In a set of ideas that state-level leaders of the Texas Democratic Party will likely love, and that clearly, neolib, tech-drooling (sic) reporters from the Texas Trib and elsewhere clearly DO love ...
The future of Texas voter turnout is allegedly ... all about apps.
And you thought I was going to say "plastics."
Of course, this is all ridiculously not true, and it's almost as laughable as Gavin Newsom's Donkey Kong-type app for pothole repair, one of many of such drizzle-level brainstorms from the former San Francisco Mayor App.
What it IS has been described elsewhere on this blog as "salvific technologism" and by Evgeny Morozov as "solutionism."
What you have is a bunch of technie Anglos at Anglo-focused media products (somewhat, the Chron, definitely the Trib and the Bizjournals franchise) saying apps are the way to get more Dems to turn out to vote — when we know that Dem turnout is most abysmal among Hispanics in the Valley.
Only one of the apps listed on most of the eight points of solution says it specifically comes in a Spanish-language version. Well, there's HUGE oops No. 1 overlooked by all our Anglo touters. That said, TDP Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa probably knows little more Spanish than I do, so prolly no big deal.
Beyond this, this ignores whether poorer Hispanics working multiple jobs have time for that much use of apps in particular or social media tools in general. It also ignores whether or not, time issues aside, and money for smartphones and devices issues also aside, Valley Hispanics and others are online that much or want to be online that much.
It's a lazy substitute for direct mail, let alone door-to-door GOTV efforts. It's also purely a one-way street which ...
Doesn't ask why these voters aren't turning out in the first place.
Sounds perfect for Dear Leader's Battleground Texas cadre.
Showing posts with label Battleground Texas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Battleground Texas. Show all posts
September 07, 2016
May 19, 2015
Why demographics don't guarantee Democratic wins, part 172
Click here for an explanation of the data source for the graph (it's the 2007 version of Pew's religious study; a new one came out earlier this month, but the raw data from it isn't yet available), the calibration of the graph and more.
In Southwestern states (counting Texas as Southwestern for this purpose), one should note the rise of various Hispanic evangelicals, especially Spanish-language Baptists, whether affiliated with the SBC or not. They're not specifically marked on this chart, but, for the sake of argument, I'll place them where the SBC is, roughly.
Update, Jan. 17, 2018: Expect more and more of them to come, AND to look at allying with the GOP, as evangelical religion continues to grow in Latin America AND to more openly ally with center-right parties there.
Speaking of Baptists, one sidebar. It's interesting that American Baptists, while more liberal-minded on evolution than their Southern Baptist kin, don't track any higher than them on environmental activism. I wonder if that holds true for other federal regulatory activism.
That said, once we get outside these two issues, black and white evangelicals don't totally track together:
In Grant’s version, evangelicals cluster together as advocates for small government in general who nevertheless want government to take a bigger role in promoting morality, while historically black church members cluster together as advocates for greater government action and greater role of government in morality.
(I count the AME as "evangelical" by focusing on the M, not the E.)
For people who think demographics will thus magically guarantee Democratic party success in the future, this is why I have said before and say again: Think again.
That includes people who think "most Hispanics are Catholic." Actually, only 55 percent are. Of the Protestant Hispanics, more than 70 percent are evangelical. And, among those Catholic Hispanics, if their immigrants, they likely are more conservative on social issues than US Catholics, anyway. Definitely, a large chunk of those evangelical Protestant Catholics are Latino immigrants. And, more and more of Hispanics are from those Protestant-explosion areas of Latin America south of Mexico.
Pew offers more information of relevance. The biggie is that a little less than half of Latinos are Catholic and a full one-fifth are evangelical Protestant.
I've also covered somewhat related issues, namely, the idea that minorities may look more to Washington and less to Austin for help in general.
But that graphic above is the biggie, and is reinforced by the one at right. A growing number of Hispanics are evangelical Protestants, and are likely to vote Republican. Catholic Hispanics may have different concerns than other Democrats. And religious "nones" may be tuned out to politics as well as religion.
(Dos Centavos claims Latinos nationally are moving further left on the two hot button social issues. Without links in the piece, I remain a bit skeptical. Sorry.
Now, per a blog post by Perry, which is where I found that Dos Centavos link, yes, the leading group within Hispanics or Latinos is still Mexicans, and certainly in Texas. But, sub-Mexican Latinos, that is, from further south in Latin America, is a rapidly growing portion of Latinos. And, the evangelical Protestant explosion from that part of Latin America has made some inroads in Mexico, too.)
Anyway, back to all these differences.
