Jump to content

2024 Senate Elections


Ghost of LL
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

This will be interesting.  He's been WV-02 representative since 2015 (elected in 2014).

Prior to that, he was Chair of the Maryland GOP for 3 years and a member of the Maryland State Senate for over a decade.  Born in DC.  Tried to run for MD-06 in 2014, withdrew and then moved to WV to run.

Against Joe Manchin, born in Farmington, WV, went to WVU, member of the WV House of Delegates for 6 years, WV Senate for 10 years, WV SOS for 4 years, WV Governor for 5 years and the state's Senior Senator since 2010. 

Manchin should start bringing home the bacon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This will be interesting.  He's been WV-02 representative since 2015 (elected in 2014).

Prior to that, he was Chair of the Maryland GOP for 3 years and a member of the Maryland State Senate for over a decade.  Born in DC.  Tried to run for MD-06 in 2014, withdrew and then moved to WV to run.

Against Joe Manchin, born in Farmington, WV, went to WVU, member of the WV House of Delegates for 6 years, WV Senate for 10 years, WV SOS for 4 years, WV Governor for 5 years and the state's Senior Senator since 2010. 

It’s people like this that I don’t get—why do you just HAVE to be in politics? If you lost in your home state and then move states just to win to be in Congress, it’s not about the people anymore rather it’s about your personal gain. why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pancho said:

It’s people like this that I don’t get—why do you just HAVE to be in politics? If you lost in your home state and then move states just to win to be in Congress, it’s not about the people anymore rather it’s about your personal gain. why? 

Uh, I think you answered your own question quite succinctly, sir. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zonahorn said:

Countdown to Kyrsten losing her primary

I was thinking about this the other day...This is another reason the GA runoff is so important. In a 50/50 senate, she would have leverage to prevent a primary challenger in that she could threaten to caucus with the Republicans, handing control back to Mitch. If Warnock wins, that is blunted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I was thinking about this the other day...This is another reason the GA runoff is so important. In a 50/50 senate, she would have leverage to prevent a primary challenger in that she could threaten to caucus with the Republicans, handing control back to Mitch. If Warnock wins, that is blunted. 

We're in more danger if she's the nominee.  I would have serious concerns that a lot of Democrats would leave that race blank rather than vote for her.  Her approval rating in Arizona is in the absolute shitter.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2022 at 11:12 AM, chainsaw said:

If he's smart, he runs as I and dems run nobody

This is the best scenario. Sure it failed in Utah but Texas isn't like Idaho and Utah. There is a possible path for Republicans to get less than 50% of a statewide vote. Unfortunately I don't think there is a possible path for Democrats to get over 50%. 48% is probably the ceiling as things stand now.

Even if Matthew McConaughey decides to caucus with the Republicans, him being I would put him in a position to break with them without the usual ability of the party to pressure him.

Edited by Valmy77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We're in more danger if she's the nominee.  I would have serious concerns that a lot of Democrats would leave that race blank rather than vote for her.  Her approval rating in Arizona is in the absolute shitter.

She got censured, and Gallego has all but announced his intention to run against her. She's done for

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoke with Brisket's friend at the Texas GOP this morning.  Asked him about an idea.  By his best estimate, Cruz voters are about 70/30, 70% vote for Ted because he's the R and they go straight ticket, 30% because they like Ted Cruz.  But that's in a general.  Once he beat Dewhurst, he'd never have a primary opponent for the rest of his Senate life (2018, 2024, & 2030-which is probably the next cycle he's vulnerable in a general).  So he never bothered to be likable to his own party.  

