Democrats launch plan to turn Texas blue

[White Eagle]

I Hope! I Hope! I Hope! I Hope! I Hope!
Now if only they can follow through. This has been needed since the '70s. Nothing but GOP trash came in and did not leave!!!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...lue-86651.html

Democrats launch plan to turn Texas blue

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 1/24/13 4:45 AM EST

National Democrats are taking steps to create a large-scale independent group aimed at turning traditionally conservative Texas into a prime electoral battleground, crafting a new initiative to identify and mobilize progressive voters in the rapidly-changing state, strategists familiar with the plans told POLITICO.

[GiancarloC]

If this were to happen, the GOP may not win a general election in a very long time. Texas, California and New York all blue at the same time? It's really a possibility. Three biggest states with the largest populations... the very least that could happen in Texas is making it into a swing state.

[RazorzEdge88]

When I hear the shit that Dictator Perry gets away with down there, it feels kind of hopeless.

But the demographics/voting patterns are changing for the better.

[T-Rexx]

I don't really understand this.

You mean, Democrats have not been aggressively campaigning for office in Texas?

And, while the party should certainly compete everywhere on an equal footing with Republicans, I don't think they necessarily need to "do" anything to turn Texas blue. It's happening, anyway. It's probably inevitable.

[GiancarloC]

I think they just want to help push it along even further.

[White Eagle]

When I hear the shit that Dictator Perry gets away with down there, it feels kind of hopeless.

But the demographics/voting patterns are changing for the better.

I understand this is the last time he can run. Now I'm not sure if it's this term or maybe a reelection next.

[White Eagle]

I don't really understand this.

You mean, Democrats have not been aggressively campaigning for office in Texas?

And, while the party should certainly compete everywhere on an equal footing with Republicans, I don't think they necessarily need to "do" anything to turn Texas blue. It's happening, anyway. It's probably inevitable.

Dems have been running in my area just not enough of them across the state. GOP holds most legislatures across the state. That is what I mean by not leaving the state. Also, they are gonna work on getting more Latinos out to vote.

Centex knows more about this, But I don't know if he can answer the question without being partisan, according to some JUBBERS.

[xbuzzerx]

Come to the light, Austin. You can do it.

[CoolBlue71]

The Democrats should go hard after Arizona, Georgia, and Montana as well. And they should look into whether Indiana can be won again.

[CoolBlue71]

Key county to win in Texas is Tarrant County (Fort Worth).

It tends to produce percentages of the vote and margins similar to the statewide result for the presidency.

[JockBoy87]

In 20 years, I think Arizona and Texas will be battleground states.

If this were to happen, the GOP may not win a general election in a very long time. Texas, California and New York all blue at the same time? It's really a possibility. Three biggest states with the largest populations... the very least that could happen in Texas is making it into a swing state.

With Florida as a battleground state in addition to Texas; and Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio; that gives the Democrat a shot at the seven most populous states.

I don't really understand this.

You mean, Democrats have not been aggressively campaigning for office in Texas?

And, while the party should certainly compete everywhere on an equal footing with Republicans, I don't think they necessarily need to "do" anything to turn Texas blue. It's happening, anyway. It's probably inevitable.

That's right, look at the district races for the Texas legislature. I bet the Democrats didn't even put up a candidate in many of them.

[T-Rexx]

That's right, look at the district races for the Texas legislature. I bet the Democrats didn't even put up a candidate in many of them.

I happen to live in John Boehner's district in Ohio. He ran unopposed in the last election.

Indeed, for most of the offices here, Republicans run unopposed. It does not make sense for Democrats to waste resources here, when the electorate cannot be persuaded to vote for a Democrat under any circumstance.

[White Eagle]

+You are all right, of course. There has been Dem apathy for a long time. I think people don't see a win, so don't vote.

[RazorzEdge88]

Key county to win in Texas is Tarrant County (Fort Worth).

It tends to produce percentages of the vote and margins similar to the statewide result for the presidency.

I was going to say pretty much the same thing, although I think the entire DFW area is really important as sprawl starts to produce more and more medium-sized cities.

[CTF]

If this were to happen, the GOP may not win a general election in a very long time. Texas, California and New York all blue at the same time? It's really a possibility. Three biggest states with the largest populations... the very least that could happen in Texas is making it into a swing state.

GC please pay attention.

I've been a credentialed member of the Texas Democratic Party for a really long time.

I have served as an elected Precinct Chair in three different Precincts, and in two different Counties here in Texas.

From the article that my fellow Texan White Eagle linked to:

National Democrats are taking steps to create a large-scale independent group aimed at turning traditionally conservative Texas into a prime electoral battleground, crafting a new initiative to identify and mobilize progressive voters in the rapidly-changing state, strategists familiar with the plans told POLITICO.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2J2QjItRZ

That's funny for me to read this because I thought that is what the Texas Democratic Party was supposed to be doing.

You do realize that Texas Democrats haven't won a State Wide Elected Seat here in Texas since 1992 don't you?

And that the Democratic National Committee in Washington has been pulling the Texas Democratic State Party strings since at least former Vermont Governor, and Dr. Howard Dean was chair.

