The Gallup Poll: Is Texas Blue?
The Gallup organization released a nationwide poll last week showing the partisan preference in every state. The daily tracking poll, conducted during the election campaign, sampled 19,415 adult Texans concerning their self-identification by political party and found that 43.4% identified themselves as Democrats compared to 41.0% who identified themselves as Republicans.
Do I find the results credible? To some extent, yes. There is no shortage of evidence of a Democratic trend: the Democrats’ sweep of Dallas County offices in 2006; similar. but less, success in Harris County this year; and the huge turnout for the 2008 presidential primary. But I question the accuracy of a poll about party identification that is based upon interviews with adults, period. Not likely voters. Not registered voters. No effort was made to screen the sample. In any case, the Democrats’ problems are manifest: They can’t win an election above the local level. They can’t win a statewide race; they can’t even win a contested congressional race.
It really doesn’t matter what people’s political leanings are. If those leanings don’t translate into votes cast and elections won, they don’t count. In the Gallup poll, Oklahoma was bluer than Texas. Democrats hold a six-point lead there over Republicans in party ID. But John McCain carried every county. According to Gallup, Georgia also computes as a blue state. The Democrats didn’t come close to winning the U.S. Senate seat that was contested there. This is the biggest problem the Democrats have: How do they turn party ID into votes?
I have had some long conversations with a semi-retired Democratic strategist (as well as with some Democratic politicians). His view is that the Democrats are nowhere close to being an effective political party. They don’t have the fundraising base to compete with Republicans. They don’t have the consultant talent to compete with Republicans. They don’t have a bench of candidates who can compete with Republicans at the statewide level. The Republicans are low-hanging fruit, but the Democrats don’t have the party infrastructure that can take advantage of the GOP’s failure to govern the state. Will Rogers said it some 70 years ago: “I belong to no organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”
The strategist pointed out to me that the Republicans will probably raise and spend $100 million in the next election cycle. This includes the contested gubernatorial primary, the general election, and possibly a U.S. Senate special election, plus the other statewide and legislative races. That kind of money brings out voters. How can the Democrats match that? They can’t. The Democrats do not have the ability to fund statewide races and legislative races at the same time. Yes, they have developed some new fundraising sources. But they are still far behind in the statewide races. This creates a dilemma. What should they do with their limited resources? Try to elect a governor? Try for seats on the Legislative Redistricting Board? Focus on the top of the ballot or the bottom? The money goes further at the bottom, but the credibility of the party can be restored only by winning at the top.
The Democratic political operation in Texas is not without talent. It’s without direction. It’s without coordination. There plenty of wannabes, but no game plan. You have the House Democratic Campaign Committee, the Lone Star Project out of D.C., the trial lawyers, Annie’s List, and lesser fiefdoms. Things slip through the cracks. Chris Harris should have been challenged for his Senate seat. Linda Harper-Brown should have been defeated.
The Democrats need–you’re not going to like this–a Karl Rove. (And before Rove there was Norm Newton and the Associated Republicans of Texas. Look what Rove was able to do for the Republican party in Texas. Look at what Eppstein was able to do in getting Republicans elected to the Legislature. You have to have people who are willing to spend full time on politics–not just on their clients, and not on lobbying, but thinking about the next election and how to win it. That’s what Rove did in the late eighties and the nineties. That is what Jack Martin did when he was Lloyd Bentsen’s chief operative, before he formed Public Strategies. The 1982 election, in which Bentsen was reelected, Bill Clements was swept out of the governor’s office, and Democrats won up and down the ballot even as Ronald Reagan occupied the White House, is the model for a coordinated campaign. Until the Democrats treat politics as a business that requires an effective organization and an effective message, they are not going to fulfill the high expectations of their base. The Republican policies of the past six years should have been a gold mine for opposition research, but the Democrats have no message machinery. When Karen Hughes was at the state Republican Party, she chipped away at the Democrats every day.
The rest of this post is strictly for political junkies.
Speaking of Public Strategies, I attended and participated in a symposium recently that was organized by Jack Martin for the Texas 2020 Group–a group of business leaders from around the state whose goal is to advance “issues and ideas to improve the lives of all Texans by 2020.” The program consisted of two panels, one on polling, moderated by Evan Smith and featuring Mike Baselice and UT’s Jim Henson, and the other, on, well, punditry, moderated by Mike Levy and requiring the audience to listen to Ross Ramsey, Harvey Kronberg, and me. I took notes on the first panel. Here are some of the numbers Baselice provided. They refer to national politics.
