Democrats had historic gains in Texas in 2018.

[RandomGuy]

They're setting their sights on even more in 2020.

National Democratic groups are signaling they are serious about committing money in Texas. “It’s one of our top opportunities in the whole country,” said U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, an Illinois Democrat who chairs the House Democratic campaign arm.


WASHINGTON — The decision former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke is about to make — whether to run for president, the U.S. Senate or nothing at all in 2020 — will surely reverberate across Texas. But regardless of what O'Rourke does, Democrats are planning a major Texas offensive to target lower-tier races that could could reset the table of Texas politics into the next decade.

Democratic gains from the 2018 midterms have translated in this cycle to higher-quality candidates showing a willingness to consider running for office, and national Democratic groups are signaling they are serious about committing money toward a continuation of their offensive strikes in Texas into the 2020 election.

“It’s one of our top opportunities in the whole country,” U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, an Illinois Democrat who chairs the House Democratic campaign arm, recently told The Texas Tribune.

The Democratic maneuvering and posturing over Texas right now is dizzying. No fewer than three high-profile Democrats — U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, former state Sen. Wendy Davis and Air Force veteran M.J. Hegar — are not ruling out challenging U.S. Sen. John Cornyn. U.S. House Democrats are planning an offensive in Texas — six seats in all — that has not been seen for at least a generation in the state, and a national Democratic group is looking to strengthen the party's hand in the state Legislature ahead of 2021 redistricting and reapportionment. And many Republicans, for their part, worry O'Rourke or former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro could end up on a national ticket in 2020.

What is happening here is a Democratic belief that their successes in Texas were not merely tied to O'Rourke outperforming expectations as a Senate candidate last year. Instead, Democrats suggest the numbers moved strongly enough in their favor that there is reason to spend in Texas, a traditionally cost-prohibitive state. There are all different groups and candidates looking to play in Texas. Working together, this could translate into a campaign not pinned on a single Democratic gubernatorial candidate like Bill White or Wendy Davis, but an all-out assault on Republican incumbents up and down the ballot.

Rest of it here:

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/26/democrats-texas-2020

[DMC]

https://images.tmz.com/2009/06/28/0628_billy_mays_bn_ap_01-1.jpg

[Will Hunting]

Incredibly stupid if true about them wanting to spend more money in TX in 2020.

Any scenario where the Dems are even competing in Texas means they already won the general in a landslide, so that doesn't do anything for them.

The only incremental gain that could come from pouring money into TX is unseating Cornyn, which is equally stupid when there are so many other Republican incumbent races they have a better shot at winning, all in states where they can spend less money to make an impact.

In addition to the 6 races that have the potential to be competitive (Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Iowa and Georgia), they'd even have a better shot at fucking with McConnell (who's approval rating among Kentuckians is in the toilet), Kansas (retiring incumbent in a state that's livid with how much of a disaster Sam Brownback's trickle down nightmare was), or Montana (has been receptive to moderate Dem candidates).

[Will Hunting]

The Dems need to be smart and realistic with where they spend money in 2020. They won't have as much of it as the GOP will and there's no scenario where they lose Michigan/Wisconsin/PA but make up for it by winning Texas and Georgia. Any scenario where Trump isn't popular enough to win Texas means the "blue wall" is safe.

Focus spending on the states they need and the states that have a Senate seat they can flip. Arizona for example is a state where they already have a great candidate who's running against McSally and it's a purple state as long as Trump is on the ballot.

[RandomGuy]

The Dems need to be smart and realistic with where they spend money in 2020. They won't have as much of it as the GOP will and there's no scenario where they lose Michigan/Wisconsin/PA but make up for it by winning Texas and Georgia. Any scenario where Trump isn't popular enough to win Texas means the "blue wall" is safe.

Focus spending on the states they need and the states that have a Senate seat they can flip. Arizona for example is a state where they already have a great candidate who's running against McSally and it's a purple state as long as Trump is on the ballot.

Spending elsewhere, and spending in Texas are not mutually exclusive, and forcing the GOP to spend time/money defending it has its own strategic value.

