Google Ads


Site Stats

TX-Sen: Kay Bailey Hutchison Won't Seek Re-election

by: Crisitunity

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 1:42 PM EST


Big news out of the Lone Star State:

Kay Bailey Hutchison  will not run for re-election to the U.S. Senate....

"I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2012," she wrote to supporters. "That should give the people of Texas ample time to consider who my successor will be."

With a line of potential challengers revved up to take her on from the right, and so-so approvals (especially among the Republican side of the electorate), Hutchison probably didn't have the stomach for another heated primary after losing the 2010 gubernatorial primary that was once thought to be hers for the taking. Look for the floodgates to open for Republican office seekers now, which will probably now include Dallas mayor Tom Leppert (whose apparent recent decision not to seek another term suggests he may have gotten a tip-off). Other likely entrants include Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, while several less-prominent former or current statewide GOPers are already in the race.

Former comptroller John Sharp, who built up a big war chest in preparation for the special election to replace KBH that never happened, seems likely to be the Dem nominee... but is there any other Dem that any of you have on your wish list for the race?
Crisitunity :: TX-Sen: Kay Bailey Hutchison Won't Seek Re-election
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

TX-Sen: Kay Bailey Hutchison Won't Seek Re-election | 147 comments
Chet Edwards
He did win a Republican district more then once, even though he lost in 2010, I think he could be viable. He can build crossover appeal.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
He'd have as good a shot as anyone
If the political climate is right for a moderate and the Republicans nominate some wacko (which will probably happen) I could see him pulling an upset.  

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
Agreed on Edwards
He was able to hold on to his district in 2004.  Even though he lost this past election I don't think 2010 will be nearly as good for the GOP.

It's not that his district is a Republican district, it is a very Republican district.  The 17th is more Republican than most of the Republican held DFW and Houston area seats.

[ Parent ]
Um, realistically
A Democrat won't win the seat nor come within single digits, question is only what the point-spread will be.

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8
[ Parent ]
Um, realistically
a black guy whose middle name is Hussein won't beat a war veteran whose every move, no matter how ridiculous, is excused by the Beltway establishment. Nor will this same guy ever defeat a popular, path-breaking Democratic woman for his party's presidential nomination. Nor will a Republican defeat Jim Oberstar or take back Obama's Senate seat. Nor will Harry Reid ever win reelection.

I really, really hope that Republicans keep having that attitude. I also hope that Democrats are anxious to exploit their arrogance.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
No
It's Texas, after all. "A black guy whose middle name is Hussein" lost it to "war veteran" by about 10%. He lost the Democratic primary to "popular, path-breaking Democratic woman" as well..

Texas will not vote for Democratic Senator or Governor next 10 years, unless some tectonic blunder on part of Republican candidate. So, initial author was generally correct - it's only a spread, which is of interest...

[ Parent ]
Wait, Obama lost
the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton? WTF?

Anyway, he didn't contest the state like he did Montana, let alone Ohio or Florida. But he did manage to do a helluva lot better without really putting in any significant effort in the state. In 2004, Bush received 4,526,917 votes, while Kerry received 2,832,704 votes. In 2008, McCain received 4,479,328 votes, which was 47,589 less than Bush. But Obama received 3,528,633 votes, which was 695,929 more than Kerry. Once again, that was without devoting much of anything to the state.

Granted, it will be an uphill battle, and if the Democrats win the seat, it'll be by a very, very small margin. It might even be, as I speculated, with less than 50 percent of the vote. But as Republican as Texas has been in the last decade or two, it's not Wyoming.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
In Texas he did
HRC beat BHO by almost exactly 100k votes in the Texas primary.  From Wikipedia;

Hillary Clinton 1,462,734 50.87%  
Barack Obama 1,362,476 47.39%

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Two things:
1. I should have realized he was talking about the primary. Talk about a brain fart on my part.

2. He lost to a more conservative Democrat in a more conservative state. So what does that prove?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
He also lost to the McCain
In an election in a pro-Dem year.  So what does that prove?

Texas is Dem fool's gold...

[ Parent ]
Well, of course.
It's still a red state, just as Pennsylvania is still a blue state, and so a Democrat winning statewide wouldn't be the favorite.

But he did get between 43 and 44 percent of the vote. Maybe that was mostly because it was a good year and a Texan wasn't on the ballot. Or maybe that's the new floor in the state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Clinton did win the TX primary
And that's what was specified by user smoltchanov.

While contesting a state does make some difference in a Presidential election, it is at the margins -- note the difference between OH in '00 and '04, Kerry did about 2 or 3 points better than Gore.

So given someone equivalent to McCain, if President Obama were to contest TX, I could see him getting up to 47%.

But that neglects some important factors -- incumbency, the R candidate, Tea party enthusiasm, etc. And it is too soon to know which way these factors would go.

[ Parent ]
The Republicans have no equivalent of McCain
Even Mccain isn't the equivalent of Mccain now.
[ Parent ]
I agree
that these things are usually decided at the margins, but that's not always the case. Sometimes, a big, big jump is possible as we saw in Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana in 2008. When a state isn't usually contested, a new coalition needs to be put together. It looks line one might exist for Obama, and for a Democratic senate candidate, in Texas.

We will have to update our campaign organization in states we contested last time, but we won't have to start from scratch unless we contest a state far more seriously than we did last time. In some cases, the Republicans will have to do just that. We can take that money and spend it on getting our act together in Texas, among other places, if we want to do so. I'm not saying that we need to throw good money after bad, but we should look into it. If after a certain point it looks like we aren't gaining traction, we can pull out.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Keep in mind I don't think McCain contested Texas either
Theoretically, if Obama contests Texas, the Republican might as well.  
[ Parent ]
Doubtful
Unless they already knew the election was lost and it clearly would be if Texas was competitive. McCain gambled on holding IN and NC because they figured if they didn't there was no way they would win Ohio and Colorado etc.
[ Parent ]
Did Bush pull out of OH when Gore did in '00?
I suggest that the effect of Obama contesting TX would be similar to Kerry contesting OH in '04. But I do not know if my parallel case holds.

