Why have Democrats done so bad state wide in TX even compared to WY since 1994
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 08, 2024, 10:08:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Why have Democrats done so bad state wide in TX even compared to WY since 1994
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why have Democrats done so bad state wide in TX even compared to WY since 1994  (Read 727 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,410


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 27, 2019, 11:19:28 PM »

Texas Democrats have not won a single state wide office in Texas since 1994. I mean in even in states like Wyoming and Oklahoma states that for decades have been the 2 of the 3 most Republican states in the Nation along with Utah have seen Democrats win state wide races since 1994 but not in Texas.

Now it is changing but for so long there seemingly seemed no path for Texas Democrats to ever win statewide while they had those paths even In Wyoming!!!!. I mean if they could win in those states couldnt they have found a candidate who could have won in Texas.


Even the CA GOP (Even if you discount Arnold) up until 2016 has had better success, I mean they nearly won the Lieutenant Governor Race in 2006 with Tom McClintock !!! and nearly won the Attorney General Race in 2010.


What made the Texas Dems so incompetent that they couldnt even find a single candidate to win even a lower level state wide office


Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,625


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2019, 11:24:19 PM »

In 06 wasn't there a sh**t show with like 2 indies?
How would the dream team of 02 done in 06 with no indies?
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,410


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2019, 11:26:24 PM »

In 06 wasn't there a sh**t show with like 2 indies?
How would the dream team of 02 done in 06 with no indies?


Well the 2 indies were Republicans lol
Logged
Boobs
HCP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,552
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2019, 12:28:28 AM »

In 06 wasn't there a sh**t show with like 2 indies?
How would the dream team of 02 done in 06 with no indies?


Well the 2 indies were Republicans lol

kinky friedman was not a republican lol

even Keeton was more moderate than Perry


Anyway, for your original question, several reasons:

1. Like in most of the former Confederacy, the TX Democratic Party was fairly conservative in the 20th century (not uniformly, of course, ex: Yarborough) and drew most of its strength from the rural eastern parts of the state as well as the inner cities. In Texas, however, these rural voters abandoned the Democrats much sooner than in other southern states. This left the coalition system rather unbalanced as Republicans had a strong grasp on the suburbs and increasingly strong control on the rural parts; even urban areas weren't as strongly Democratic as they were in the North until recently.

In California, the Republicans still had a decent brand in urban areas, at least in SoCal. The Democrats had no such appeal in the suburbs.

2. Latino turnout patterns. Needless to say this is pretty obvious and still a problem for TXDems. TX Latinos are also much friendlier to Republicans than they are in the north, and those that turn out more consistently also tended to be more Republican-leaning.

3. Straight-ticket option probably prevented a lot of lower-level offices from being in reach, as well as their low visibility meant it was more likely voters voted based on party and not personality.

4. The influence of the oil and gas industry. Republicans pretty much cornered this industry's workers and its campaign funding and general influence as a job-creator kept Republicans visible as the economically responsible, job-creating party. In a state as expensive to run in as Texas, money makes a big difference.

5. Gerrymandering. A lot of potentially good statewide candidates, such as congressmen, refused to run due to the fact that their districts were very safe and they had their current seats for as long as they wanted, and would rather not risk a safe career for a likely loss. The only Congressman that ran for statewide office in that period was Chris Bell, I believe, in 2006.

Additionally, the mid-decade redistricting killed off a lot of potentially candidates by eliminating their seats.

6. Relative weakness of statewide offices
Logged
LoneStarDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 945
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2019, 12:35:38 PM »

TX Dems will NEVER win statewide offices anytime soon.

Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,599


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2019, 12:46:14 PM »

TX Dems will NEVER win statewide offices anytime soon.



Define "anytime soon".


I'm pretty sure Cruz will lose reelection if he doesn't step down before 2024, and whoever the Gubernatorial nominee is in 2022 could also lose.
Logged
CatoMinor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2019, 12:57:59 PM »

Probably a combination of reasons including the size of Texas requires money and well organized campaigning, Texas voters are more religious and since the 90's the churches began turning on the Dems en masse.

 
Logged
Roll Roons
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,117
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2019, 01:06:01 PM »

TX Dems will NEVER win statewide offices anytime soon.



Define "anytime soon".


I'm pretty sure Cruz will lose reelection if he doesn't step down before 2024, and whoever the Gubernatorial nominee is in 2022 could also lose.

Yeah Cruz will probably be the most targeted Republican Senator in 2024 after Rick Scott, though there's a chance that both will retire to run for president.

Governor depends on the environment and candidate. If it's Ken Paxton in a Trump six-year itch? Absolutely. If it's Abbott or George P. in a Dem midterm? No.
Logged
junior chįmp
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,413
Croatia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2019, 02:25:25 PM »

TX Dems will NEVER win statewide offices anytime soon.



Indeed. Dems should never try. I mean come to think of it...the first step in faliure is trying
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,275
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2019, 02:38:12 PM »

Because it’s harder to win a big state that leans against your party than it is a smaller state where you can overcome the partisan lean easier based on personal brand. Look at the Senate seats occupied by opposite party members: WV, MT and ME. What do they all have in common? They’re small states

This + it’s more difficult to do effective retail politicking in TX than in WY/MT/etc.
Logged
LoneStarDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 945
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2019, 04:21:15 PM »

I think Abbott plans on sticking around the TX Governor's Mansion even longer according to several aides, who believe he's campaigning for reelection in 2022.

Logged
QAnonKelly
dotard
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,995


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2019, 11:13:57 PM »

Because it’s harder to win a big state that leans against your party than it is a smaller state where you can overcome the partisan lean easier based on personal brand. Look at the Senate seats occupied by opposite party members: WV, MT and ME. What do they all have in common? They’re small states

This + the TX GOP being really well run and organized. The party is actually trying to be somewhat moderate too as the state changes which isn’t something you can say for some of these other states that are trending in the opposite direction really fast.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.225 seconds with 12 queries.