them from the West Coast and Northern cities. The rural areas are still severely conservative, but this demographic is slowly decreasing as small towns that were only 10,000 to 20,000 people in 2000 are now at 50,000 to 100,000, and growing. The Hispanic demographic is growing considerably, and while some of the descendants have become Republicans, the grand majority are becoming Democrats. 

On top of this, the Libertarians in Texas are interesting. I see three kinds of Libertarians in Texas: Those that are single-issue anti-government, those that are double-issue free trade and deregulation, and those that are primarily non-intervention and anti-establishment. This first group rarely votes, but did vote for Trump. This second group opposed Trump and voted for Clinton or third party, and will likely not vote for Trump. The third group usually doesn't vote, but voted for Trump, and respects Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and other anti-establishment Democrats enough to vote for them if they proved to be more anti-establishment than Trump. 

I would say, since the demise of the Southern Conservative Democrat, the state has gone from Safe Red to Likely Red (as of 2016). I would say by 2025 it will be Leans Red. By 2035, it will be purple. However, this timescale may be a lot quicker, considering Texas is one of the fastest growing states, so much so that it seems like everyone in the cities were born outside of Texas. 

Being more liberal would not be unsurprising historically. Sam Houston was the most socially liberal Southern Democrat before the Civil War and supported the Union, never joining the Confederacy. During the high tide of Socialism during the Progressive Era, Texas was among one of the friendliest Eugene V. Debs states, garnering over 10% of the TX vote in 1912. Ralph Yarborough was one of the most progressive Senators during the early Cold War and the only Southern Democratic Senator to vote for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act! Let us not forget that LBJ--the most progressive president since FDR, if you consider actions/policy over rhetoric--was from Texas. Finally, Texas has three Democratic primary candidates in the 2020 election: O'Rourke, Castro, and Williamson. 

Anyone that denies that Texas  has a chance of becoming purple either hasn't lived in Texas within the last 10 to 15 years or has no clue what they're talking about. Rural Texas is losing a demographic battle with urban and suburban voters and the severely gerrymandered districts are sort of their last line of defense. 

@Harris/Ernst 2020 @Patine @HonestAbe @ThePotatoWalrus @Actinguy @Jayavarman @admin_270 @Sunnymentoaddict @Dr. Insano @SilentLiberty

My post was entirely about landslides in elections. Though I do agree with what you've said.

I have a few friends from Texas and while I don't think their political views are representative of the state as a whole, they seem to fall under a mix of two libertarian groups. Anti-Government mixed with Anti-Interventionism and Anti-Establishment, however a bulk of them supported Trump and continue to do so which is curious, that could be because of the attitude of "If you want to leave California don't make Texas, California.:

Texas as a whole I easily could see being a 'purple'/swing state by the mid to late 2020's. I do think you may be understating the red voters in Texas as a whole though. Think it'll be interesting to see how it plays out regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

The shift to Texas to blue will cause the next big shift in Dem/Republican dynamics.  We use to see North v. South, now it's largely Urban v. Rural.   The shift of Texas will bring Large v. Small state.  The fights will be heavily about removing control v. keeping control in say for smaller states.  It'll be interesting to live in the mid 21st century.  I'll be old or maybe even dead by then. 

Three states monopolizing the election is another reason to get rid of the electoral college. It benefits the people, and it doesn't benefit the parties. Additionally, campaigning won't be primarily focused on like 4 or 5 battleground states. Candidates will have to go to the people, and there are way more populated areas for them to go to then battleground states, it would result in more people and more states getting routine attention on elections. 

It's been urban vs. rural for awhile now. It will shift to urban vs. suburban, unless Democrats keep making inroads into this group. Suburbs used to be allies of the urban voter. That's changing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Three states monopolizing the election is another reason to get rid of the electoral college. It benefits the people, and it doesn't benefit the parties. Additionally, campaigning won't be primarily focused on like 4 or 5 battleground states. Candidates will have to go to the people, and there are way more populated areas for them to go to then battleground states, it would result in more people and more states getting routine attention on elections. 