If my case does hold, then Obama money in TX would potentially make the state close enough to force the R candidate to also contest TX. But depending on the baseline, an R response could very well snap the state back to a relatively safe R position in '12.

And this diary has included an excellent discussion of the baseline -- is it the 44% won by Obama in '08? or is it something less than the 42% that White got in '10 against Perry? Is the "cheap" answer to say that it's something in between?

[ Parent ]
There's nothing
cheap about guessing. It's hard to say what we our baseline is because in the last three elections, two of them had a home state candidate of the dominant party in pretty good years for them.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
That's true,
but they are closer to their ceiling than we are.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Primary in Texas?
Lost. And yes, Texas is not a Wyoming - 15 years from now Democrats will have real chances in former, but not the latter. But not in 2012. BTW, it's very unlikely that "Obama's enthusiasm" (especially among youth and minorities) will be on the same level in 2012 as it was in 2008. So - i stick to my arguments.
[ Parent ]
The enthusiasm question is especially significant
Some say that there's no way it can match '08 -- others point to polls that suggest that at least minority enthusiasm for President Obama is still at similar levels to '08.

While I'm in the latter camp, believing in addition that young voters will "come home" w/r/t enthusiasm for a D incumbent (e.g. '96, '64), it doesn't always happen (e.g. '80).

President Obama will be the incumbent running for re-election in '12, which generally is good for a few points -- but on what baseline?

If it's the '08 baseline, Obama's 44% (without campaigning) in TX is not a bad place to start, especially given the lack of a campaign that year. Add a campaign and the advantages of incumbency, and it becomes uncomfortably close for an R.

In contrast, will Tea party types show enthusiasm at similar levels to '10? If they do, the effective baseline shifts downward, making TX almost impossible for President Obama in '12.

While I disagree with your conclusion, you raise the big question, which can only be answered with hard work (or not) by Ds.  

[ Parent ]
There's also
the fact that Texas usually has miserably low turnout compared to the rest of the country. Merely trying to mobilize voters is bound to yield some impressive returns, which isn't the case in states where both parties already fight like dogs and scour the state looking for extra votes.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Let's agree to disagree and see what happens)))
We look at problem under different angles: you know, rhat i am Indie, so "my angle" is, naturally, much less partisan and much mire "neutral" (so to say) then yours. So far i don't see any serious reasons for "Obamamania" of 2008 in 2012, but this will become really relevant only next year, so we still have time. We will see)))
[ Parent ]
America is bigger than Texas.
I've been hearing the "urban Democrats + Latinos can flip Texas" drumbeat for as long as I've followed politics.  Still waiting for the next post-Richards winner.
[ Parent ]
Jim Geraghty at NRO had this up in minutes...
Every two years since George W. Bush beat Ann Richards in 1994, we have heard about the imminent comeback of Texas Democrats; they're always coming back, but never seem to arrive.

2010: Texas Democrats are raking in funds for '10 elections

2008: Texas Democrats believe time's right for a comeback

2006: Texas Democrats say 2006 could be the year

2004: Texas Democrats feel ready for comeback

Is it possible a good Democratic candidate could beat a lousy Republican one? Sure. But it will be supremely difficult with Obama at the top of the ticket.


"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Yuuup . . . .
Margins are staying the same, just the bases are switching. Dallas is now dem friendly, and east Texas votes straight ticket GOP. You need Harris County (Houston) to start voting 55% dem to win statewide, at least.

Win Tarrant (Fort Worth) you win the state. Figure that model out.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
Fort Bend and Williamson
Would also need to start voting more Democratic.
[ Parent ]
There seemed
to be quite a few of them in the House delegation until Tom Delay took care of that. And aside from when John Cornyn ran, when was the last time there wasn't a running Republican as an incumbent for the the governorship, either Senate seat, or any other high profile position except the state Attorney General or Lieutenant Governor? Both of those positions, as I am sure you know, have been held by Republicans for over a decade. Combine all of that with a usual disinterest from the national party, a reliance on traditional methods of campaigning (advertising versus door-to-door stuff, for instance), and the home-state effect that Bush brought to the table twice, it's not exactly a surprise that they've sucked badly.

But the state looks to be changing enough for the Democrats to make a good run of it. It won't be easy, but it looks possible.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
TX 2010
Except for the governor's race where a moderately unpopular 10-year teabag governor ran against a very popular moderate Democratic big city mayor, the highest total that any statewide Democrat got was 37%, and it was for a judicial race

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8
[ Parent ]
No matter how much people pout to the contrary
Republicans can win statewide in Massachussetts, Democrats in Wyoming and Alaska.

It's unlikely a Dem will win for Senate in Texas, but given a terrible candidate or blundering gaffe, a decent Dem can win here as much as Wyoming or Kansas.

[ Parent ]
Yes, they got
walloped this year, but that shouldn't necessarily have any bearing on 2012. If it's a bad year for Democrats, then they will do poorly. But if it's not a bad year, and they invest in their candidates, they might be able to do well.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Realistically
A Republican won't win a senate seat in a state like Massachusetts....

Obviously each race has its dynamics and if the Democrats run a well known, well liked moderate Democrat like Chet Edwards against a tea party Republican the Dems can make that a race.  There is also no incumbent advantage for the GOP.  Since it is a Presidential year young voters and minorities will vote at higher numbers than during the mid-term.

It's the best possible opportunity for a Democratic pick up, especially if the GOP runs a Presidential candidate like Palin who alienates moderate voters.

[ Parent ]
I wouldnt count on Palin saving Democrats
I would bet that Palin would still win Texas and even if she didnt, I fear that there are enough voters who distuingish Palin from local candidates for the Republican to win. I fear that we could be looking at a reverse 1972 where Nixon beat McGovern by 23 points, yet Democrats gained ground everywhere except for the House, where they lost just 12 seats.  
[ Parent ]
She might
win the state, but she'd drag down turnout so that if she did win, she'd do it with a very small margin of victory. Meanwhile, Obama would likely turn out more Democrats, even if it's just slightly more, and he'd have more resources to help himself and the Democratic senate candidate in the state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Uhm, no
Sharp isn't Scott Brown, 2012 in Texas will bare no resemblance to a special election held in the middle of a huge policy fight. The TX run-off primary format basically guarantees a solidly conservative, but solid candidate will get the GOP nomination and would then be a prohibative favorite vs Sharp or any other Dem.