Favorable/unfavorable view of the two major parties in 2000:
Republican 54/37
Democrat 53/38
Favorable/unfavorable view of the two major parties in 2007:
Republican 30/55
Democrat 53/40
Baselice: “This guaranteed 2008 would be a rough year for Republicans.”
Which party do you trust to handle the economy (2007)?
Democrats 43% strongly favor, 21% somewhat favor
Republicans 25% strongly favor, 11% somewhat favor
Which party do you trust to handle taxes (2007)?
Democrats 36%
Republicans 31%
As Baselice noted, the Democrats were winning a core Republican issue. Democrats also prevailed in trustiworthiness concerning deficit reduction and on homeowner issues.
Which party will keep the U.S. prosperous (1972-2007)?
1972: Republicans +5 vs. Democrats
1974: Watergate year, Democrats had a big edge
1980: Democrats 35%, Republicans 36% (very close even though the economy was suffering from stagflation under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan was elected)
1984: Republicans 49%, Democrats 33% (Reagan reelected)
1988: Republicans 52%, Democrats 34% (high point of the Reagan years; Bush 41 elected)
1992: Republicans 37%, Democrats 45% (Bush defeated for reelection)
1994: Republicans 48%, Democrats 38% (Republicans sweep congressional elections)
2000: Republicans 40%, Democrats 47% (Bush 43 elected)
2006: Republicans 36%, Democrats 53%
2007: Republicans 34%, Democrats 54%
Now, for Texas:
Party image (favorable/unfavorable) in Texas:
2000: Republicans 62/35, Democrats 49/39
2008: Republicans 45/42, Democrats 51/39
“First time Democrats’ party image was better than Republicans” since Baselice started polling.
I have used these numbers in several articles. Their importance should be clear: While the Republicans are losing ground, the Democrats are remaining static. The election results show that they cannot attract the disaffected Republican voter.
Base Republican vote:
Baselice: “Prior to 2008, Rs +9 for a decade.”
2006 48.40% R, 39.33% D
2008 47.3% R, 41.86% D
R +5.45%
The most interesting observation that Baselice made is that the Republican gains occurred in rural Texas. The base vote increased by 6%. Democratic gains occurred in the Metroplex. Republicans are gaining in areas where 25% of the people of the people live. Democrats are gaining in areas where 75% of the people live.
One more set of numbers from Baselice concerning the Hispanic vote:
Exit polls: Obama 67%, McCain 31%
–If Republicans maintain 30% of the Hispanic vote, Texas remains
a Republican state
–What if the Republican share of the Hispanic vote drops to 25%?
Texas turns Democratic in 2020 (D +1).
Baselice said that Democrats cannot win by hoping for the minority vote. The biggest source of votes in this state is Anglo votes.
UT government professor and pollster Jim Henson addressed the short-term environment in this election cycle and who it favored on election day. He mentioned, among other things, the polarities of the Bush factor–he is still something of a favorite son who polls better here than elsewhere–and the lag in the recession reaching Texas. This enabled Republicans to run better here than they did nationally.
The notable outcomes of the election were:
(1) a surge in primary turnout in both parties;
(2) Democratic gains in urban counties;
(3) An urban-rural division with Republicans being strong in rural Texas, Democrats gaining in urban Texas, and the exurbs becoming the future battleground for Texas politics
Harris County 04: Democrats 45%, Republicans 55%
Harris County 08: Democrats 51%, Republicans 49%
Ideological Self-Identification:
May 07: Conservative 44%, Moderate 35%, Liberal 21%
June 08: Conservative 44%, Moderate 35%, Liberal 20%
July 08: Conservative 39%, Moderate 26%, Liberal 20%
October 08: Conservative 53%, Moderate 26%, Liberal 21%
Party Identification October 08
Strong Republican 25%
Weak Republican 11%
Independent leaning Republican 12%
Strong Democratic 22%
Weak Democratic 13%
Independent leaning Democratic 9%
Independent 8%
Henson believes that the Republican advantage in Texas lies in the independent vote. There is a substantial group of voters who say they are independent, but they lean Republican at election time.
