It definitely wouldn't, but it does force the GOP to re-evaluate their strategy. If Texas even remotely comes into play, they are 100% dead nationally. As it stands, if Clinton has basically the Obama map, the GOP can write this off as Trump being Trump and probably further push off their internal civil war with the assumption that they can beat Clinton with a bit better candidate in 2020. If Clinton can actually win in core GOP territory - Arizona, Utah, Alaska, Texas, Georgia, etc - I think it forces more of a re-evaluation and brings up the timetable for their internal reckoning. This whole straddle-the-line-between-the-crazies-and-moderates thing will have to end sooner or later, but something like this might make it sooner.
You would've thought losing North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana during the Obama elections would have caused them to rethink their electoral strategy and here we are. The GOP will double down especially since Hillary's unfavorables are so high. I have no faith in them learning from this. I mean the GOP isn't even challenging Trump's rigged election nonsense. Preibus is just keeping his mouth shut as is Paul Ryan. They're riding the Trump train with the rest of his supporters even as the poll numbers look terrifying for them. The GOP won't change until it splits. Their coalition is too dependent on all of this. And I'm not referring to presidential politics. I mean winning down ballot in state legislatures works pretty damn well when all you run on is anger and greivance. If they give all that up, they're actually decreasing their odds of winning state legislatures in several states. Now granted where I live, the Republicans would gain a lot by re-evaluating but that's only because they're at rock bottom here and it looks like they'll lose a Congressional seat (that they haven't lost in 16 years) and the legislature but Republicans don't have this problem in most states.
Texas is red by our Christian Good. This is ooter fraud...plain and simple. THE PROCESS IS RIGGED SHEEPLE.
Nah, as soon as there is a real threat like the governors office, the factions will come together to fight the "greater evil"
Can each state have an "Evan McMullin" running for president? How I'm envisioning this is that if enough states can get some third party candidate momentum (not named Johnson and Stein), they can steal electoral votes away from Trump and Hillary. If no one reaches the 270, doesn't that open up some options? Genuinely curious to see if something like this work.
In theory yes, in reality no. Qualifying to get on a state ballot takes close to a year in some states. McMullin only qualified for something like 11 states and he's only competitive in one of them (Utah). Also if its deadlocked at the end, there are two options. 1) Electors can technically vote for any candidate they want in most states. So even though a state like Virginia might have voted for Clinton, theoretically its electors can vote for Trump. So you could get to 270 with rogue electors. You can also get rogue electors to defect in an election where a candidate won enough states to get to 270 (so Clinton wins 270 something but a bunch of electors leave and vote for McMullin instead) 2) The whole thing is deadlocked and no one makes it to 270 which then means the House votes on the presidency. They can only vote on the top 3 options by electoral votes so they can't pick a random candidate that didn't run for president. Also the vote is by state delegation so the party in control of the most state delegations wins (which is currently the Republicans). Either way, its only happened one time in 1824 and in that election there were four candidates that won electoral votes. Either way, considering the lack of media and the power of personality and regional candidates, that was a unique event that probably can't be replicated again with our election system.
Texas is on a similar trajectory as California. Just a matter of time and if Clinton can jump start it a bit with a good showing, so much the better. I should note that smart Repubs have seen this for some time. It was a big part of the DeLay mid-cycle redistricting push. The Texas turnout that has been depressed is on the Dem side because they haven't won anything lately. Give them some hope and it could be a dangerous thing for Republicans. If Texas is even purple, that is huge because Repubs will have to spend lots of money in the state to nail it down every cycle.
energy (Fayette Power Projec), kolaches (the real kind Weikel's Bakery), antiques, land, cattle, oil, truck bumpers, ect.... Fayette county has become prime property the past few years.
For HRC to be within the margin of error in Texas just goes to show how rigged the 2016 election truly is -- wake up!
RealClearPolitics moves Texas to "Tossup" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Texas loves RINO's. That is one reason that Hillary is doing well. Hillary will lose badly but for now she is doing well.
Come on man. You are leaving out some very important details. They have Hillary with a %14.9 chance of losing the election and a %16.6 of winning Texas. These percentages aren't based on national popular vote estimates. For those who are interested, the national percentage is based on the all or nothing state system. Essentially, Trump is not making gains in the places that he needs to make gains in except for Ohio really. There are not enough very close battleground states particular when Clinton has a safe margin in Virginia because she has Kaine and a surprisingly high lead in Pennsylvania. Hillary practically has 270 votes before you get to the battleground states. The funny thing is that the all or nothing electoral college typically helps republicans since it over represents the lower populated states that almost always vote republican and limiting the influence of New York and California relative to their population. The concept of over representing smaller states speaks to the entire concept of states rights which tends to be a speaking point of the republican party. That's what makes it very unlikely that a liberal will ever win the electoral college but not the popular vote. I think the biggest thing Republicans have to fear is online voting. The department of Homeland Security does not think it's safe yet and it's possible it will never be. Online Voter registration would be nice in Texas but the GOP has no interest in that either.
LaGrange Acquisitions was the original name of Energy Transfer's old intrastate assets. When in doubt the answer is oil, if there were no oil it would be cattle or something.
Democrats are the current big tent party. Something will have to give because Labor and Wall Street sleeping in the same bed means Occupiers and Tea Baggers are sleeping outside on the floor, with their guns. Millennials aren't going to take the culture war bullshit plaguing selfish boomers for the last 40 years...as soon as they get a job or house. The GOP has to die already and resurrect themselves from issues other than no taxes, bloated defense, guns, God, and (no) Gays through obstruction.
I harbor no illusions that Texas is going blue this year. However, if the final vote totals have us just 5 points or less behind, I think it will further energize the party going into 2018...when sexy Teddy is up for reelection and Joaquin Castro is ready to run for Senate. A close race this year will help those that have always been on the fence about voting because it hasn't mattered in the past to take part next time.
Clinton's #'s in Texas are about the same that Obama had in 2012. the Difference is that Trumps doesn't have the support in TX that Romney had. But we new this already as many conservative voters have refused to support Trump. http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-b...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