Texas, California, and New York collectively hold 41% of the electoral college votes required to win the presidency. That just requires nudging statewide elections to 51%

Texas has some of the lowest voter turn out in the country, and that is mainly due to the fact that Democrats have not really been in the running. Texas is not a red state, it is a non-voting state. Most of that slack is going to vote Democrat.

There are some solid reasons to put effort into Texas.

[Spurs Homer]

Spending elsewhere, and spending in Texas are not mutually exclusive, and forcing the GOP to spend time/money defending it has its own strategic value.

Texas, California, and New York collectively hold 41% of the electoral college votes required to win the presidency. That just requires nudging statewide elections to 51%

Texas has some of the lowest voter turn out in the country, and that is mainly due to the fact that Democrats have not really been in the running. Texas is not a red state, it is a non-voting state. Most of that slack is going to vote Democrat.

There are some solid reasons to put effort into Texas.


Not to mention how much of a piece of shit Cornhole is.

[DMC]

Spending elsewhere, and spending in Texas are not mutually exclusive, and forcing the GOP to spend time/money defending it has its own strategic value.

Texas, California, and New York collectively hold 41% of the electoral college votes required to win the presidency. That just requires nudging statewide elections to 51%

Texas has some of the lowest voter turn out in the country, and that is mainly due to the fact that Democrats have not really been in the running. Texas is not a red state, it is a non-voting state. Most of that slack is going to vote Democrat.

There are some solid reasons to put effort into Texas.
It actually is mutually exclusive unless you think they can print their own money.

[CosmicCowboy]

The fantasy would be to win the Texas house so they could gerrymander districts after the 2020 census

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao Like Texas Republicans have any right to bitch about gerrymandering.

What goes around comes around. Democrats did it and worse in Texas for years.

[CosmicCowboy]

Old ass faggot still uses the reasoning of a six year old :lmao

Fuck off punk. Moderate gerrymandering is a fact of life. To the victor goes the spoils. Your whining doesnt accomplish anything.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh look! The little faggot learned how to use emojis!!!!

[Winehole23]

Voter suppression, gerrymandering, unelected federal judges, and the Electoral College are bulwarks of minority rule and the de facto party of minority rule: the GOP.

[RandomGuy]

The fantasy would be to win the Texas house so they could gerrymander districts after the 2020 census

I would fight against such a thing, and no one that I know would support it either. I make this point rather strongly to any Democratic candidate I meet and talk to, and I know my representative would oppose it.

But thanks for making some shit up about what we want.

[RandomGuy]

What goes around comes around. Democrats did it and worse in Texas for years.

So if the other party does something wrong, we are justified in doing it too?

Sorry. That is most definitely not a progressive stance in this case. That is a shitty rationalization, and you know it.

[RandomGuy]

It actually is mutually exclusive unless you think they can print their own money.

um, I do think they can reallocate their budget, especially given the upside potential of spending in a huge state with low turnout.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck off punk. Moderate gerrymandering is a fact of life. To the victor goes the spoils. Your whining doesnt accomplish anything.


the creation of a nonpartisan redistricting commission to end gerrymandering in our redistricting process;
https://www.txdemocrats.org/our-party/texas-democratic-party-platform/

We had a pretty intense floor discussion over this at the convention, if memory serves. The people making policy for our party in Texas most definitely want this. I can speak to this first hand as a delegate.

[Will Hunting]

Spending elsewhere, and spending in Texas are not mutually exclusive.
I know you said this with the tone that it was some intellectually superior nugget of wisdom, but it makes no fucking sense. A dollar spent in Texas is a dollar you’re not going to be able to spend somewhere else because, you guessed it, you already fucking spent the dollar in Texas. By definition that’s mutually exclusive. I can break it down into a statement of fortune cookie wisdom if that makes things easier:

”A dollar spent here is a dollar that can’t be spent elsewhere”

Is that better?