This observation is supported by Baselice’s numbers on the favorable/unfavorable view of the two parties. The Republicans are losing ground as disillusioned Rs become independents, but at election time the independents return to the Republican party.
To go back to where we started–the Gallup Poll–Texas is not a purple state. It’s still a red state, but the trend line favors Democrats.
Tagged: blue, dallas county, democrat, gallup, harris county, mike baselice, polling, public strategies, purple state, red, republican, texas
Anonymous says:
Interesting numbers, but they are deceptive, and not only because the poll is not of likely or registered voters. Many Texas Democrats (and Independents especially) are still more aligned with the national Republican Party on social conservative issues and taxes. The drop in numbers of Republicans (and some of the Democratic increases), I would contend, reflect a disaffection for the state of the economy and the GWB-led Republicans’ failure to hew to the less government/lower taxes line. That’s why at the polls, at least in statewide elections, Texans still vote for Republicans when a true Democrat is on the other side.
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Anon, I expect the Texas Democrats to start winning down-ballot statewide offices in 2014, and if Bill White can win KBH’s Senate seat, it could be the beginning of a Democratic comeback down here.
Republican-crunch-numbers say by 2022, the Latino vote will grow so fast that the Democrats will eventually take over state government and Texas will be a Blue state once again.
Reply »
asmith says:
Pretty good analysis. I generally agree with the what Henson and Bacelice said. The state is Red, but they are losing ground from under them. The Dems have to field strong candidates for the statewides next year, or they’ll lose ground that they have gained since 2004. I just don’t think there’s enough money to go around.
The Texas Democrats need a Mark Warner type candidate, and I don’t think Bill White fits the description. We have to run a DLC type candidate for Governor or Senator, although that would tick off the activist types. I doubt they even know where the exurbs are and who lives there.
I don’t belive the exurbs are the battleground yet, but I do belive the older suburbs are the battleground now and will be comfortably Democratic areas in the next two election cycles. Exurbs in Texas are about 3 or 4 more election cycles from being competitive. Look at how Obama did in Denton/Collin/Williamson compared to Kerry.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
An exurb is a place where someone lives? Ohhhhh….
Reply »
Pat says:
Bingo.
The Dems don’t have much of a choice for 2010. The have to field strong candidates for the LRB seats or many of their gains in the House will be redistricted into oblivion. They can’t count on the Senate blocking a redistricting plan, either: the 2/3d’s rule is crap as long as the Dew is there.
If the D’s can pick off the Dew, they get a double-whammy: restoration of the 2/3d’s rule and a seat on the LRB.
Reply »
Pete says:
Question for Paul: What part of your blog is NOT for political junkies??
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
I hope that a lot of this blog is accessible to ordinary people who have an interest in politics. “For Junkies Only” is my surgeon-general’s warning that the subject is numbers.
Reply »
asmith says:
I wasn’t talking about you Philip. I think you do a great job on BOR, and in the party. I was referring to the old relics in the SDEC and in the party that don’t understand whats happening in the suburbs or exurbs.
The Dems have a lot of good young talent. They just need a plan and get on the same page.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I doubted it was directed at me; I just like to come through and double-check stuff like that. I’m also of the generation where most of the activists I know “get it” — I think most know what it will take to win, and most (if not all) of us want to spend the years to make it happen.
Reply »
texun Reply:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
You and Paul are right about the Texas Democratic Party: it lacks direction and leadership. Too many members of the SDEC are there to hold their places and to make excuses for inactivity. Until the Party goes through the same shift in value that the Republicans did during the 1960s and 1970s and moves along to develop organizational capacities that are relevant to competitive politics, the Republicans will own the franchise.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Sorry, knocking off Dewhurst – if it could be done – doesn’t get you a 2/3rds rule. It doesn’t get you squat. Republicans would go ahead and rewrite the rules completely – rendering a Democrat Lt. Governor useless (probably with the duties now held by the Doorkeeper).
And one seat on the LRB doesn’t mean anything. You need three. And knocking off Combs, Pattersoon or Abbott is pretty highly unlikely, probably impossible.
It’s irrelevant anyway; Dewhurst could spend $30 million in a re-election campaign (or any office he chooses to run for). With that much cash, an opponent never gets in a word edgewise.
Are you listening John Sharp?
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Anon, why would Sharp challenge Dewhurst’s reelection bid for Lieutenant Governor in 2010 ?