so the idea goes, there are no statewide races of any concern to the Democrats.  They're not winning those 3 SCOTX or boosting Craddick from RRC.  so who cares who their primary candidates are in those?  Not even the diehard liberals are gonna pretend to give fuck one.  So if Biden runs again, the Democratic primary ballot is literally not worth the paper it's printed on.  Aside from a 2 competitive house races for House spots from Texas (that were under 55% one way or the other)...there's nothing for a Democrat to bother with.  If a big enough name were to run against Ted in his primary, get 26% of Republican primary voters to back him and 26% of would-be Democrat (or whatever the number needs to be based on delta in party turnout for each primary), that would beat Cruz without a runoff?  Assuming the Democratic Party can effectively communicate that to its voters without being directly involved.  Plus, the sugar on top is those Democrats pulling a GOP ballot get to vote on whomever fucks up the GOP Presidential primary the most. (I left this part out of the pitch, but it's a win-win).  Now if the Democratic field is wide open, this idea stinks.  I would think a runoff wouldn't be an issue because if it's just this mystery guest and Cruz, somebody is breaking 50%.  There should be no third candidate to syphon.  This is the only cycle to primary Cruz out.  2030 will have too many high stakes statewides with a demography reset and democrats will have their own bench to cull through their own primary system.  

Record for most GOP primary votes for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas was about 1.4mm in 2012  with a crowded, competitive field of 4 high-vote getters.  This'll be a Presidential year but again, nothing at stake really for Texas, the State.  So assume that record holds.  You telling me you can't get 350,000 Republicans who hate Ted Cruz and 350,000 would-be Democrats to get out and remove him from office for someone more moderate/likable?  You could accidentally organize something that easily from behind the curtain.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Oof--Debbie Stabenow announces that she will not seek reelection in 2024.  

I think you would anticipate that Gretchen Witmer would be the leading option for that seat, and I suspect Schumer will put the full-court press on to recruit her.  But still--I don't love having an open seat in Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oof--Debbie Stabenow announces that she will not seek reelection in 2024.  

I think you would anticipate that Gretchen Witmer would be the leading option for that seat, and I suspect Schumer will put the full-court press on to recruit her.  But still--I don't love having an open seat in Michigan.

The Dems just whipped the GOP statewide.  It's not a lock, but I wouldn't sweat that seat too hard, given WV, OH, MT.  Basically, if the Dems are losing MI in 2024, they are losing across the board. 

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oof--Debbie Stabenow announces that she will not seek reelection in 2024.  

I think you would anticipate that Gretchen Witmer would be the leading option for that seat, and I suspect Schumer will put the full-court press on to recruit her.  But still--I don't love having an open seat in Michigan.

Detroit Fetterman, let's ride.  

Samuel J. Robinson on Twitter: "Michigan's first Black House Speaker is  Rep. Joe Tate, a Democrat from Detroit. https://t.co/iD7FRGkLKx" / Twitter

(Twitter seems to think it'll be Slotkin or Buttigieg)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The Dems just whipped the GOP statewide.  It's not a lock, but I wouldn't sweat that seat too hard, given WV, OH, MT.  Basically, if the Dems are losing MI in 2024, they are losing across the board. 

And the GOP will just nominate John James the statewide loser 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oof--Debbie Stabenow announces that she will not seek reelection in 2024.  

I think you would anticipate that Gretchen Witmer would be the leading option for that seat, and I suspect Schumer will put the full-court press on to recruit her.  But still--I don't love having an open seat in Michigan.

She's 72, today. Do you want her to hang around until she's in a Feinstein like haze? We need to get these fucking fossils out of office, that goes for both sides of the aisle. I don't have anything against her, but she's right.....its time to pass the torch. I wish more of her colleagues do the same. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Blotto said:

She's 72, today. Do you want her to hang around until she's in a Feinstein like haze? We need to get these fucking fossils out of office, that goes for both sides of the aisle. I don't have anything against her, but she's right.....its time to pass the torch. I wish more of her colleagues do the same. 

Yes. Thank you.

It is not like Feinstein is critical to keeping California voting Democrat. What a waste that is. Instead of helping some super star rising from the biggest state in the Union, they keep electing these 80 year olds.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blotto said:

She's 72, today. Do you want her to hang around until she's in a Feinstein like haze? We need to get these fucking fossils out of office, that goes for both sides of the aisle. I don't have anything against her, but she's right.....its time to pass the torch. I wish more of her colleagues do the same. 