With all the probems Patty Murray already has to worry about I don't see the DSCC putting on nickle into this race, and certainly not at the expense of going all in for NV, MA or ME which will be the priority pick-up targets.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Ok
If you think that the scenario I laid out isn't the best opportunity for a pick-up when would such a scenario occur?  Against an incumbent during a mid-term with depressed youth and minority vote?  I don't think so

I never said Texas would lean dems or be a toss-up.  At worst it would be a lean R state with regards to this race.

Pat Murray just won re-election....  

[ Parent ]
Patty Murray
is chair of the DSCC and thus is the one making the decision on where to spend resources and plotting strategy.

I've previously stated I think she has 7 incuments who are highly vulnerable (FL, VA, OH, MI, MT, MO, NE) several others that could be (NJ, ND, WV) and presious few pick-up opportunities (ME, MA & NV). I would not expect Texas to see any more support from the National party than would a Democrat running in Utah.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Utah is much more Republican than Texas
Texas is also much more expensive than Utah.  Seeing as I also said nothing about funds from the national committee I am wondering why are people "responding" to claims I haven't made...  very interesting....

[ Parent ]
At this
point, Stabenow is not highly vulnerable. I could argue about the others, but that's not really the point of this thread.

The difference between the elections in Utah and the elections in Texas is that the Democrats have the chance to put together a winning coalition in Texas. In Utah, something very, very strange would have to happen for the Democrat to have a real shot at winning statewide.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
The Murray reference is to her new role at the DSCC
not to her own re-election in Washington (at least that's the way I read the comment).

But I absolutely agree with you that while the Republican would be favoured, there are potential Democratic paths to victory that make it worth contesting, and 2012 offers some possible opportunity in terms of turnout and potentially political dynamics. Still unlikely, but not out of the question, and given the state of the 2012 map, it is important to make the Republicans plan defense somewhere.  

[ Parent ]
I think what's happening is a lot of us are frustrated with the seeming impossibility of Texas
No Democrat has won a Senate race in Texas since Lloyd Bentsen won his last term in 1988. That's a long time. We keep hearing all these factors that make it winnable, but for Democrats, it never is. I don't think that's going to change in 2012. In fact, lately, I've become skeptical of the whole Texas will turn blue thing even 10 years from now (Texas Latino's seem to a) not turn out like California Latinos and b) be at least slightly more conservative).

But in any event, while I think in this case bj and others are being way too 50-state-strategy on Texas, especially in a presidential year (bj - other circumstances I think it's cool your willing to fight on potentially hopeless causes), I guess it's not completely out of the question. But it relies on circumstances (like Scott Brown's election in Mass) that I just can't see right now. I definitely don't want to see anyone waste money on it unless it really seems potentially winnable, especially with other races on the table.

[ Parent ]
Even if we don't win it, we need to invest for the future
The only way that we will be able to take advantage of the changing demographics of the state is by building a real campaign structure and party organization in the state.

Too many Democrats seem to think that someday the growing Latino population will suddenly and magically turn Texas Democratic. But it won't happen without a lot of investment and support.

National Democrats haven't put serious resources into a statewide Texas race in many years. It is no wonder that Latino turnout hasn't been impressive -- there hasn't been the investment in GOTV, in supporting grassroots voter registration and voter education efforts. There hasn't been a nurturing of local activists in any meaningful way, there hasn't been a reason for Latinos or other Democratic voters to bother to go to the polls, because there's been nothing to draw them. And swing voters haven't had much reason to seriously look at Democratic candidates because of the lack of serious viable campaigns, so they've gotten out of the habit of even considering voting for a Democrat.

Writing a state off permanently is a great way to guarantee that it will permanently vote for the opposition party.

I don't think it is a waste of money to use the opportunity of an open US Senate seat and 4 new Congressional seats, coupled with the greater turnout of a Presidential year and demographics that are seriously moving in our direction, to seriously contest a race AND work on building a permanent campaign/GOTV structure that will be used in future races. (And also forces the Republicans to spend money playing defense in a year they will be on the offense in many states.)

Even if it doesn't result it picking up a Senate seat in 2012, it is an essential part of becoming competitive in the most rapidly growing state. That isn't some 50 state strategy pipe dream, it is smart politics that thinks beyond the short-sighted focus only on the next campaign cycle instead of considering long term strategic opportunities.

And, under the right circumstances, we could win this thing.

[ Parent ]
How
nice to see that another person gets it. The coalition looks like it's there--unlike in Wyoming, for instance--but we still need to bring it together. Maybe we won't win right away, but I don't think anyone can say we have really tried. And any of the other reasons you list as to why we should try to win are just as valid.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Under "extremely good"
(and thus - not very likely) circumstances, i would say. If Texas Republicans nominate their own Christine O'Donnell AND Democrats - a moderate business-like candidate, then - well, then there will be a chance. But only a chance...
[ Parent ]
Was Rick Noriega
really that much better a candidate than Barbara Randofsky, or she was just really, really bad, and her candidacy made that much worse by going up against a better opponent in Hutchinson? And was his fund raising that much stronger than hers? I just find it hard to believe that so many things have to go right for us to expand significantly beyond the 43 or so percent that Noriega received in 2008.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
2008 was EXCELLENT Democratic year
with great "Obamamania" (especially among minorities) and so on. And, suitably, with minority candidate in Texas. So, that 43% is rather a ceiling for normal (and rather good) Democratic candidate in Texas now running against normal conservative Republican. In very good case - 2-4% more. But Republicans need to nominate someone really ugly extremist for Democrats to have chances to win now...
[ Parent ]
But that happened without virtually any organization/funding
In 2008, there was a lot of volunteer enthusiasm and grassroots excitement about Obama, but the national campaign never made any kind of real investment or made any serious effort to contest Texas in the Presidential vote. There was no massive voter registration campaign, there was no GOTV effort, there was no saturation ad campaign, there was no persuasion effort going on with swing voters/independents.