I think Dewhurst is more likely going after KBH’s Senate seat, unless State Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) runs for the Senate seat and Dewhurst has to seek a 3rd term in his current gig.
On Patterson, I have a feeling that 2010 maybe his last political campaign because he looks BORED.
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
A. Smith, what the Texas Democrats need is 1.) a Karl Rove type-good ole boy type of Democrat who can reach out to white rural voters, etc., 2.) If they want to go after the Big Fishes: Governor’s Mansion or United States Senator, they need someone like a Mark Warner clone to run for those races, 3.) they need to hope that either KBH or Perry are severely damaged from the GOP primary in the governor’s race in 2010.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
To Frank Perez:
Apparently you don’t know Karl Rove. He is not a good ol’ boy. I don’t mean this disparagingly. He’s a driven political pro.
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
BREAKING NEWS:
California State Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) to run for the governorship again in 2010 for a 3rd non-consecutive term, fundraising reports have him with $4.1 million in campaign coffers.
Reply »
Virg says:
For the not so savvy…According to Merriam-Webster online, exurb is “a region or settlement that lies outside a city and usually beyond its suburbs and that often is inhabited chiefly by well-to-do families.” Seems to me that it describes a place inhabited by folks that maybe fiscal conservatives but social moderates (if not liberal leaning).
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 am
“Beyond the suburbs” was Henson’s context. Democrats do well on the urban fringes, where old and new abut. The next layer is the exurbs. Example: black flight into Pearland from Houston.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
asmith-The only think Warner has on White is smaller ears and better hair, but he too is a success story. His parents were educators, he has a passion for service, and has demonstrated he can make a lot more money in the private sector, but choses not to.
Reply »
Calculatin' Coke says:
Mark Warner also had a truckload of cash, a huge supply of Democratic volunteers from government and non-profit workers and a real political party. Texas Democrats used the workers to their advantage in Travis, Williamson and Hays. But Texas has never really had organized political parties, just organizations centered around individual advancement.
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
From what I’ve been hearing, Mark Warner has his eyes on the White House either in 2016 or 2020, since he was a very popular former Virginia governor and currently United States Senator.
Reply »
Stringer Bell says:
I have always thought that the “consultant as genius” model is over-rated. I mean Rove rose to power as the Republican Party rose to power, I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve credit, but all of this should be within reason.
Candidates, not consultants, are what drive elections. I know that White and Sharp are considered top-tier candidates. Honestly, I don’t see it. White will have many of the same problems moving from the municipal state to the statewide stage as Ron Kirk did. Senate is just a partisan job.
Sharp is trying be both your daddy’s Stenholm Democrat and tomorrow’s smart blogging liberal. If anyone can do it, he can.
Money is always the first primary. I think a liberal self funder (like the wind guru who ran against Culberson) are what the Democrat party needs. I remember a conversation about Roy Barrera, who ran for Attorney General in the 80s as a Republican. He was a good guy, a qualified guy — and he knew he’d lose.
There is some of this in every minority party. If Democrats feel they can only back this specific state rep race or that certain State Senate race, then they’ll find the statewide engine won’t work when they need it to. Here is a little secret, funding for political candidates isn’t finite. If you find good candidates, they will have their own sphere of influence, their own political connections, business connections, etc.
Paul, I was struck by the ever-changing nature of the fav/unfav numbers. I think Republicans (who have seen some significant erosion under 43) are poised for a significant comeback under 44. Sure, Obama’s numbers are stellar, but he already seems to be ceding too much ground to Pelosi, Frank, etc.
Polls are like a snapshot in a movie. Trends are trends, just because we’ve seen erosion in suburbs and urban areas (as those areas become more diverse) it doesn’t mean continued large gains are guaranteed. As ESPN’s Chris Berman might say, “that’s why they play the game.”
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I like this comment. And is the name a reference to the first season of The Wire? I hope so…
Reply »
Tim says:
I think the biggest problem for Democrats are Democrats. It’s nearly impossible to convince any Democrat in Texas that Democrats are the majority. Conventional wisdom is that the majority of the state is Republican. Most Democrat voters still don’t know that Houston and Dallas are blue.
If the Democratic party made a concerted effort to say, “Hey, you know what, everyone in Texas isn’t a Republican and here are the numbers to prove it”, they might attract more money and talent. No one wants to be part of a losing team, and the Democrats really haven’t done a good job of broadcasting the fact that they’ve started becoming the winning team in Texas.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
Well, I’m glad that Mr. Burka has saved the Democrats so much time and trouble. Now, we know that we can go home and wait for Anglos to die and the Hispanic population to grow. Viva 2025!