When Rick Perry didn't feel that he had enough votes to get Re-elected to his second term, the Texas GOP decided (under the advisement of Karl Rove) to have a "Constitutional Election" here in Texas to define Marriage as between One Man and One Woman, in order to get out the "conservative" vote.

The Democratic National Committee told the Texas Democratic Party to "stay out of it."

Meanwhile the Texas Stonewall Democrats, were told that they needed to make "inroads" with other organizations throughout Texas; Religious Institutions, Libertarian Organizations, and to found their own Political Action Committees.

Which they did!

Equality Texas was one of them.

The National Human Rights Campaign donated a few thousand dollars for the cause. (A marginal pittance compared to what the HRC raised at their Dallas Fundraiser that year).

And after all of their work, the Texas Democratic Party failed to lend ANY SUPPORT, to defeating that Texas Constitutional Amendment.

Traditional Texas Democrats; African Americans, and Catholic Hispanics went out and Supported Rick Perry's "get out the conservative vote issue" by a 3 to 1 margin.

Why?

Because the Texas Democratic Party was silent.

Not one word from the Executive Committee on how Texas Democrats should vote regarding the measure.

I was at the State Party Convention when the Party Chair was up for re-election, and that truth became known to the Texas Delegates.

It was a blood bath, and in my view the Texas Democratic Executive Committee (TDEC) still hasn't fully recovered.

Just this past November, a Canadian Born "Cuban" by the name of Ted Cruz was elected as the "First Hispanic" Republican elected to the United States Senate from Texas.

He has about as much in common with Texas Hispanics as a Cuban does to a Mexican. Literally...nothing.

And he's a Tea Bagger of the first order.

What does the Democratic National Committee tell the TDEC during the 2012 Senatorial Campaign?

"Stay out of it."

Despite the fact that the Texas Democratic Party fielded a far better, more qualified, and more experienced candidate.

For me? Personally?

There's something about this Politico story that doesn't "pass the smell test."

I promise that I'll come back and share more when I find out.

[Jack Springer]

Could the title of this thread be . . .

Republicans Democrats Want to Rig Presidential State Elections

[xbuzzerx]

Could the title of this thread be . . .

Republicans Democrats Want to Rig Presidential State Elections

Undoing decades of intentional Republican gerrymandering to keep Texas artificially super-red and 'rigging elections' are kinda different.

Texas is going to be increasingly purple as time moves forward. And already is more purple than it ever appears in elections due to gerrymandering.

[frankfrank]

The Democrats should go hard after Arizona, Georgia, and Montana as well. And they should look into whether Indiana can be won again.

ESPECIALLY Georgia. North Carolina as well, and I'm not convinced that Missouri is a lost cause either.

I see all of those, actually, as more likely than Indiana. Indianapolis is by far the largest city in Kentucky.

[CoolBlue71]

ESPECIALLY Georgia. North Carolina as well, and I'm not convinced that Missouri is a lost cause either.

I see all of those, actually, as more likely than Indiana. Indianapolis is by far the largest city in Kentucky.

North Carolina carried for Mitt Romney, in a Republican pickup, by R+2.04. Nationally the president defeated the ex-Gov. by D+3.84. So, N.C. was 5.88% redder than the country in 2012. In 2008, that spread was 6.93%, because Barack Obama flipped it with a margin of D+0.33 as he beat John McCain nationally by D+7.26. Looking to 2004, that spread was 9.97% because George W. Bush won N.C. by R+12.43 as he beat John Kerry nationally by R+2.46. From 2000, the spread was 13.35% as Bush won N.C. by R+12.83 while Al Gore won the popular vote by D+0.52.

So, with N.C. there is a trend away from the Republicans.

2000: R+13.35
2004: R+9.97
2008: R+7.26
2012: R+5.88

This means N.C. is now competitive. Had the president won re-election under traditional circumstances, meaning increased popular-vote margin of an additional 3 to 5 points (and, along with it, an electoral-vote score), then N.C. would have been retained by Obama with re-election. (Of course that wasn't the trajectory.)

[Just_Believe18]

Could the title of this thread be . . .

Republicans Democrats Want to Rig Presidential State Elections

Not even relevantly close in comparison. No supporting information to back up frivolous statement. Waste of time post.

[GiancarloC]

Could the title of this thread be . . .

Republicans Democrats Want to Rig Presidential State Elections

Too bad there is no proof for this claim... yet another long line of baseless claims.

[layton]

Yes and I'm straight, some things just aren't possible.

[rareboy]

One of the things that will make this possible....and I note my friend Centex's post about the issue....is having homo rights off the table.

The moment that the republicans cannot bring the religious conservatives into their tent on the issue of gay rights, the Republican hold on many states is going to weaken.

Voters will have to start looking at the real issues, instead of the straw dogs.

And then the GOP will be forced to move back to the centre and political battles might end up being about substantive issues.

[maxpowr9]

^If and when gay marriage becomes legal in the US this year, that will be another huge blow for the Republicans. Conservatives have always lost the battle on "social norms". Much of that you can chalk up to my generation being freed from the stranglehold on them by religion.