It's been urban vs. rural for awhile now. It will shift to urban vs. suburban, unless Democrats keep making inroads into this group. Suburbs used to be allies of the urban voter. That's changing. 

My argument against the electoral college has always been if we truly believe in one person equals one vote I think it shouldn't matter whether you live in the rural parts of Wyoming or if you live in Los Angeles. For example for a republican living in California they know California is never going to go red, and for the Democrat who lives in rural Oklahoma know that I know that it will never go blue, I don't buy the fact that people will say candidates were only go to huge metropolitan cities, because usually those places are very democratic for liberal. I think candidates will make appearances in those places but they will mostly focus on swing areas. Counties and districts that are always extremely close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I agree, though 2016 taught me to lower my expectations.

When I was in the military, I met many new friends from Texas.  Despite being from Texas and serving in the right-leaning military (this was during the George W Bush era), they all had a liberal streak to them, to one degree or another.  In 2012, some of them still backed Romney -- but by 2016, not a single one was on board with Trump.  Some of them were very active campaigners for Beto's Senate run.  I don't like Beto as a candidate, but if you want to swing Texas, there's your guy -- as far as I can tell from my Texas Veteran friends.  Most of them haven't chosen a specific candidate yet -- Beto seems the most likely -- but they're all on the "Fuck Trump" train.

 

A segway about military service if I may, at least regarding all-volunteer vs. the draft era (here in Canada, we have been all-volunteer since the 1920's, and were one of only a tiny few significant belligerents in WW2 with an all-volunteer army on either side, as a note). I remember reading an article by Oliver Stone on his Vietnam experiences that inspired his movie "Platoon," among other things. And he spoke of many soldiers being effectively "Hippies strapped down, given a buzz cut, stuffed into a uniform, Shangaied to Saigon, given a rifle and told "shoot or you'll be shot." Would you agree that an all-volunteer army makes a big difference in morale in effectiveness over a draft or conscription, even if the huge numbers can't be racked up realistically, from a pragmatic point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Feel like the purple Texas of 2016 was a one-time thing tbh. Texas (like Utah) was one of the biggest "i'm Republican but skeptical of Trump" and I feel like he's proved himself so far. Don't see it turning blue for now, but definitely in the next 10 years.

Can't wait til landslide elections start happening again like they used to but we're gonna need better candidates before that happens.

I'm still not convinced that that is a relevancy in the long-term, given Trump is the biggest RINO to hoodwink and play a song and dance with all show and no substance who STILL has no idea what he's doing to ever bungle into winning a Presidential election - one which was the epitomy of Carl Jung's statement, "the individual is capable of great intelligence, discernment, judgement, and reason; the masses are stupid." I think he'll be an aberration, because he has no obvious political heir-apparent who can fill his vapid shoes. Thus, in the long term, I don't think viewing Trump as a ideological Republican or a practical politician is useful in these kind if statistics. And his supporters using stupid cartoons like Pepe and Honkler all the more drives that point home - don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
17 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

My argument against the electoral college has always been if we truly believe in one person equals one vote I think it shouldn't matter whether you live in the rural parts of Wyoming or if you live in Los Angeles. For example for a republican living in California they know California is never going to go red, and for the Democrat who lives in rural Oklahoma know that I know that it will never go blue, I don't buy the fact that people will say candidates were only go to huge metropolitan cities, because usually those places are very democratic for liberal. I think candidates will make appearances in those places but they will mostly focus on swing areas. Counties and districts that are always extremely close.

Except the constitution doesn't say one person one vote, nor does it even imply that the people elect the president.  We say that for shorthand.  The "states" of the "United States" determine the president.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestAbe said:

Except the constitution doesn't say one person one vote, nor does it even imply that the people elect the president.  We say that for shorthand.  The "states" of the "United States" determine the president.  

I'm not necessarily saying Constitution, I'm saying the people, we the people have the ability to change the Constitution by calling a constitutional convention. But overall you are correct in that statement I should have worded that better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...