[RandomGuy]

I know you said this with the tone that it was some intellectually superior nugget of wisdom, but it makes no fucking sense. A dollar spent in Texas is a dollar you’re not going to be able to spend somewhere else because, you guessed it, you already fucking spent the dollar in Texas. By definition that’s mutually exclusive. I can break it down into a statement of fortune cookie wisdom if that makes things easier:

”A dollar spent here is a dollar that can’t be spent elsewhere”

Is that better?

um, sure. My point is that the cost/benefit ratio has changed, and it is possible to do both fight elsewhere in Texas and Texas.

Talking past each other a little here. Apologies.

[Will Hunting]

The fantasy would be to win the Texas house so they could gerrymander districts after the 2020 census
And that’s all it would be, a fantasy (esp since the governor would veto any gerrymandering), however there’s a lot of Democrats like the OP who’ve convinced themselves that bankrupting the Democratic Party to make Texas competitive sends some strong and powerful message to the Republican Party. I’m pretty sure Trump was just fine getting Wisconsin as a free gift from Hillary because she wanted to divert campaign money towards making it so she’d outperform Obama in Texas by less than a percentage point.

Goes back to what I said though. In any scenario where the Dems are winning the Texas House, they don’t need to be gerrymandering Texas to have a majority in the House.

They should be pouring money into reversing the gerrymandering in states like NC, PA, WI, MI, etc., but we’re talking about the DNC here, so they’ll undoubtedly underfund campaigning in those states because they’re focused on a new campaign to raise awareness about the white devil thinking it’ll drive out the black vote and flip Mississippi blue.

[Will Hunting]

um, sure. My point is that the cost/benefit ratio has changed, and it is possible to do both fight elsewhere in Texas and Texas.

Talking past each other a little here. Apologies.
I just think they need to start emulating how the Republicans do what needs to be done to keep power and give zero fucks along the way about how merciless or morally wrong it may seem. They’re unapologetic about the fact they make no effort to appeal to voters in California and don’t give a shit about how much they get crushed in California elections. Turns out that by doing so they have more money left over to win over the other 80% of the country’s voters.

The reality is that Texas doesn’t have anything the Dems need other than Senate seats that require a really expensive campaign. Theres 10 other Senate seats that would require a less extreme combination of luck and resources to flip in 2020.

[Will Hunting]

We won't ever have another Republican President if we can switch Texas red.
Take the 2016 map and give Texas to Clinton instead of Trump, Clinton has a razor thin victory 270 - 268 with the deciding state being New Hampshire, a state she won by less than 3,000 votes and was much closer than it typically is because of how much Clinton was trying to appeal to minority voters at the expense of lifelong white Dems in states like New Hampshire. If flipping Texas blue means the Dems do even worse with rural white voters (in states like New Hampshire) than they already do, it accomplishes nothing, in fact it probably makes things worse because there’d be more states with red senate seats.

Regardless of that though, flipping Texas doesn’t solve the problem they have in the Senate, where the Republicans benefit from a bunch of states with small populations that vote hard red and give Republicans the 41 Senate votes needed to filibuster, even when the Dems win in a landslide like they did in 08.

[koriwhat]

texas turning blue... california fucks moving here and the winds of legalization of marijuana might just push it in that direction like it has in other states with the same losers flocking in with their diseased liberal ideology.

[Pavlov]

texas turning blue... california fucks moving here and the winds of legalization of marijuana might just push it in that direction like it has in other states with the same losers flocking in with their diseased liberal ideology.Don't you smoke pot regularly?

[kw's crack dealer]

texas turning blue... california fucks moving here and the winds of legalization of marijuana might just push it in that direction like it has in other states with the same losers flocking in with their diseased liberal ideology.
Nigga why you frontin like you aint smoke some crack rocks this morning after suckin Rico’s dick?

[koriwhat]

Don't you smoke pot regularly?

i do. however, i am not necessarily for the legalization of it nation wide. i see its benefits but def don't discredit its downfalls either. and i do think the legalization of it has been weaponized for a political advantage. maybe i'm wrong but whatever.

[Pavlov]

i do. however, i am not necessarily for the legalization of it nation wide. i see its benefits but def don't discredit its downfalls either. and i do think the legalization of it has been weaponized for a political advantage. maybe i'm wrong but whatever.:lmao

[Will Hunting]

i do. however, i am not necessarily for the legalization of it nation wide.
but you're for the legalization of it with respect to when you do it?