Whatever happened that year took place almost entirely as a result of natural spontaneous overflow from the national environment, not because of the kind of concerted campaign that allowed Obama (and down ballot Democrats) to win in places like North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, and Omaha's CD, or to come close in places like Missouri and Montana.

In the Senate race, Rick Noriega showed a lot of promise as a candidate, but he was a horrible fundraiser (only raised $4 million of his publicly stated goal of raising $10 million), the DSCC never put serious money into the race, he never put together a serious campaign organization,  never created excitement in the Latino community (Coryn won 36% of the Latino vote running against a Latino candidate, and turnout was still very far below potential levels), and never broke through among independent voters or in swing areas.

It is a mistake to view Noriega's 43% (or Obama's 44%, or Bill White's 42% in the horrible year of 2010) as the ceiling for a Democratic candidate in Texas -- I'd actually argue that is the floor that a strong Democrat has to start with - the challenge is how to grow that number.

Probably another 3 or 4% can be added through intensive work in the Latino community to register and turn out voters - who are growing in numbers, and as a young population age into increasing eligibility every year (and who are not going to give another Republican 36% in the near future given the dramatic shift in immigration attitudes/verbal Latino bashing among the party...).

The question is whether there is somewhere the additional 4% could come from that it would take to win -- are there enough moderate independents to be persuaded, additional base  voters to turnout, lower than expected Republican turnout, etc that could close that gap.

A flawed Republican nominee (for Senate and/or for President) would doubtless help that prospect - but there is no way to plan for that now.

Bottom line is that it will take serious investment and organizing to turn Texas from bright red to a purple state - but the demographics of the state will make it happen eventually, and it is simply the smart thing to do to try to speed up the process by running strong candidates, building a permanent effective party and campaign structure, and investing in Texas now.

[ Parent ]
Eventually - of course, but (IMHO) that would take about 15 years..

[ Parent ]
Those "factors" don't matter
What matters is if the Republicans nominate a rotten candidate.

Texas is glacially trending back D, but that is a generation away.  Now, trending factors aren't going to make a Dem win.  Basically, only the Republican candidate can make the Dems win... but given the solid chance the Rep presidential candidate will NOT be someone that particularly appeals to the middle 40% of the Texas electorate, there is that working in Sharp's favor.  It's not much, but if a space alien pops out of the Republican candidate's head during a debate, it will contribute to a Sharp to win.

[ Parent ]
When was
the last time the Democrats really tried to contest a race here? When was the last time the national party sent more money than the Republicans sent to Christine O'Donnell in Delaware? When was the last time they tried to register voters and/or seriously mobilize the ones that are already registered?

I'm well aware that Texas is unlikely to be as blue as California, but it looks like we can make as competitive as any other swing state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Fina-freaking-lly
someone gets it! That is exactly what I am trying to say.

It's not that we are being handed the seat. We will need to work for it. But it looks a lot more possible than it has in a long, long time, assuming it's not a bad year for Democrats. We have a lot of seats to defend and very few pick up opportunities. We aren't sacrificing the chance to fight for a seat in Oregon or Delaware in order to gamble on a seat in Texas.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
But Bj, here's what you're overlooking
Resources that candidates and campaigns have will be theoretically finite. If Obama has unlimited resources, and the DSCC has unlimited resources, and the Republicans are limited than of course they should invest in Texas, for all the reasons you say.

But should Texas be a priority over say, saving Sherrod Brown's seat in Ohio or beating Scott Brown? I'd say no, and I think the Democratic resources are going to be more finite in 2012 than I think you do.

I don't want to see Dems waste a chance to win Scott Brown seats to throw away money on a Senate race in Texas. If they can do both, great!  

[ Parent ]
I don't think anybody is arguing it should be a priority
But if circumstances allow there is little harm in trying.
[ Parent ]
They should
consider if a priority, at least right now. It's probably the next best pick up opportunity outside of the seats in Massachusetts and Nevada, at least until Kyl retires in Arizona. They should make the plans but only follow through with them if the climate is right and the resources are there. What's so hard about that?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Of course
it shouldn't be. As optimistic as I am, I realize that keeping Sherrod Brown's seat is far more likely than flipping the seat in Texas But we also need to be on the offensive. We don't have that many opportunities, since we hold the majority of the seats that will be up in the next two cycles. In 2012, our chance of flipping a sat is in Massachusetts, followed by Nevada. But then what? Probably Maine, if the incumbent doesn't run. Then maybe Arizona, if the incumbent doesn't run. Or maybe Indiana, if Luger, the incumbent, doesn't run. Well, that's what just happened in Texas: the incumbent decided not to run. In my mind, the biggest obstacle just went away.

Will resources be finite? Sure, they always are. But if it's not an awful year for Democrats, we'll have an incredible powerful fund raiser at the top of the ticket who can provide an unbelievable level of assistance in registering and mobilizing voters. We might not have this advantage again for a few cycles. Even if we only get to 47 percent, we'll have set up the sort of structure that will let us compete against Cornyn in 2014 and whomever the Republican presidential candidate is in 2016 as well as strengthen our chances in picking up House seats.

I could be wrong about this, but I imagine that a lot of what is happening now is planning. They can make a variety of plans, but they won't execute anything for a while. They won't start spending money and doing a lot of the work on the ground until late 2011 or even until 2012, at least at the Senate level. So why can't they make the plan to contest the state at both the presidential level and the senate level and then only go through with them if the climate is right and the resources are there?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
We don't know what can happen
Yes, it would be difficult to win, but it's not like odds cannot not be broken.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
Michael Williams
I swear, I'm going to throw up if he becomes the next Senator from Texas. All we need is some version of Jim DeMint who I'm sure will have the same level of constituent services Cornyn provides (none) and is more interested in a national profile.