I'm not arguing that point.  I'm just saying I don't love having an open seat in a swing-ish state when we're already having to defend seats in Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elisse Slotkin already on her way to clearing the field in Michigan. Nessel, Whitmer and Pete all say no. Gilchrist and Benson could be eying Whitmer’s seat in 2026. Peters is also up in 2026 and is 64 and has been in Congress since 2009.  McMorrow may wait for that 2026 opportunity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Senator approvals dropped.  Let's look at the 2024 vulnerable seats, which are almost all Dem held except Texas.

Sinema (AZ-I) - -11
Tester (D-MT) - +30 (!!)
Rosen (D-NV) - +1
Brown (D-OH) - +8
Casey (D-PA) - +5
Kaine (D-VA)) - +5
Manchin (D-WV) - -13 (!!)
Baldwin (D-WI) - 0

Cruz (R-TX) - -1

Tester is in the top 10 for approvals. Manchin, Sinema and Cruz are in the bottom 10. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would love to see Manchin go, there is a near zero percent chance that he gets replaced by a Democrat that can win that election. 

Sinema seems to be setting herself up for a clash with the Dems by running as an Independent. Given the razor thin R/D split in 2022 midterms, it's unlikely a Dem could win that seat if she's running third party.  Seems like she's taking the "If you want to remove me, you will get a Republican instead" approach. Not sure it's worth the fight, but I guess that depends on who is running for the Republicans in that seat.  

Each of those close races are certainly winnable, but it's going to be close. Cruz is unlikely to be overthrown, unless Texas Dems come up with a surprise candidate that has a lot of independent/centrist appeal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

While I would love to see Manchin go, there is a near zero percent chance that he gets replaced by a Democrat that can win that election. 

Sinema seems to be setting herself up for a clash with the Dems by running as an Independent. Given the razor thin R/D split in 2022 midterms, it's unlikely a Dem could win that seat if she's running third party.  Seems like she's taking the "If you want to remove me, you will get a Republican instead" approach. Not sure it's worth the fight, but I guess that depends on who is running for the Republicans in that seat.  

Each of those close races are certainly winnable, but it's going to be close. Cruz is unlikely to be overthrown, unless Texas Dems come up with a surprise candidate that has a lot of independent/centrist appeal. 

Sinema has a higher approval among Republicans than she does among Democrats.  I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion that she would take more Democratic votes than Republican.

Regardless, you're exactly right that that's her play.  And it's a good play.  Or, at least, it's the only play she has given that she would almost certainly lose in a primary.  And playing your only play qualifies as a "good" play, I suppose.

But I honestly don't think it's a play that gets her reelected.  She's not Lisa Murkowski.  She's just a schlub that pretty much everyone now hates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Sinema has a higher approval among Republicans than she does among Democrats.  I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion that she would take more Democratic votes than Republican.

Regardless, you're exactly right that that's her play.  And it's a good play.  Or, at least, it's the only play she has given that she would almost certainly lose in a primary.  And playing your only play qualifies as a "good" play, I suppose.

But I honestly don't think it's a play that gets her reelected.  She's not Lisa Murkowski.  She's just a schlub that pretty much everyone now hates.

With the absolute trash Republicans have been running in Az I think she absolutely pulls more R votes than D if she ran as an independant. Who's going to run for that seat from the Republican side? Masters again? Lake? The only person that would scare me is Doug Ducey, but he hasn't shown much interest in running. Maybe he sees the weakness on both sides and jumps in in '24. Or maybe he sees the AZ Republican Party has gone pure MAGA and stays away... I think Gallego could win that seat going away in a 3 way race with Sinema and some MAGAot. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 10:11 AM, Js1 said:

New Senator approvals dropped.  Let's look at the 2024 vulnerable seats, which are almost all Dem held except Texas.

Sinema (AZ-I) - -11
Tester (D-MT) - +30 (!!)
Rosen (D-NV) - +1
Brown (D-OH) - +8
Casey (D-PA) - +5
Kaine (D-VA)) - +5
Manchin (D-WV) - -13 (!!)
Baldwin (D-WI) - 0

Cruz (R-TX) - -1

Tester is in the top 10 for approvals. Manchin, Sinema and Cruz are in the bottom 10. 