[Will Hunting]

But if Democrats spend more resources on Texas, so do the Repubs. It evens the playing field. And Hillary lost because she didn't even go to those places. She took it for granted. No other Democrat Candidate is ever going to do that.
The Dems have less resources than the Republicans, so spending a dollar to force the Republicans to spend a dollar is a losing formula (not to mention the fact the Dems need to spend well into the tens of millions to make Texas competitive before the Republicans need to even start spending extra money to keep the state). For all the stupid talk from pizzagate retards about the power of the Clintons or about George Soros, the Dems don't have the oligarch money flowing in that the Republicans have (Sheldon Adelson alone drops $100 million pretty much every election cycle). The numbers about Clinton's campaign having double what Trump had are misleading because they don't include PAC money. This time around it'll be even worse, Trump will have a 9 figure head start on fundraising without having to spend on a primary.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story?id=43356783

Wisconsin was a simple case of her losing because she didn't visit the state or do anything to try and win it, and losing Michigan was at least partially due to how little she visited it, but she visited Pennsylvania 15 times between nomination and election. She lost PA because her campaign did nothing to appeal to white voters in places like Harrisburg or Erie.

[Will Hunting]

Dems always have more money than repubs. Where the fuck did you get that idea?
They have more campaign-raised money but that doesn't include PAC money. The numbers you're looking at that show the Dems having more money don't include the hundreds of millions of dollars that Charles Koch or Sheldon Adelson funnel into campaign ads.

[Will Hunting]

Regardless, spending money in a state you have no chance at winning just to force the other side to spend money in the state is maybe the dumbest strategy I've ever heard in terms of political campaigning.

[BD24]

Sounds like a guy who reeeeallllly wants marijuana legalized but can’t bear to go against the Republicans on anything :lol
No no no, Joey is an independent you spineless fucking faggot.

[RandomGuy]

Regardless, spending money in a state you have no chance at winning just to force the other side to spend money in the state is maybe the dumbest strategy I've ever heard in terms of political campaigning.

I would agree. I disagree that Texas is one of those states we have "no chance" of winning.

[RandomGuy]

I just think they need to start emulating how the Republicans do what needs to be done to keep power and give zero fucks along the way about how merciless or morally wrong it may seem. They’re unapologetic about the fact they make no effort to appeal to voters in California and don’t give a shit about how much they get crushed in California elections. Turns out that by doing so they have more money left over to win over the other 80% of the country’s voters.

The reality is that Texas doesn’t have anything the Dems need other than Senate seats that require a really expensive campaign. Theres 10 other Senate seats that would require a less extreme combination of luck and resources to flip in 2020.

No. In marketing terms "differentiation" is how you make your brand different.

I got the impression that there isn't a whole lot of money that is going to be shifted here, but enough to make it more competitive.

"win at all costs, no matter how immoral" simply provides the "both sides" argument with unneeded validity.


Four years after Texas ranked near the bottom in voter turnout in the country, the state saw a double-digit percentage point increase in that figure for the 2018 midterms.

But that wasn’t good enough to get Texas out of the bottom half of states, as it still lagged behind the national average and trailed all but 10 states this year, according to the United States Elections Project, which tracks the turnout rate of eligible voters nationwide.

Voter turnout in the 2018 Texas midterm elections increased by 18 percentage points compared with the previous midterms, the country's sixth-highest increase. Nationwide, turnout increased by 13 percentage points from 2014 to 2018.

Out of the voting-eligible population in Texas, 46.3 percent voted in 2018. Nationwide, turnout was 50.1 percent.

“Texas simply has not had particularly competitive elections, and the change in competition made a difference this year,” said Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida who runs the United States Elections Project.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/12/07/texas-voter-turnout-sixth-highest-increase-2018-midterms/

http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/electionturnout1_webgfx062818nv.jpg

Increasing turnout has benefitted Democrats, and will continue to do so.