The Dems are obviously doomed in ’10. Republicans will be raring to vote for either Perry or Huchitson after they finish field-dressing each other in the primary. As everyone knows, negative campaigning always drives up turnout. Isn’t that why they do it?
And there’s just no way that the Democrats can overcome the Republican money advantage. Just because the Republican outspent the Democrat in nearly every state house race the GOP has lost in the last couple cycles, the Democrats can’t compete.
But even if you don’t buy the money argument, the past is always a perfect predictor of the future. If you didn’t win in ’08, you can’t win in ’10. It’s just impregnable logic.
Ignore the trends in Dallas, Harris and now even Williamson counties. That’s just voters getting confused. The Democrats may have invested a lot of money and effort into field organizations, but everyone knows that the dividends are few and fleeting.
Perhaps worst of all, the Democrats will have nothing to say to the voters in 2010. If unemployment lines are long and bankruptcies are mushrooming, the public will want to stay the course and support the party in power. In Texas, that’s the Republicans.
I just wish we had an amoral, vicious college dropout to come in and fix all this.
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Jeff, my money is on the Texas Democrats winning down-ballot statewide offices in 2014.
Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams (R) can’t raise enough cash if he’s up against Houston Mayor Bill White (D).
Stringer-I liked Ron Kirk as Dallas Mayor, but I KNEW the guy was doomed in the 2002 Senate race for several factors:
1. Tony Sanchez was at the top of the Democratic statewide ticket in 2002 and ran a horrible campaign for the Governor’s Mansion against Perry.
2. Kirk couldn’t connect with Latino and White voters, plus despite his bi-partisanship record in Dallas, the GOP managed to tag him as a big government liberal if elected, which Kirk just couldn’t shake off.
3. Spent $14 million to Cornyn’s massive war-chest in terms of fundraising and money.
4. 2002 was a GOP year, plus 9/11 didn’t help the TX Dems’ cause either.
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Jeff, SOONER OR LATER, the GOP’s dictatorship in Texas will come to an end, say 2014.
In Venezuela, student groups and political opposition are protesting against Hugo Chavez, in his second attempt to abolish term limits so that he can run for a 4th term as President in 2012 (he tried to shove the referendum back in ’07 and failed).
Reply »
Ed Martin says:
Speaking of Democrats investing money and effort into field organization – and research and voter files and microtargeting and downballot races and such – perhaps those of you calling for a Texas version of Mark Warner should go back and look at how he got where he is today.
Yes, he made money, but before he won anything, he lost his first Senate race in Virginia. After that, he became the Virgina Democratic Party Chair and invested a substantial sum of his money rebuilding the Party infrastructure before he ran for Governor. That investment concept was similar to the investments Democrats have made the last two cycles in Texas, although some armchair purveyors of what was once called “conventional wisdom” apparently think all those gains were an accident instead of a pragmatic approach to building a foundation for statewide success.
Obviously, Texas is not blue, Paul. Change doesn’t happen overnight in a state this big when the other Party has all the advantages of incumbency (cash and PR), but it happens. Candidates, consultants, and circumstance can hasten or retard that change, but when the time is right, the foundation has to be in place for them. That’s what Democrats have been doing the past two cycles in Texas, and it will take a continued effort to realize the political potential of demographics and the Republicans’ pathetic record during the time they’ve had absolute control of state government (dare I dismiss all those scapegoats that are really to blame).
But as Jeff noted wryly, past is not prologue. If it were, Craddick would still be Speaker, right Paul?
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Ed, former Texas Governor Mark White (D) strongly considering running for Houston Mayor this year, if he does run, he’ll have an uphill battle because City Councilman Peter Brown (D), former City Attorneys Gene Locke (D-my pick to win), Benjamin Hall, III., and City Controller Annise Parker (D) are running.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
Frank Perez has exceeded the five comments per post rule. Sir, you are now the new “Moderate Texas Democrat.” Congrats.