I think OH, PA, VA will be safe it nothing unexpected happens.  I also think Dems can fund far right nutjobs in AZ, NV, WI, MT, and WV to win the GOP nom to make their candidate more appealing to the middle 70%; if they can hold 3 of those seats I would consider that a good outcome for them.  That Cruz shit is a mirage; he's going to win again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

I think OH, PA, VA will be safe it nothing unexpected happens.  I also think Dems can fund far right nutjobs in AZ, NV, WI, MT, and WV to win the GOP nom to make their candidate more appealing to the middle 70%; if they can hold 3 of those seats I would consider that a good outcome for them.  That Cruz shit is a mirage; he's going to win again.

Hey, don't worry - Kari Lake claims she is "thinking" about running

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

I think OH, PA, VA will be safe it nothing unexpected happens.  I also think Dems can fund far right nutjobs in AZ, NV, WI, MT, and WV to win the GOP nom to make their candidate more appealing to the middle 70%; if they can hold 3 of those seats I would consider that a good outcome for them.  That Cruz shit is a mirage; he's going to win again.

I just don't know who is going to challenge Cruz.  If the Dems had a real candidate, I might think that were possible.  But I just don't see one out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Texas conundrum is that we won't develop a quality Democratic bench in the state until there's some tangible signs that there is a chance for state-wide wins.  Otherwise it's just political suicide.  I don't think Beto counts.  With the Latino stupids trending MAGA I doubt anything will change in the state for the duration of this decade.

Or we need a self funded billionaire to try and waste some of their money on a vanity campaign to make a dent in the margins enough that an establishment D can break through.  Don't see one of those.

Edited by Old Freak Nasty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

The Texas conundrum is that we won't develop a quality Democratic bench in the state until there's some tangible signs that there is a chance for state-wide wins.  Otherwise it's just political suicide.  I don't think Beto counts.  With the Latino stupids trending MAGA I doubt anything will change in the state for the duration of this decade.

Or we need a self funded billionaire to try and waste some of their money on a vanity campaign to make a dent in the margins enough that an establishment D can break through.  Don't see one of those.

Cuban? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt Dolan is running against Sherrod Brown in Ohio.

Dolan strikes me as kind of an empty suit.  He's a state rep whose family owns the Guardians.  He ran last year for Senate, but came in third in the Republican primary.  Kind of hard to see how he gets a lot of traction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I just don't know who is going to challenge Cruz.  If the Dems had a real candidate, I might think that were possible.  But I just don't see one out there.

Cruz won't lose a 2024 general.  Maybe 2030, but who the fuck knows what it's all gonna be like then?  

Only way to get rid of Cruz in 2024 is via primary with extremely high turnout of Democrats pulling R primary ballots.  The only high-profile Democrat primaries in 2024 are for a whopping 2 U.S. House Seats that are still competitive given the right D-candidate versus incumbent GOP'ers.  If you think it matters who you vote for in the 2 or 3 open SCofTX primaries, you're wasting time and fuel.  I know some of y'all have friends and colleagues running for local, or very local, races in 2024 on that side of the aisle so do what you gotta do.  But if you accept most urban Democratic primaries are also foregone conclusions...consider a scenario:

A moderate Republican or Independent runs on the GOP primary against Cruz.  20% or so disenfranchised Republicans return to pull an R-primary ballot, 20% of Democrats agree to pull an R ballot and get over their bullshit and vote for this other candidate, and 20% of the regular Cruz voters who openly hate the smarmy cunt...gladly vote for this new alternative.  Pepper in some inspired independents/rarely-voters and libertarians...and baby...you got yourself a stew!   

In a truly contested primary with lots of outreach and inclusion to disgruntled Republicans, "I'll vote for Cruz unless there's a dead rabbit on the ballot as well" GOP'ers, and a slew of Democrats who realize the game...someone would only need about 700-900k votes in the primary.  250k-300k from each of my three buckets.  Now if it goes to a runoff, then all bets are off...Cruz has a good mechanism in place for that.  But there's nothing of note for 90% of Democrats in Texas elections in 2024.  Remember, you can still vote your heart's content in a general and on bonds and referendums.  