If it has to a Republican, I'm hoping for Dewhurst or Leppert.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

Does Hutchinson provide services?
nt

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
The difference between Hutchison and Cornyn
If you call to advocate on an issue, Hutchison makes the effort to send you back the form letter thanking you for your concern and stating her pre-determined position on the issue. Cornyn, you never happened.

So yeah, services . . .
She does well racking up the education and NASA pork.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
Then
it does sound like there's a void waiting to be filled.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
And there's a great line of attack
that Sharp can use: that he has no higher aspirations and will serve as senator as his last public role.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
ehh . . .
We're Texas, if you're not larger than life, it's not good enough. We want people who think they can be POTUS and are better than the nation as a whole. Saying you're settling on anything, well that's just weak.

Everyone in recent history has something to claim fame for:
Perry - 10 years, longest serving ever
Hutch and Cornyn made GOP leadership
Bush 2 made POSTUS
Bush 1 was CIA head, VP, and POTUS
Bentson made Cabinet
Gramm was a GOP leader on spending
LBJ was Majority Leader, VP, and POTUS

As I said, we want figure who are bigger than life. Saying you are settling is not good enough for this state. Think with more arrogance. :-D

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
Heh,
fair points.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
What about
Michael Williams on the GOP side?

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
See my comment above. :-(


26, Male, Democrat, TX-26
[ Parent ]
I like him but
I'm sure we don't agree on all that much. I think Jeb Hensarling may get in the race... He has his eye on higher office, or House Leadership.

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
[ Parent ]
*
(we referred to you and me, not Williams and me)

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10
[ Parent ]
It's cool
As I said, Williams would be a great national voice for conservative principals, but a poor worker for Texas citizens, IMO. I feel like he'd view me and other dems as "the people who didn't elect me" and he is the most likely candidate to feel that way, from what I can tell.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26
[ Parent ]
GOP Primary
Get ready for a Texas size GOP primary grudge match between Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert on the moderate side and Railroad Commissioner, Michael Williams on the conservative side.

I don't think Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst will run, the LG is the most powerful position in Texas and he's also the obvious heir apparent when Rick Perry's amazing 14 year stay as governor finally ends.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Williams isn't that crazy
I saw a clip of him talking about renewable energy once, and he sounded relatively sane (for todays Republican Party I mean). I also think it would be good to have another African-American senator.

19, gay male, IL-7, MN 4 (college), Dem
[ Parent ]
How many Republicans have "talked"
about renewable energy in the past? So many of them have backtracked in the last two years.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Hensarling for Leadership
I don't think he would have given Bachmann the slap down if he was going to turn around and run for the Senate.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
I think he's an unlikely candidate...
But it's also important to remember that Rep. Hensarling is a staunch ally of the new House leadership, and it wouldn't surprise me to see him function as the leadership's strong arm throughout the 112th Congress. I'm not sure that reflects his own ambition for House leadership as much as it does his obedience to Speaker Boehner and Rep. Cantor, who don't want a squeaky wheel like Rep. Bachmann putting the GOP leadership in the news all the time for all the wrong reasons.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
What about Julian Castro?
Mayor of San Antonio, young (37), hispanic, seemingly fairly popular (though I'll admit I haven't heard much about him).

An added benefit will be increasing Hispanic turnout for the House races on the ballot and for Obama's reelection (which, while he won't win Texas, could at least force the GOP to play a little defense).  

24, SSP Gay Caucus Policy Committee Chair, Western Democrat; CO-05 (home), CA-14 (law school)

It's going to be John Sharp
He has the money, he's gonna scare everyone else out. The state infrastrucutre is in tatters. Talented "other" Dems have no room to move. Chet, Castro, Anchia, Wendy Davis, etc are already pushed out by Sharp at this point.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26
[ Parent ]
Make no mistake
If I thought there was a way it could work (or if Sharp was not already committed), I'd be one of the first to line up behind Chet Edwards. Just, after the last shellacking, he can't quite keep up.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26
[ Parent ]
Gut feel: '12 is too soon for Castro
He just won the Mayoralty in '09. I'd think he might want to wait a bit ---

However, Mayor of San Antonio is certainly bigger than Noriega's position when he ran against Cornyn in '08.

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to think that he could significantly exceed Noriega's vote share (43%). If the R candidate is a Tea Party type or is of Perry quality, perhaps Castro could make it close.

[ Parent ]
Castro strikes me as Governor material
Julian Castro just strikes me as a future candidate for Governor.  
[ Parent ]
The ghost of Ann Richards
We can dream...

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)
And
Lloyd Doggett can run as Lloyd Bentsen.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
Will any of the House delegation even bother?
Usually US Reps get talked up for open Senate seats, but Texas is so big that representing one-32nd of it isn't really a stepping stone to statewide office. It would almost have to be someone from a large metro area--maybe Marchant or Culberson?

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
What About
Charlie Stenholm or Martin Frost?

They might both live out of state now.

Stenholm is too old
If Frost couldn't win TX-32, or come closer than he did in 2004, he can't win statewide.

Jim Turner and Chet Edwards are the only two former US Reps worth mentioning.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
Off Subject
Reports that IN-2 Rep Donolly will run in whatever district hold South Bend might not be accurate. From the Chicago Tribune:

"Donnelly said he feels fortunate to serve in Congress, but that he might consider running for governor in 2012 or some other office after seeing how his district is modified."

Could also be bluster to leverage a more favorable draw from the legislature.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

Interesting, if it's true
Much as I often dislike Donnelly's campaign style as a Rep, I'd rather have a Gov. Donnelly than a Gov. Pence (ugh).

The problem is that I'm not convinced that Donnelly's ability to run a statewide campaign wouldn't be somewhere just north of Jill Long Thompson territory. He'd win Lake and St. Joe easily enough, and Marion only elects Dems these days, but he'd get absolutely killed downstate and in the middle. Pence is too good at playing the "I'm just a good country bumpkin" crap for Donnelly to really compete, though he's a much better candidate than almost anyone else who could possibly run at this point.  