Reply »
Linda Curtis says:
For indies, it’s not an ideological thang. We made an issue the Dems could have used in rural Texas — in 2006, when Grandma spoke at 20 Trans-Texas Corridor hearings and invested in the rural areas. 600,000 rural voters went independent in ’06 for Carole or Kinky. More to the point is that indies aren’t just “fiscal conservatives”, we’re political reformers, as are many within both parties. The Dems could push in this session for redistricting reform, but they’ll probably wait for control, so they can whup on the R’s. Boring! You want the indy vote? Speak to it.
Reply »
John Robert BEHRMAN says:
The Democratic Party of Texas is one of two weak parties here which, as is typical of ex-Confederate states, (i) compete narrowly and (ii) collaborate broadly.
Two salient manifestations of this are (a) the low political participation rate in what would otherwise be a “battleground state” and (b) the peculiar power-sharing rules which distinguish the leglislative branch of state government and the Home Rule cities.
The Democratic Party of Texas could break out of that institutional framework, — our “Grisham novel” — but probably not under the direction of our Washington or Austin party establishments: No, they are way too invested in a received model of bi-partisan concession-tending.
Paul Burka is one part of that establishment but, at least, asks the right question of another part of it, Ed and Philip Martin: “How do they turn party ID into votes?”
They sort of answer in their rather pedestrian way: “field organization, … research and voter files, … microtargeting, downballot races, and such” (Ed) … “years to make it happen” (Philip).
Those are how the left-wing establishment of a coalition maintains stifling control needed, as I say, to compete narrowly and collaborate broadly. So, as Paul Burka observes neutrally of both wings of the establishment he covers and mirrors, …
“It’s still a red state, but the trend line favors Democrats.”
Another approach would be strategic. It would expose a Schwerpunkt, not simply a trend. It would exploit (a) actual events using new technology for otherwise old-fashioned (b) political formation, mobilization, discipline, and action.
Absent that, the Austin-centric Texas Democratic Party — the residuals of a former Texas House Speakers’ claque — will allow the GOP in Texas to raise money as the ruling party and run as the opposition party. That is what the dominant one of two weak Jim Crow parties has been able to do since 1874 here in the Western Department of the ex-Confederate states.
But, that can change dramatically: Col. Wyly explains how in “Maneuvering Large Organizations”, and Barack Obama just did it relative to the Democratic Party nationally.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Let’s look at the steps in that “maneuvering large organizations” link:
1) True believers must sacrifice their careers to succeed.
Last I knew, anyone that works for the TDP is sacrificing their careers for a greater cause. No one there is making any real money. And though I’ve never worked for the TDP (or any other number of people you think I’ve worked for), I sure as hell am not pursuing a cushy career; I’m going to grad school and have $80k in debt + interest in order to go back to Texas and spend the next 40 years doing what people like my Dad have done — actually work at improving the lives of Texans.
2) Be factual and use logic.
That’s the Lone Star Project, John. And it’s what Annie’s List does when they promote candidates. And what BOR does when we correctly predict the Speaker’s race — unlike others.
3) Run small experiments to demonstrate it works.
Dallas County in 2006. Harris County in 2008.
4) Capture the training establishment.
We don’t have anywhere to “keep” young workers. There is no upward ladder b/c Republicans occupy every higher rung. That prevents us from developing individuals with statewide understanding, but it does help us grow a base of workers who are exceptional at regional races. Until someone breaks the statewide ceiling, you can’t have a warfare school. (And there is no flow of tax dollars to help out a political party).
5) Convert the young captains.
See #4.
6) Persist.
Who’s quitting? The TDP raised more money that it had in years, gained 700k net votes, and is developing an enormous small-donor base.
7) Promote a champion to the top position.
This would need to be a candidate running for Governor. Not U.S. Senator — that’s national politics, not TX politics. And I can’t force someone to run. I agree this needs to happen, but it not happening is not the fault of any the people you love to blame.
About the only ones who seem to be impatient with all the work that’s gone into play over the last three years are (1) the writers of TX Monthly, and (2) people like you, John, who are never satisfied with anyone’s work.
———–
How’s that for logic and persistence?
Reply »
Frank Perez says:
Spiro, I am NOT the Moderate Texas Dem you son of a bitch.
JRB, look for the TX Dems to win down-ballot statewide offices in 2014 and take over the entire state by 2022 once the Latino vote explodes very fast.
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
I said you are the “new” Moderate Texas Democrat on this site because you post non-stop and at times it seems like you are talking to yourself.
Reply »
asmith says:
Well done Phillip
Reply »