Your party is going to pay to run fringe-right candidates to usurp more electable Republicans all over the country.  We can't get 250,000 of you in solidly blue areas to pull an R ballot and hold your nose for the good of the state?  Ask me, beats the flying fuck out of throwing $75-$100mm at some flashy name D candidate who'll lose to Cruz by 9 points in a general.  

Cruz's own state director says by their best guess, only about 1/3rd of Cruz voters emphatically vote for him/like him.  The other 1/3 just vote incumbent primary/straight ticket general and the last 1/3rd just go off owning the libs.  In a primary, 800k votes will easily carry the day and destroy Cruz before a general.  I know holding your nose and asking for an R ballot, and worse-reaching out to former Republicans is gonna sting.  But sometimes there's shit bigger than our own politics.  And the biggest shit is named Ted. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Cruz won't lose a 2024 general.  Maybe 2030, but who the fuck knows what it's all gonna be like then?  

Only way to get rid of Cruz in 2024 is via primary with extremely high turnout of Democrats pulling R primary ballots.  The only high-profile Democrat primaries in 2024 are for a whopping 2 U.S. House Seats that are still competitive given the right D-candidate versus incumbent GOP'ers.  If you think it matters who you vote for in the 2 or 3 open SCofTX primaries, you're wasting time and fuel.  I know some of y'all have friends and colleagues running for local, or very local, races in 2024 on that side of the aisle so do what you gotta do.  But if you accept most urban Democratic primaries are also foregone conclusions...consider a scenario:

A moderate Republican or Independent runs on the GOP primary against Cruz.  20% or so disenfranchised Republicans return to pull an R-primary ballot, 20% of Democrats agree to pull an R ballot and get over their bullshit and vote for this other candidate, and 20% of the regular Cruz voters who openly hate the smarmy cunt...gladly vote for this new alternative.  Pepper in some inspired independents/rarely-voters and libertarians...and baby...you got yourself a stew!   

In a truly contested primary with lots of outreach and inclusion to disgruntled Republicans, "I'll vote for Cruz unless there's a dead rabbit on the ballot as well" GOP'ers, and a slew of Democrats who realize the game...someone would only need about 700-900k votes in the primary.  250k-300k from each of my three buckets.  Now if it goes to a runoff, then all bets are off...Cruz has a good mechanism in place for that.  But there's nothing of note for 90% of Democrats in Texas elections in 2024.  Remember, you can still vote your heart's content in a general and on bonds and referendums.  

Your party is going to pay to run fringe-right candidates to usurp more electable Republicans all over the country.  We can't get 250,000 of you in solidly blue areas to pull an R ballot and hold your nose for the good of the state?  Ask me, beats the flying fuck out of throwing $75-$100mm at some flashy name D candidate who'll lose to Cruz by 9 points in a general.  

Cruz's own state director says by their best guess, only about 1/3rd of Cruz voters emphatically vote for him/like him.  The other 1/3 just vote incumbent primary/straight ticket general and the last 1/3rd just go off owning the libs.  In a primary, 800k votes will easily carry the day and destroy Cruz before a general.  I know holding your nose and asking for an R ballot, and worse-reaching out to former Republicans is gonna sting.  But sometimes there's shit bigger than our own politics.  And the biggest shit is named Ted. 

Okay, well, wouldn't that then be the responsibility of "your party" to roll out a moderate candidate in "your primary" for me to even consider doing that?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Okay, well, wouldn't that then be the responsibility of "your party" to roll out a moderate candidate in "your primary" for me to even consider doing that?

Ain't my party.  Just because you don't register as a Democrat doesn't mean they hold a gun to your head and insist you register as a Republican.  Haven't been a member of a major party since 2008 and no party at all since 2016.  My 2022 General Ballot was 40% Democratic, 30% Republican, and 30% Libertarian.  And some abstains for uncontested judicial races, those just annoy me. 

But yes, we've floated the idea to some influential Republicans in the state.  The fact that nobody's laughed it off, merely dismisses it as too big a logistical challenge gives me hope.  I give it a 10% chance of happening.  Other 90% is run a high-profile Democrat who clears their own primary field, raises $75mm in a general and loses to Cruz by high single-digits.  Ted Cruz won't be appointed to anything of significance in 2024/25.  And he's not losing a general in 2024, not even close.  If there's a better way to get him outta office, my mind is wide fucking open. 