[ Parent ]
Thus the question
Is he saying this just to leverage a better draw? If GOPers were to view him as a potential threat they might give him a better share of the likely Gary to South Bend district, thus inducing him to run in the primary instead of for Governor or Senate.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
Coats' big win shows that Donnelly would be a huge underdog
Coats beat Ellsworth, who many thought would easily beat Coats, by 15 points.  Donnelly should only run if he's South Bend is drawn in with IN-01.  
[ Parent ]
Who
Are the "many thought"?

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8
[ Parent ]
Looking at the archives here from February 2010
I read comments like "Ellsworth's got this", and "Ellworth would lock this seat up for Democrats".  
[ Parent ]
It
 was a different time. Things didn't look as bad then. We ended up having other troubles no one could have predicted and IN Sen was filed away early on because of it. Had it been a neutral year then Ellsworth probably would have won, I stand by that. He actually did surprisingly well in areas he was not supposed to but got crushed in his own CD. Had he slightly improved his results in his CD he would have been within mid single digits. Honestly his HCR vote hurt him a lot.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
This^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even so, I don't remember hoosierdem (or anyone else who knows something about Indiana politics) saying Ellsworth had it locked up. Not that someone didn't say that - but we always get the over-optimists (as well as pessimists) on this site.  
[ Parent ]
I did.
And he should have, but then the national/state mood and his own substandard campaign ruined it. Bayh and the DSCC being stingy with the big bucks didn't help, either.

I was wrong about a lot of things last year, but I had high hopes for Indiana that were dashed by the tea-frenzy that 2010 became. In a neutral year, Ellsworth would've won over a fairly mediocre nobody with Coats's baggage. It was the R next to Coats's name that got him elected more than anything he did personally.    

[ Parent ]
Im literally slapping my knee laughing at you

[ Parent ]
i'll be polite
laughing at your comment
[ Parent ]
Who would make the perfect Gubernatorial candidate?
Jonathan Weinzapfel? Someone who could neutralize the "I'm just a good country bumpkin" aspect of Pence. President Obama could contest the state again and work on getting the city votes.  

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Gov. Pence... :shudders:
Not only is Pence far-right, he's dumb as a post. I'm not a big fan of Indiana Republicans, considering I'm a Democrat, but at least most IN Republican governors have been relatively sane, Main Street types. Pence would be the first true RW-activist governor Indiana has had for awhile.  
[ Parent ]
Exactly.
I can actually tolerate Daniels because, despite being a Republican, the guy's at least sane - much saner than many of his colleagues in the loony bin legislature, that's for damn sure. Pence is everything objectionable about the George W. Bush and teabagger wings of the party personified in one reactionary troglodyte. He'd make Kasich and Christie look good.

And given the nature of Indiana politics right now, I'd be very surprised if he even drew a top-tier opponent. cries

[ Parent ]
Right
It's exactly what Sherrod Brown did. In fact, IIRC, his district contained Geauga County before he threatened to run for governor. Then the GOP-held legislature drew in Akron for him.

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan
[ Parent ]
That was, in retrospect, probably because Taft knew he had stuff to hide
and didn't want that coming to light in a tough campaign. But Indiana isn't Ohio, and Mike Pence (probably) isn't Bob Taft. I don't see any real downside from drawing Donnelly in with Visclosky and letting him run in (and most likely lose) the Gov or Sen race. If they really want to be reckless (and run a risk of a dummymander), I think even an 8-1 map might be possible.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)
[ Parent ]
I tried drawing that one in Dave's app.
It was absolutely horrifying, but monkeying with Indianapolis would backfire like nothing else could. Plus, Daniels has said that he won't approve a GOP map that's too partisan, so Carson is probably safe.

I think Donnelly is toast no matter what, though. The temptation to just add Kosciuscko County to his district and give Michigan City to CD1 will be too much for the leg to resist, and is subtle enough that Daniels might be ok with it. Cracking Marion County just isn't likely to happen this decade, thank God.

I think an 8-2 map is plausible to likely. Could become 7-3 if Ellsworth (or some other Dem) takes back CD8. Buschon was a weak candidate and will be a weak incumbent, and there's a lot of Blue Dog base in that district (Terre Haute and Evansville) that just can't be put anywhere else. CD9 will become a Safe R district. CD6 might also be attainable as an open seat if they're really stupid, but I doubt it.  

[ Parent ]
Indiana has 9 districts ;)


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Meh…
He'll have to get passed Weinzapfel first. I like Weinzapfel and he's been wanting to get in this race for a long time now.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Leppert's even more moderate than Hutchison
He'll be eaten alive in this primary, which will be dominated by the Tea Party crowd. Michael Williams, who already has the backing of Gingrich and DeMint, is probably the front-runner, though David Dewhurst has the ability to self-finance. On the Democratic side, John Sharp, Lloyd Doggett, and Chet Edwards are the best, but the ceiling here for even the best candidate is probably in the low-40s.

Ironically, my column today, posted just shortly before Hutchison's announcement, focused upon her woes with the Tea Party and the likelihood of a Williams victory:
http://polibeast.blogspot.com/...

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

Leppert
The primary run-off system in Texas pretty much (IMO) guarantees Leppert can't get the nomination. Even if several conservative candidates splintered the primary vote, any one of them would likely be heavily favored in a run-off.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
DeMint
Has already said that his support of Williams was only in event of her resignation for appointment by Perry, not for an open primary where he's yet to decide.

22, Male, Conservative Republican, anti-teabag, NY-8
[ Parent ]
I suspect it will be Michael Williams on the GOP side
But I really am hoping for a very divisive primary where teh crazy makes a strong showing -- what are Debra Medina's plans for 2012? She'd be a welcome addition for a far right contest

I wish I thought John Sharp was the strongest candidate for the job -- and hey, he is one of the only Democrats to win statewide in recent history -- but nothing I hear about him seems to say that he will be that great of a choice. Still, he seems committed to the race and has cash in the bank, so that may be better than other options.

