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.
Rest of it here: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 in bents up and down the ballot.
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02...ats-texas-2020
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 in bent 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 compe ive (Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Iowa and Georgia), they'd even have a better shot at ing with McConnell (who's approval rating among Kentuckians is in the toilet), Kansas (retiring in bent 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).
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.
Not to mention how much of a piece of Cornhole is.
It actually is mutually exclusive unless you think they can print their own money.
The fantasy would be to win the Texas house so they could gerrymander districts after the 2020 census
What goes around comes around. Democrats did it and worse in Texas for years.Like Texas Republicans have any right to about gerrymandering.
off punk. Moderate gerrymandering is a fact of life. To the victor goes the spoils. Your whining doesnt accomplish anything.Old ass got still uses the reasoning of a six year old
Oh look! The little got learned how to use emojis!!!!
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.
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 up about what we want.
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 ty rationalization, and you know it.
um, I do think they can reallocate their budget, especially given the upside potential of spending in a huge state with low turnout.
https://www.txdemocrats.org/our-part...arty-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.
I know you said this with the tone that it was some intellectually superior nugget of wisdom, but it makes no ing 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 ing 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?
Last edited by Will Hunting; 03-03-2019 at 02:00 PM.
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.
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 compe ive 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.
I just think they need to start emulating how the Republicans do what needs to be done to keep power and give zero s 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 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.
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.
texas turning blue... california s 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?
why you frontin like you aint smoke some crack rocks this morning after suckin Rico’s ?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