750k primary voters pull R ballots and vote "Not Cruz" and Ted loses.  Only 250k of them need be typical Democrat voters.  Less than 10% of you can be a part of the Final Solution to the Cruz Question.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Ain't my party.  Just because you don't register as a Democrat doesn't mean they hold a gun to your head and insist you register as a Republican.  Haven't been a member of a major party since 2008 and no party at all since 2016.  My 2022 General Ballot was 40% Democratic, 30% Republican, and 30% Libertarian.  And some abstains for uncontested judicial races, those just annoy me. 

But yes, we've floated the idea to some influential Republicans in the state.  The fact that nobody's laughed it off, merely dismisses it as too big a logistical challenge gives me hope.  I give it a 10% chance of happening.  Other 90% is run a high-profile Democrat who clears their own primary field, raises $75mm in a general and loses to Cruz by high single-digits.  Ted Cruz won't be appointed to anything of significance in 2024/25.  And he's not losing a general in 2024, not even close.  If there's a better way to get him outta office, my mind is wide fucking open. 

750k primary voters pull R ballots and vote "Not Cruz" and Ted loses.  Only 250k of them need be typical Democrat voters.  Less than 10% of you can be a part of the Final Solution to the Cruz Question.  

I don't believe I've ever "registered" as a member of any party in Texas, because we don't have that. Snark aside, I was simply flipping your original argument that placed the onus on the Dems when it's not really their responsibility to find non-lunatics as the opposition.

It's always the same tired argument just like it was during the Kevin McCarthy shit that somehow the Democrats are the ones to blame for the GQP going batshit.

(Had to revisit that thread to find this golden tweet.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bolverk said:

was simply flipping your original argument that placed the onus on the Dems when it's not really their responsibility to find non-lunatics as the opposition.

It's always the same tired argument just like it was during the Kevin McCarthy shit that somehow the Democrats are the ones to blame for the GQP going batshit.

Because they are easy punching bags. Deserved or not. Somehow they are both wholly incompetent but also responsible for everything 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2022 at 2:02 PM, Valmy77 said:

Well we have the same old problem.

We have prominent Democrats who are popular in Austin. We have popular Democrats who are popular in Houston. We have popular Democrats who are popular in Dallas. Same for San Antonio and El Paso. And down in the RGV I suppose.

But none have much reach outside of their little sphere. Beto is done politically unless he finds something he can win. So who runs against Cruz? I get Cruz is a shitty candidate but we need to get basically everybody who doesn't like Ted Cruz in Texas to agree that a Democrat is better to have in the Senate than him. That would have to be one hell of a Democrat.

I personally think a populist with radical ideas is better than some moderate who tries to be show how much he or she loves conservative ideas. But maybe I am wrong about that. We just haven't had much success with the moderate conservative Democrat in the past.

The thing is- Ted Cruz isn't really a shitty candidate for Texas. If you define a good candidate as one who gets elected and a bad one as one who doesn't.  He ran in a blue year where Beto was the hottest national star and finished 7 or 8 points right of the national vote.  Abbott won against a seriously diminished Beto that seemed to not even contest the election as a practical matter, with no excitement, and finished... 7 or 8 points right of the national vote for that election year.  Texas runs... 7 or 8 points right of the national election vote.  This is a presidential year.  That will swamp/overwhelm state Senate races all over and candidate quality won't matter all that much.  So, you have to win in 2024 by D +7 or 8 or 9 in the national environment, probably.  Maybe as little as D +5.  We just saw GOP +2 or +3 nationally.  Anyone really think that end of Biden first term, likely in a recession we are going to see a D+7 environment?  If so, that means the Dem's are pretty much invulnerable and they would likely have a very major and very real electoral advantage for at least a generation, maybe more.   It means that they hold onto all their disparate groups and don't leak any more with AA Males and/or hispanics of all stripes.  It could happen, but I'd certainly bet the opposite.  I don't think there is a path forward for Dems that has anything to do with candidates and it's not any more complicated than- hope the country flips really blue so that Texas itself flips light blue so that you can have an environment where you win state wide elections if you don't fuck shit up.  That could be coming, but he migration story seems like that's not here yet.  