I get the argument for Chet Edwards, and he might be the strongest general election candidate, although I worry that he would have trouble exciting the base.

Too bad Bill White flamed out for Governor and seems to be ruling out running a future statewide race -- my sense is that in a better environment than 2010, his Houston area appeal and mainstream business support might be enough to allow him to beat out a hard right Republican nominee. But I don't think he'll be making the race.

My dream candidate would be a young Latina woman, someone with a moderate profile that could sell with the suburban moms in the Houston and DFW areas, while simultaneously exciting base turnout. I would imagine that there are some folks meeting that description in the legislature or holding county office somewhere, but I don't know enough about Texas politics to suggest who that might be.


I think Medina was forever toast after her 9/11 truth comments


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Your dream candidate would likely lose
Texas is still too conservative to elect someone with that profile, even a moderate.  
[ Parent ]
What are the chances
that someone like Medina decides to run as a third-party candidate and allows the Democrat to win with 47 or 48 percent of the vote? Or, if it's not her, what are the chances someone else might do it? Michael Williams seems very, very conservative, but also enough of an establishment pick to tick off someone from the outside. I guess the question is, if it's Williams, is he conservative enough to satisfy the Medina types?

As far as who might like to run, I meant to say this below, but forgot to do so: I have no idea who the nominee might, other than John Sharp, but there's got to be someone who fits the description you are talking about, whether or not she's a moderate Latina. If the Democrats are serious about this race and are willing to invest the resources, they can give a nobody a statewide profile. I hope Patty Murray is on the phone now demanding a list of names from all corners of the state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Probably not much of a chance
Realistically, anyone who wins the Republican primary will probably drive away any but the most obscure tea party candidate, who won't take much of a vote.  
[ Parent ]
The most likely candidate is David Dewhurst
He has already made a statement that he fully intends to explore running for the US Senate.
[ Parent ]
I've
read a few names being tossed around, but none besides Bill White, who said he won't run, stick out. John Sharp has said he's in this thing no matter who was running on the Republican side a few years ago, and the fact that he was willing to step up to the plate when nobody else seemed willing to do so gives him a lot of credibility in my book. He's probably much more conservative than I would like--he's pro-life, for instance--but he wasn't one of the old-time Democrats that became a Republican, like Phil Gramm or Rick Perry. If nothing else, this makes me think he's actually happy to be in our party and won't be a DINO.

To be honest, I don't know enough about the state's politics to say whether he has a good shot. It'd certainly be an uphill battle. But as I've said a few times now, from an outsider's perspective, there's quite a bit of room for growth, both amongst new voters and ones already registered. The seemingly biggest hurdle--running against a popular incumbent who is probably one of the least offensive Republicans around--no longer exists. The Republicans won't need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a candidate, but the power of incumbency no longer lies in there hands. Besides that, there aren't that many good pick up opportunities in 2012, if only because there aren't that many Republican-held seats up.  It'll be expensive, but if we have the political climate where picking up a seat in Texas is possible, we will have a presidential candidate capable of dumping millions of dollars into the state to help support our candidate as well as himself, something we might not have again in the near future.

Patty Murray, I hope you are taking this seriously. Like I said, it will be an uphill battle, but that shouldn't deter us, and it certainly shouldn't deter you. Imagine how much of a hero you'd be if you helped win this seat for the Democrats after taking the DSCC job when nobody else wanted it.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

I think you and I may have to agree to disagree on this one.
I don't want Patty Murray wasting too much time on this one, at this point.  
[ Parent ]
The DSCC is well over a year away from spending any money on anyone......
They're not contemplating who to help outside incumbent Democrats.  They're raising money and persuading incumbents to run again.  They're probably not even doing any candidate recruitment at this point.  

Murray and the DSCC staff aren't worried at all about who to spend on, it's not on their minds.

This time next year we'll start having a better picture of what's competitive and what's not.  And you can't write in or write off Texas or any other seat at this stage.  For all we know this time next year TX GOPers will be pulling their hair out because all their candidates are getting themselves in trouble, and Sharp is running a campaign worthy of his surname.  Or Sharp could be flailing and down double digits in all polling against all Republicans.  We just don't know until we know.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
They might be spending any money, mostly because
there's nothing to really spend it on, but I'd be surprised if they are in the preliminary stages of candidate recruitment. They might not be talking to any one person, but they are probably making a list.

I'd also be astonished if this didn't cause Murray to take a much more thorough look at Texas and what our party can do there.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
They might be spending any money, mostly because
there's nothing to really spend it on, but I'd be surprised if they are in the preliminary stages of candidate recruitment. They might not be talking to any one person, but they are probably making a list.

I'd also be astonished if this didn't cause Murray to take a much more thorough look at Texas and what our party can do there.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
A very good point.
n/t
[ Parent ]
CA Redistricting
Off subject again, but Aaron Blake at the WaPo The Fix is in on California Redistricting...you'll have to scroll past the boring stuff about Kay Bay

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

Not sorry to see her go
I don't think too many people are sorry to hear that she's not running for re-election. She's been a typical DC pol pretty much the entire time she's held this office. Let's get someone different, who will actually give it to us straight and get something done about our runaway federal government.
Welcome to SSP
Good to have more conservatives here, of course. Just a very friendly heads-up, though - most us here are quite liberal, and we try to focus more on the horse-race stuff rather than policy (especially soundbites and talking points, except for how they pertain to poll numbers, electability, and other political considerations).

Great to have your perspective, though. Welcome.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
I would just as well RRR become promoted here for...
...right-wingers.  It's a better place for them.

I'm not interested in wingnuts coming here complaining about a "runaway federal government."  It's not that, and I'm not interested in their absurd talking points.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Agreed
I actually don't mind some of the Republican posters here (GOPVOTER and MassGOP being by far the two most prolific examples), but some (dare I say, most!) are really obnoxious, and hopefully RRH eases some of the pressure from SSP.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
I think a good boilerplate response should be...
...to admonish GOP snark against Democrats on this site and simultanously promote RRR as a great site for Republican campaign junkies.

