Texas primary: Democratic turnout soars as Republicans stand their ground
24 replies, posted
[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/07/texas-primary-democratic-turnout-soars-as-republicans-stand-their-ground[/URL]
[QUOTE]Democratic turnout soared in America’s most populous Republican state on Tuesday as [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/texas"]Texas[/URL] held the nation’s first primary elections before November’s midterms.
The Texas primaries were scrutinized across the country for hints as to whether revulsion over Donald Trump and the rightwards swing of the GOP could translate into [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/28/texas-primary-elections-democrats-early-voting-surge"]a flurry of Democratic enthusiasm[/URL] that gives the party a chance of retaking the House of Representatives in November.
One of the country’s most solidly conservative states is an acid test for the “blue wave”: no Democrat has won a statewide election in Texas since 1994. However, in early voting, Democratic turnout doubled from 2014 and outstripped the Republican total, according to state figures from the 15 counties with the most registered voters.
Beto O’Rourke, an El Paso congressman seeking to oust [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ted-cruz"]Ted Cruz[/URL] from the US Senate, won the Democratic nomination with a campaign that has gathered momentum and raised significant funds.
“They are mobilizing in a powerful way,” Cruz told CBS’s Dallas affiliate. “At the end of the day, the good news is that there are a lot more conservatives in Texas than there are liberals.”
In a sign that the early burst of Democratic energy may struggle to overcome entrenched Republican dominance in the long run, Republicans gained ground on election day itself. Cruz ultimately won more than twice as many votes as O’Rourke, and the total number of Democratic voters was about 1 million compared with 1.5 million [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/republicans"]Republicans[/URL].
In an echo of the intra-party conflict between progressive and more centrist factions that split the [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats"]Democrats[/URL] in 2016, when Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton vied for the presidential nomination, Laura Moser, a writer and activist, will face off against Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, a lawyer, on 22 May, after no Democratic candidate for Texas’s seventh district won more than 50% of the vote.
“A lot of people in the state aren’t even in a party, they’re independents, so I think the fact that I’m sort of outside the box will help me,” Moser told the Guardian at a boisterous watch party in Houston.
“I think that the people who will win up and down the ballot this year are going to be people who stand for, and by, their values, and I think it’s going to be like an existential moment for national Democrats. We’ve got to stand for something.”[/QUOTE]
Hey FP Texans, please be sure to get out and vote in November. Beto really stands a chance, and even though the primary votes lean toward Republicans in number now, there's still a long way to go until November.
This might just be the delusion of a transplant Austinite, but I really hope we're starting to see a shift in Texan politics.
Kick out Cruz! And take his delegates too!
[quote]Evidently believing that Moser is too progressive to win in November, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issued a statement in February replete with the sort of negative research that might have been expected to come from one of her opponents.
It described Moser as “a Washington insider” and referred to a magazine article from 2014 in which she wrote that she would “sooner have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia” than move to the small town of Paris, Texas. The statement misleadingly implied this was because she did not want to live in Texas, though the piece was about the pros and cons of big-city life.
Rather than ruin Moser, the attention boosted her fundraising: her campaign picked up donations at a far higher rate than before.[/quote]
Good to see that nothing has changed. Fuck these guys.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;53184617]Good to see that nothing has changed. Fuck these guys.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I forgot the DCCC decided to handicap a candidate in the party they campaign for. Really stupid. They have issues.
I'm entirely convinced Beto has a chance. I was tempted to go through the enormous fucking hassle of getting an absentee ballot, but now I'm involved in the MN DFL caucuses, so it doesn't feel right to back out of that to vote in Texas during the general instead.
But still, anyone who lives in Texas, mark your calendars and spread the word about Beto. Phenomenally hard-working candidate who's basically the antithesis of Cruz. Honest, genuine, progressive, refuses super-PAC donations, and has visited and talked to voters in nearly every single county in Texas.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;53184617]Good to see that nothing has changed. Fuck these guys.[/QUOTE]
I feel like there's a portion of the Dem establishment that just wants to lose elections for some reason. It's ridiculous and makes me angry.
[QUOTE=froztshock;53184692]I feel like there's a portion of the Dem establishment that just wants to lose elections for some reason. It's ridiculous and makes me angry.[/QUOTE]
I'm definitely not condoning the methods here, but that's exactly the opposite of what they're trying to do. This is Texas -- a highly progressive candidate is going to be steamrolled. Winning on a statewide level means being able to attract centrists and undecided voters in addition to the party base. That requires a candidate who isn't going to alienate centrist or right-leaning voters. I prefer more progressive candidates too, in most cases, but understand the strategic value of their choice. Beto is a respectable and honest candidate who has a better chance of victory than any Democrat in Texas in the last ~25 years. Moser winning a moral victory by championing [I]all[/I] the important causes would be fantastic, but losing the election does nothing to help Texas or the country. Beto will still stand up for the right values, and has a better chance of winning. He's the horse I'd back, too.