Your best chance is Donald Trump winning the nomination in a brutal and terrible battle with Ron Desantis and then people that don't like Trump just not bothering to show up and vote. Or, Desantis beating Trump and Trump responding like a nutter and actively campaigning for Democrats as political retribution.  


Ok, now that I type that last paragraph out the GOP is pretty well fucked and Dems have a decent chance in Texas b/c the GOP will fuck everything up and Dems will go +7 or +10 nationally through no fault of their own, but because the GOP is cratering in smoking ruins in a hole created by allowing Trump to ever conduct his hostile take over of the party.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I don't believe I've ever "registered" as a member of any party in Texas, because we don't have that. Snark aside, I was simply flipping your original argument that placed the onus on the Dems when it's not really their responsibility to find non-lunatics as the opposition.

It's always the same tired argument just like it was during the Kevin McCarthy shit that somehow the Democrats are the ones to blame for the GQP going batshit.

(Had to revisit that thread to find this golden tweet.)

 

They don't have to find the candidate, they just need to turn out 250k of their voters to go primary Cruz's ass out.  Apples and oranges.  

And yes, you do not need to technically register under a party in Texas.  You just invent whatever ballot choice you want that cycle and voila, you get that in the primary and runoff.  But voters like you or I that are much more meticulous about how we vote don't really run in those circles...but most GOP voters and I'd say a plurality of Democratic voters are registered at the national level.  Now, it's gets murkier and murkier each election cycle.  Time was, you actually had to fill out a form and send it at least $25 or $50 to be on the national rolls.  Now you just click a button on an email, get a bumper sticker, and you're a "Registered Republican."  Yeah turnout will be high for 2024 POTUS, but if Biden runs uncontested, what fucking glory do y'all take in clicking the lever for Biden, 3 SCofTX justices, and Lloyd Doggett?  Foregone conclusions, do something useful at the polls for the love of God.  The Democrats are tripping over themselves already to find another $75mm 8% loser to face off against Cruz.  When the easier, cheaper option is staring them in the primary face.   He'll never be this vulnerable again given the Class I cycles.

Another thread for another time, but I am genuinely curious why Abbott & the RPT have never considered moving us towards that model again where you had to be registered under a certain party to pull that ballot.  I was surprised when they made the switch regarding straight ticket voting.  But I am downright shocked why they don't lock down their primary ballot system right now why they have the opportunity before non-MAGA's start fucking with how we fund primary opponents, primary ballot chaos, etc.  

Strip away all my bullshit (i know, a tall order).  For 300k votes (to be safe) from Democrats, and 500k from anti-Cruz Repubs and Indie likely-voters, and $15mm total, we can end Ted Cruz given the current apparatus.  That's how close the whole thing is from tumbling down.  There's no safeguards by RPT against this right now.  There will be on January 1st, 2025.  But not right now.  The RPT has to look the other way while an alternative emerges in primary season.  But you know what?  They looked the other way when 4 other no-names primaried incumbent Cruz to the tune of 230,000 votes and $5mm raised.  Nobody batted an eye 'cause they hate the fucker almost as much as we do.  Clear that same 230,000 and net another 500-600k from Cruz's usual total (half D, half R/I/L)...and he's fucking toast.  Provided we raise another $10mm for that high-profile alternative.  Dowd's not gonna do it.  MM isn't gonna do it.  It's gonna take a current Independent with name recognition or a moderate Republican who is likable that's already in GOP politics.  

The person exists, the math exists, the mechanism exists.  The will is severely lacking by all involved.  The Final Solution to the Cruz Question is out there though, I promise you.  

Edited by YGIFS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I just don't know who is going to challenge Cruz.  If the Dems had a real candidate, I might think that were possible.  But I just don't see one out there.

18 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

2024 is matthew Mcconaughey's time to shine. No better chance for him to win a Senate seat and flip that R to a D. 

Matthew Mcconaughey GIF

It really would be a good time for him to run if he was going to.  Could have an outside shot at influencing the Presidential race as well, given the electoral votes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...