You're right, there are plenty of obnoxious Republicans here, more than in the past, predictably because they just had a good election and want to beat their chests after having had to hide in corners after the two preceding ones.  And they don't really get admonished by the moderators very much.  So encouraging them to go to RRR is a good solution I would hope the moderators wouldn't admonish, since they helped advise that site's start-up and it certainly needs to grow its audience.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
RRH not RRR
Just a note, since the site is Red Racing Horses, it should be abbreviated RRH.
[ Parent ]
Oops, thanks. (nm)
nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
I value most of the Republicans here.
They keep us honest when we're trying to analyze a race objectively.  And a lot of them have been valuable contributors.  And I do hate to see those folks discouraged.

Course you do need a bit of tact when venturing into enemy territory and I think most of them have learned that.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

[ Parent ]
Don't get me wrong, I like not having an echo chamber
but going back to GOPVOTER and MassGOP (who are far from the only respectful Republicans on here, but are easy to cite as examples because they post so often), notice how they rarely take combative/concern-trolling tones, nor do they make it their life mission to go around spreading Republican talking points to every thread on the site. I don't want to name names or anything but I definitely don't see that consideration from a lot of Republican posters. As I'm not a mod it's not like I can do anything, but it does kind of make me wish that RRH would suck some of the Republicans away from SSP.  

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Your last words are what I disagree with......
It's been getting worse here, not better, with Republicans typing smack.  Again, after they had a good election, that's logical that their presence would uptick, but that's a problem.

So I don't have a problem with "discouraging" them from posting here, and now that it actually constitutes an opportunity cost to RRH (i.e., time spent here is time not spent there), it's a win-win to send them there.

And even regarding "keeping us honest," I don't think they do that here, I think the Democrats here do a pretty good job of being reality-based.  You can't post starry-eyed or quixotic comments here without other Democrats knocking your uber-optimism down a peg.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I'm
hoping Leppert runs. He seems less dickish and moderate than other Republicans and honestly I think the most action in this race is in the primary so I'll probably root for him if he's on the ballot.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
Can you imagine a general matchup of Mayor Leppert vs. Bill White?
The media would absolutely go wild. Dallas vs. Houston.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Democrats needs a Carly Fiorina type.
Texas is a difficult state and it's a huge expensive state.  Meaning not only do you need to spend a huge amount of money but it's unlikely that you'll get a large return on your investment.

Some guy has a chance to buy himself into contention.  Even if they fall short they can at least try to spend money on field work and a get out of the vote operation that can help us in different house races.  Particularly those in hispanic areas that are prone to low turnout.

Getting someone who can self spend can also force Republicans to spend money in a state they'd rather not spend money like Fiorina did with Democrats in California.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

I don't know
how much money Sharp has, but he supposedly has a decent chunk. How much, if any, of that money is his own, I also don't know.

But I'd say Sharp is probably a much better choice for Texas than Fiorina was for California because he seems to be a better ideologically fit for the state. In the end, that's far more important than having a lot of money to blow.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Tony Sanchez
A guy whose claim to fame was tons of money, he ran and lost against Perry in 2002. He didn't even post a remarkably particularly strong showing among Hispanics, despite lots of money in outreach.

I really think Bill White was probably the best the TX Democratic Party can offer electorally. He had the bad luck of running in a Republican wave year in a state that still has a straight ticket device, but he was still a great candidate.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04

[ Parent ]
Excellent diary on RRH btw
Helped bring me up to speed on many more of the potential candidates for the upcoming open sear.
[ Parent ]
seconded
also, its nice that most users on there have the same usernames they do/did on this site, at least so far. helps me keep track of who's who (even if we're all anonymous)

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)
[ Parent ]
Thanks!
Most of us tried to do that on purpose, both so that readers may be a bit more familiar and so that we would know who each other were.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04
[ Parent ]
Gracias!
I knew it had to get out fast if it was going to be useful for anybody.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04
[ Parent ]
Tony Sanchez
A guy whose claim to fame was tons of money, he ran and lost against Perry in 2002. He didn't even post a remarkably particularly strong showing among Hispanics, despite lots of money in outreach.

I really think Bill White was probably the best the TX Democratic Party can offer electorally. He had the bad luck of running in a Republican wave year in a state that still has a straight ticket device, but he was still a great candidate.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04

[ Parent ]
Nate Silver has an interesting take on this
this is rather optimistic but hopefully plausible

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n...

He sites a poll from Feb. of 2009 that put White only 5 points behind the Lt. Governor. The climate has changed since then but if that poll is true, if Obama has a good reelection year, that seat might be winnable.

Cornyn to Demint: Don't Mess With Texas!
http://politicalwire.com/archi...

Cornyn is not happy about Demint's sudden involvement.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

This could
be a big sign that Cornyn knows the seat is far more vulnerable than a lot of people think. After all, if the seat was as likely to be Republican as a senate seat from Wyoming, would he be telling DeMint to butt out?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
While it could also be a typical Texan reaction
we'll see how Cornyn reacts when Sarah sticks her fingers in. If he doesn't react in the same way, we'll know that you're right.
[ Parent ]
At first, I was going to
ask if Palin would offer an opinion about this race, but then I realized that that much is certain, as certain as Michelle Bachmann saying something false and/or stupid. Do you have any guesses about whom she might support? Michael Williams seems like her sort of candidate, from what I know of him.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
After she chose Ayotte in NH
I believe that Palin wants to be at least a little unpredictable.
[ Parent ]
If she
really wanted to be unpredictable, and also a bit mavericky, she'd endorse a couple of Democrats.

On a similar note, does anyone remember when McCain suggested he might make Andrew Cuomo his running mate if he won his party's nomination? When he said that, I knew he was definitely just a showboating attention whore that said whatever popped into his head at the moment.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Elizabeth Ames Jones, maybe?
I get the impression that Palin has said nice things about her.
[ Parent ]
Either that, or Cornyn's dog in the race isn't the same as DeMint's.

[ Parent ]
TX-Sen: Kay Bailey Hutchison Won't Seek Re-election | 147 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox