One of the favorite tropes of the Hillbot crowd is to say the Green Party does nothing but trot out a presidential candidate every four years.
Having voted for Green Party state-level candidates for years, I know that's untrue. Greens even ran a Congressional candidate in West Texas several years ago.
Next, the Clintonistas will shift to how unsuccessful those state and local candidates are.
Well, first of all, you Dems, along with Repugs, have eliminated fusion candidates from more and more states. You've made it deliberately harder for third parties to get state-level ballot access. You've otherwise worked to protect unlevel playing fields and even make them more unlevel.
And that's the polite answer.
The in-your-face answer is tha Dems in Texas have little room to be critical of anybody on downballot races. The GOP has an approximately 2-1 edges in both houses oh the Texas Lege, It has owned all statewide offices for nearly 20 years.
And a fair part of why is that Texas Dems suck at midterm election turnout and Hispanics doubly suck, and no, Battleground Texas won't change this anytime soon. Plus, Dems, a the party of activist federal government, are likely to pay less attention to state-level races than are Republicans.
Beyond that, I've tackled the issue of Hispanic voting in general and in Texas in particular more than once. Their current profiles, especially religious, don't guarantee monolithic or even near-monolithic Democratic loyalty; ditto on the relative importance or not of two hot-button social issues. Meanwhile, BGTX, despite some early boasting, hasn't yet shown real results.