Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Crockett Scambles Democrats

Each moment brings a fresh reason to be grateful she’s getting in. For example, we could have gotten this bullshit, which would have been the 2026 version of the Sanchez/Kirk “Dream Ticket” debacle:

 

To be fair to Kirk and Sanchez the Democrats were losing elections by like 30 points back in that era. It didn't really matter what they did.

Edited by Valmy77
Posted

Common sense says that running a centrist Dem increases the likelihood of winning a statewide vote in Texas but that hasn't really come to working in the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, running a more progressive Dem doesn't mean that every far left, progressive idea should be proclaimed since that will automatically disqualify them for many voters. I would stay away from guns and trans rights by just saying that this is an item for the courts to decide.

I would run a progressive Dem who mainly points out how the GOP has lied to their base and in many cases used Christianity to fool their voters. The GOP main strategy is to wrap themselves up in the flag, Jesus and hatred.

I've long thought that the left should scream that a someone can't call themselves a Christian and vote Republican. At least attempt to force some Christian Texans look themselves in the mirror.

Posted

I think people are fed up with the current system and are willing and eager to take chances on anybody promising big changes. So running some centrist status quo warrior will not get much traction.

Posted

Whoever runs needs to camp out in Harris county and make clear how they are going to be different from every other candidate in the last 30 years in making an actual impact in those constituents’ lives. Apathy is the main thing keeping Texas red 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Common sense says that running a centrist Dem increases the likelihood of winning a statewide vote in Texas but that hasn't really come to working in the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, running a more progressive Dem doesn't mean that every far left, progressive idea should be proclaimed since that will automatically disqualify them for many voters. I would stay away from guns and trans rights by just saying that this is an item for the courts to decide.

I would run a progressive Dem who mainly points out how the GOP has lied to their base and in many cases used Christianity to fool their voters. The GOP main strategy is to wrap themselves up in the flag, Jesus and hatred.

I've long thought that the left should scream that a someone can't call themselves a Christian and vote Republican. At least attempt to force some Christian Texans look themselves in the mirror.

I don't think it's really that hard--someone like Platner that codes working class, real, and is a good communicator will do well.  I like Gina Hinojosa (alot, she fine), but bonus points if they aren't coming from Austin and don't have the more obvious taint of virtue signaling Texas Democratic loser on them.  I'm a little disappointed that Houston doesn't seem to be a good laboratory for building candidates for anything statewide, mostly ceding that to Dallas.  

I like Talarico, too, but I'm expecting him to get trounced and hopefully put to bed the secular fever dream of a Christian liberal candidate that reveals the emptiness of the Christian right and wins elections.   

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I think people are fed up with the current system and are willing and eager to take chances on anybody promising big changes. So running some centrist status quo warrior will not get much traction.

I don’t think Talarico is a centrist.  He’s probably aligned with Crockett on all policy views.  The difference is Talarico won’t activate the racists and sexists on the other side to juice opposition turnout.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

To be fair to Kirk and Sanchez the Democrats were losing elections by like 30 points back in that era. It didn't really matter what they did.

That’s not at all accurate. Texas as still competitive. The GOP held the state senate by one seat. Sanchez got annihilated, losing by 18%, but John Sharp only lost the Gov Lite race by 5% and Kirk by 12.  And that sweep was only possible because the Democrats publicly chose to “keep their powder dry”* in 2000 and didn’t field a full ticket. Then they turned Kirk’s senate race into a referendum on who would be most helpful to Bush** between himself and Cornyn. 

If not for unforced errors Sharp wins in 2002, and Bell wins the Governor mansion in 2006 instead of losing by 10%.

Posted
1 minute ago, Snake Diggity said:

I don’t think Talarico is a centrist.  He’s probably aligned with Crockett on all policy views.  The difference is Talarico won’t activate the racists and sexists on the other side to juice opposition turnout.

Yeah I don't think he is a centrist either.

My main concern with him is he doesn't seem to channel working class rage like Platner does...but we shall see.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s not at all accurate. Texas as still competitive. The GOP held the state senate by one seat. Sanchez got annihilated, losing by 18%, but John Sharp only lost the Gov Lite race by 5% and Kirk by 12.  And that sweep was only possible because the Democrats publicly chose to “keep their powder dry”* in 2000 and didn’t field a full ticket. Then they turned Kirk’s senate race into a referendum on who would be most helpful to Bush** between himself and Cornyn. 

If not for unforced errors Sharp wins in 2002, and Bell wins the Governor mansion in 2006 instead of losing by 10%.

Fair. I may have misremembered how things were. I recall 30+ point beat downs from the late 90s.

Posted
Just now, Valmy77 said:

Yeah I don't think he is a centrist either.

My main concern with him is he doesn't seem to channel working class rage like Platner does...but we shall see.

Platner has his military background and blue collar beard look that appeal to some. Talarico can't mimic that. How someone physically looks can count for a large % of their support.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Common sense says that running a centrist Dem increases the likelihood of winning a statewide vote in Texas but that hasn't really come to working in the last 20 years. Don't

Centrism and moderation are fool’s gold, for multiple reasons.  I’m not saying a centrist or a moderate can’t win. They can, but it’s irrelevant to winning; doesn’t help, doesn’t hurt. It’s the middle ground between poles on a map nobody cares about out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Centrism and moderation are fool’s gold, for multiple reasons.  I’m not saying a centrist or a moderate can’t win. They can, but it’s irrelevant to winning; doesn’t help, doesn’t hurt. It’s the middle ground between poles on a map nobody cares about out.

Yes. Running a centrist gets you a 10 point loss in Texas. Its possible that a progressive could lose by much more, but they at least have the opportunity to win.

 

Posted

There is no such thing as a centrist at this point given the right wing messaging prevalent here. As far as tapping into working class rage, unfortunately that has been successfully co-opted by the Christian nationalists in Texas. The play is to get enough people in and around Houston off the sidelines and hope the draconian immigration tactics have an effect in the valley. The numbers have been there for 10+ years, no one has given them a reason to come out to the polls

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yes. Running a centrist gets you a 10 point loss in Texas. Its possible that a progressive could lose by much more, but they at least have the opportunity to win.

 

Thats where we disagree- I think being a moderate is neutral. Being a progressive is a negative.

Why be anything? Other than interesting and funny (and good looking, cool, etc), I mean. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted

I don't think you have to be a "moderate" or a "progressive."  I think you just have to be angry.

Elections in 2026 America are defined by anger.  Republicans want you to be angry at immigrants and trans people.  Of late, they've been pretty successful at it.

Democrats in Texas havne't figured out who you should be angry at.  That's kind of astonishing.  The Republican Party has been in power for thity years.  In that time, our schools have deteriorated, our electric grid has collapsed, our heatlhcare system is imperiled, and our taxes (for most people) have only gone up.  Texas has gotten worse, and we're paying a higher price for it.  There's literally nothing in Texas over which the state government has any say that is better today than it was in 1994.

The only people who have benefited are a handful of billionaires.  You want a target for anger--there it is: a handful of in-state and out-of-state billionaires and the Republican politicians they control.



×
×
  • Create New...