There is a case to be made here.

[koriwhat]

but you're for the legalization of it with respect to when you do it?

not at all... i don't care either way.

[koriwhat]

Sounds like a guy who reeeeallllly wants marijuana legalized but can’t bear to go against the Republicans on anything :lol

nah, sounds like a guy who doesn't want more idiot types from the likes of california and other far left states. they're already fucking up austin and coming down to satx.

[koriwhat]

Regardless, spending money in a state you have no chance at winning just to force the other side to spend money in the state is maybe the dumbest strategy I've ever heard in terms of political campaigning.

cough cough ROBERT O'ROURKE.

[koriwhat]

No no no, Joey is an independent you spineless fucking faggot.

you're truly the only faggot on this board tbh. dispute the park photo i posted yesterday while running it through the metadata website for its timestamp!

[BD24]

you're truly the only faggot on this board tbh. dispute the park photo i posted yesterday while running it through the metadata website for its timestamp!
According to you everyone but your republican butt buddies are faggots Joey.

The first thing Kori does when he gets off work is goes on Spurstalk to whine and cry about others :lol

What a fantastic life you must live tbh.

[koriwhat]

According to you everyone but your republican butt buddies are faggots Joey.

The first thing Kori does when he gets off work is goes on Spurstalk to whine and cry about others :lol

What a fantastic life you must live tbh.

I see you can't dispute a timestamped photo... guess you've been officially outed as the bitchass that you truly are and that we all knew you to be. Keep calling me names but i was man enough to meet up with you when you asked. At the end of the day you're a bitchass and it's truth.

[koriwhat]

Yo bitchass bd24 you gonna suck yourself off now with your alt(s)? Lmao

[BD24]

Yo bitchass bd24 you gonna suck yourself off now with your alt(s)? Lmao
Your dumb ass thinking it’s my alt :lol

Honestly I wish I could claim it was mine because it gets you so worked up. Unfortunately I can’t claim credit for someone else’s work

[spurraider21]

koriwhat is all for legalization of pot unless democrats do it

[Pavlov]

koriwhat is all for legalization of pot unless democrats do it:lol

[koriwhat]

Your dumb ass thinking it’s my alt :lol

Honestly I wish I could claim it was mine because it gets you so worked up. Unfortunately I can’t claim credit for someone else’s work

honestly idc if it is your alt or not but i'm sure you have a few here anyhow because that's what bitches like yourself love playing make believe.

again, dispute that timestamped photo and show us how hardcore you truly are ya fucking bitch!

keep on crying :cry


koriwhat is all for legalization of pot unless democrats do it

lmao at the stupidity that makes you you.

the funny thing is believing i give a fuck about the legality of it in the first place and an end to its prohibition. where'd you come up with this bs?

btw, in the words of all you loser trolls, pot good now?

[BD24]

honestly idc if it is your alt or not but i'm sure you have a few here anyhow because that's what bitches like yourself love playing make believe.

again, dispute that timestamped photo and show us how hardcore you truly are ya fucking bitch!

keep on crying :cry


Your keep on crying line is irony at its finest, you are the one who comes here day after day to whine and complain about other posters.

You are the one that cares so much about this place that you bought a domain to collect the IP addresses of other users :lol

You are the one that cares so much about this place that you waited in a park for half an hour on your day off because a poster online made you mad :lol

You are the one that cares so much about this place that you respond to every "shitty troll" :lol

I'm sure there is plenty of other examples, but I think you get the point.

Why you are so insecure is beyond me, you may need to look inward for that.

[koriwhat]

Your keep on crying line is irony at its finest, you are the one who comes here day after day to whine and complain about other posters.

You are the one that cares so much about this place that you bought a domain to collect the IP addresses of other users :lol

You are the one that cares so much about this place that you waited in a park for half an hour on your day off because a poster online made you mad :lol

You are the one that cares so much about this place that you respond to every "shitty troll" :lol

I'm sure there is plenty of other examples, but I think you get the point.

Why you are so insecure is beyond me, you may need to look inward for that.

and yet you still can't dispute that timestamped photo. :lmao