What do you guys think of Sema Hernandez? I was looking up the candidates on Vote411.org, and both Sema and Beto seem pretty good.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53184719]I'm definitely not condoning the methods here, but that's exactly the opposite of what they're trying to do. This is Texas -- a highly progressive candidate is going to be steamrolled. Winning on a statewide level means being able to attract centrists and undecided voters in addition to the party base. That requires a candidate who isn't going to alienate centrist or right-leaning voters. I prefer more progressive candidates too, in most cases, but understand the strategic value of their choice. Beto is a respectable and honest candidate who has a better chance of victory than any Democrat in Texas in the last ~25 years. Moser winning a moral victory by championing [I]all[/I] the important causes would be fantastic, but losing the election does nothing to help Texas or the country. Beto will still stand up for the right values, and has a better chance of winning. He's the horse I'd back, too.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think a progressive candidate will alienate centrist or right leaning voters? By that logic Clinton would had won, and democrats would not had lost as many seats as they have. Trump being elected and the loss of the democrat majority shows that the general public has a disdain of centrists politicans who do nothing but keep the status-quo.
bda doug jones who's a super centrist and is voting the same way roy moore would have (checked 4 weeks ago) won by virtue of not being a pedophile.
People who will shift are kinda looking for something different, centrism doesn't really sell well.
god there's been so many crappy repub poltical ads on TV lately, even got some in the mail
i find it funny how they say "liberal" as if it were an insult (one of them running calls out "big city liberals")
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53184719]I'm definitely not condoning the methods here, but that's exactly the opposite of what they're trying to do. This is Texas -- a highly progressive candidate is going to be steamrolled. Winning on a statewide level means being able to attract centrists and undecided voters in addition to the party base. That requires a candidate who isn't going to alienate centrist or right-leaning voters. I prefer more progressive candidates too, in most cases, but understand the strategic value of their choice. Beto is a respectable and honest candidate who has a better chance of victory than any Democrat in Texas in the last ~25 years. Moser winning a moral victory by championing [I]all[/I] the important causes would be fantastic, but losing the election does nothing to help Texas or the country. Beto will still stand up for the right values, and has a better chance of winning. He's the horse I'd back, too.[/QUOTE]
Bernie did better with independents than Hillary did. I personally don't care what their justification is at this point. The party can get fucked.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53184719]I'm definitely not condoning the methods here, but that's exactly the opposite of what they're trying to do. This is Texas -- a highly progressive candidate is going to be steamrolled. Winning on a statewide level means being able to attract centrists and undecided voters in addition to the party base. That requires a candidate who isn't going to alienate centrist or right-leaning voters. I prefer more progressive candidates too, in most cases, but understand the strategic value of their choice. Beto is a respectable and honest candidate who has a better chance of victory than any Democrat in Texas in the last ~25 years. Moser winning a moral victory by championing [I]all[/I] the important causes would be fantastic, but losing the election does nothing to help Texas or the country. Beto will still stand up for the right values, and has a better chance of winning. He's the horse I'd back, too.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, from my point of view, someone who's more progressive, and has no leniency for the kind of crap that's become commonplace with conservative rhetoric, is the way to go. But what does that matter if they're not elected? The kind of centrist Democrat that will vote in line with Republicans might seem like a weird choice, but if they can win a race the progressive will lose... yeah, I guess it's the lesser evil all over again. It's not pleasant to look at, and maybe it's too much compromise. But it's definitely an attempt at a pragmatic, long-term approach at building bridges with conservative voters, and opening them up to the idea of voting Dem.
Make sure that if you'll be voting Democrat, your place of voting has a Democratic Ballot.
Several locations in Texas did not supply them.
[QUOTE=Alec W;53184941]Make sure that if you'll be voting Democrat, your place of voting has a Democratic Ballot.
Several locations in Texas did not supply them.[/QUOTE]
Is that even legal?
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53184954]Is that even legal?[/QUOTE]
[quote]Secretary of State spokesman Sam Taylor says parties sometimes opt to consolidate precincts or otherwise forgo having joint polling stations with their counterparts. That can mean that voters wanting to cast ballots for the other party in certain areas have to head to another location.
Texas has a semi-open primary, meaning voters can choose whether to vote Democratic or Republican. The problem doesn’t apply to the general election since no party choice is made.[/quote]
[url=https://apnews.com/677244cae2bf4c5b8311b2df445f8e5c?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=APCentralRegion]source[/url]
not sure on bias, don't remember the website for it.
if this happens to you, find somewhere that has your ballot and stand in line. if you're in line to vote, they have to let you vote, doesn't matter how late.
[video=youtube;MvKElqdUxZg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvKElqdUxZg[/video]
This shit is just too gold not to share; Ted Cruz is a chump.
[quote]“They are mobilizing in a powerful way,” Cruz told CBS’s Dallas affiliate. “At the end of the day, the good news is that there are a lot more conservatives in Texas than there are liberals[/quote]
thank gawd that people's political affiliation absolutely never ever can change!
[editline]7th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;53185146][video=youtube;MvKElqdUxZg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvKElqdUxZg[/video]
This shit is just too gold not to share; Ted Cruz is a chump.[/QUOTE]
everything wrong with conservatives in one song, they don't present their positions, or try to persuade you, nope just tell you that you should vote against the evil them, they are evil because they're who they are
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;53185146][video=youtube;MvKElqdUxZg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvKElqdUxZg[/video]
This shit is just too gold not to share; Ted Cruz is a chump.[/QUOTE]
Ted Cruz's full name is Rafael Edward Cruz so he's a hypocritical motherfucker
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;53184807]Why do you think a progressive candidate will alienate centrist or right leaning voters? By that logic Clinton would had won, and democrats would not had lost as many seats as they have. Trump being elected and the loss of the democrat majority shows that the general public has a disdain of centrists politicans who do nothing but keep the status-quo.[/QUOTE]
Hillary lost because the anti-Hillary train has been going for literally decades. Had it been any other centrist Democrat (Biden pls) they would've won.
Furthermore, Hillary won the popular vote by the largest margin in history, so to say Trump's win was particularly justifying isn't a great point.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;53184913]Bernie did better with independents than Hillary did. I personally don't care what their justification is at this point. The party can get fucked.[/QUOTE]
which independents
ones voting in democratic primaries are different from independents in general
[URL]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/[/URL]
do you mean these people?
[URL]http://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx[/URL]
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;53184807]Why do you think a progressive candidate will alienate centrist or right leaning voters? By that logic Clinton would had won, and democrats would not had lost as many seats as they have. Trump being elected and the loss of the democrat majority shows that the general public has a disdain of centrists politicans who do nothing but keep the status-quo.[/QUOTE]
This really doesn't show based on their ballot initiatives, and candidate performance, along with shit like vermont failing to attempt single-payer.
altho thats some nice prax i guess
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53184915]Yeah, from my point of view, someone who's more progressive, and has no leniency for the kind of crap that's become commonplace with conservative rhetoric, is the way to go. But what does that matter if they're not elected? The kind of centrist Democrat that will vote in line with Republicans might seem like a weird choice, but if they can win a race the progressive will lose... yeah, I guess it's the lesser evil all over again. It's not pleasant to look at, and maybe it's too much compromise. But it's definitely an attempt at a pragmatic, long-term approach at building bridges with conservative voters, and opening them up to the idea of voting Dem.[/QUOTE]
To be clear, I'm not saying that we need to have candidates who vote in line with Republicans on most topics, just that as a strategic decision it is wise to put up a candidate in a statewide Texas election who campaigns on topics that appeal to more than strictly left wing voters, and have softer stances on extremely politically divisive ones. Choose your battles, you know? For example, a Democrat with a hardline stance on gun control has no chance in Texas. A candidate who has a more favorable position towards gun rights, or at least doesn't openly campaign against them, but still holds other Democratic ideals, is going to fare significantly better.
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;53185146][video=youtube;MvKElqdUxZg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvKElqdUxZg[/video]
This shit is just too gold not to share; Ted Cruz is a chump.[/QUOTE]
I always thought country music was some of the most depressing music, and once again I'm proven right.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;53184807]Why do you think a progressive candidate will alienate centrist or right leaning voters? By that logic Clinton would had won, and democrats would not had lost as many seats as they have. Trump being elected and the loss of the democrat majority shows that the general public has a disdain of centrists politicans who do nothing but keep the status-quo.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean, "by that logic, Clinton would've won? If there's anything everyone should've learned by 2016 is that politics is not a hard science. BDA isn't claiming that being centrist means you're sure to win. Yes, it might even make it harder. By being soft on more divisive issues, you risk becoming a milquetoast candidate who doesn't appear to stand for anything. But here's another lesson to learn from 2016: not every race is going to be Clinton vs. Trump. Not every centrist is going to be as dull, and not all of their opponents are going to be media-hogging dumpster fires. If you want to bet everything on an all-out progressive in Texas, be my guest, but consider the situation. A more idealistic politician could, indeed, break through the bias, and win the hearts of conservative voters through strong stances against the establishment, but they could also be nothing but an easy target in places with strong cultures of voting Republican. Regardless of how unfounded you think that culture is, a centrist's platform might overlap with it more. All BDA's suggesting is that a candidate might have a better chance... if they appeal to their voters. Let's not throw common sense out the window and pretend this is unreasonable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.