Again, if you're Texas or national Democrat type, please, think again. Don't assume Hispanics are Catholic, and don't make other assumptions related to that. I mean, if you've lived in this state for any amount of time, especially if you've gotten off the main drags in big cities, you can see plenty of churches with names like "Primera Iglesia Bautista." Folks, those churches aren't inhabited by Anglos, and in case you can't figure out that last word readily enough, they ain't Catholic.
And also don't assume that Hispanics, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, are going to agree with all white liberal Democrats on social issues; don't assume that Hispanic Catholics dine at the same cafeteria as white liberal cafeteria Catholics. And, if they're immigrants, unlike African-Americans, they have no expectations of socially activist governments in general.
Now, it's true that many of the Hispanics from further south than Mexico are illegal immigrants and can't vote. But many already have kids born here the USofA who will soon be old enough to do so, if not already. And, many of them, like their parents, are still involved with the local Primera Iglesia Bautista.
Carrying assumptions about Hispanics, especially recent arrivals, is part of how Democrats are continuing to lose elections in Texas.
Let's also not forget Maslow's hierarchy of values. For immigrant Hispanics living in colonia-type conditions, clean running water, an indoor flush toilet, and a secure job that pays at least a few cents above crap, long before they worry about gay rights or even reproductive choice.
I don't recall Wendy Davis, or previous Democratic gubernatorial candidates, campaigning in the Valley on these issues. Until they do, they probably won't draw much enthusiasm.
Finally, on a different demographic, Slate's Jamelle Bouie says Democrats shouldn't lean too hard on the age demographic either.
November 06, 2014
Texas and national #Election2014 postmortem
Let's start with Texas, since I did a long national roundup yesterday.
Short and sweet to start? Per friend Perry, it was a blowout — across the board.
Wendy Davis probably had little shot at beating Greg Abbott, but she ran a semi-crappy race in multiple ways.
While I wasn't looking for her to campaign about abortion all the time, she ran away from her August 2013 state Senate filibuster like the plague. She may have thought that that would have kept her protected from epithets like "Abortion Barbie," but it didn't.
Beyond running away from that, she then, already last December, started pandering for moderate (alleged moderate, really) voters, as I discussed in detail. Next, her endorsement of David Alameel, the most ardently (well, the only) pro-life candidate in Democrats' U.S. Senate primary, had people further scratching their heads. It turned out not to free up that much more general election Democratic money for her, I would venture, and at the time, it had two negative results, at least from this quarter.
The first was wondering how few her principles were. (That said, I knew she wasn't that liberal in general, but reproductive choice was the issue that got her into the campaign, after all.) The second was wondering if it wasn't a bit arrogant to be endorsing another Democrat in a primary race when she
Next, Rick Perry (albeit not running for office) looked more enlightened than her, at least initially, on marijuana decriminalization. And, she was a bit late to the party on gay marriage support.
That reflected another problem with her campaign — too buttoned-up and too buttoned-down. Jim Moore gets into this in detail, though I think he's a bit harsh in some ways, and a bit generous in one other way.
Part of that problem stemmed from her state Senate personal and past campaign staffers, but some of it surely came from Battleground Texas and its imported DC handlers. (Moore is too generous in blaming only DC folks for this.)
Battleground Texas, per a piece by Jonathan Tilove, also inflated many Texas Democrats expectations way out of reason, especially when connected with Davis' abortion filibuster:
Short and sweet to start? Per friend Perry, it was a blowout — across the board.
Wendy Davis probably had little shot at beating Greg Abbott, but she ran a semi-crappy race in multiple ways.
While I wasn't looking for her to campaign about abortion all the time, she ran away from her August 2013 state Senate filibuster like the plague. She may have thought that that would have kept her protected from epithets like "Abortion Barbie," but it didn't.
Beyond running away from that, she then, already last December, started pandering for moderate (alleged moderate, really) voters, as I discussed in detail. Next, her endorsement of David Alameel, the most ardently (well, the only) pro-life candidate in Democrats' U.S. Senate primary, had people further scratching their heads. It turned out not to free up that much more general election Democratic money for her, I would venture, and at the time, it had two negative results, at least from this quarter.
The first was wondering how few her principles were. (That said, I knew she wasn't that liberal in general, but reproductive choice was the issue that got her into the campaign, after all.) The second was wondering if it wasn't a bit arrogant to be endorsing another Democrat in a primary race when she
Next, Rick Perry (albeit not running for office) looked more enlightened than her, at least initially, on marijuana decriminalization. And, she was a bit late to the party on gay marriage support.
That reflected another problem with her campaign — too buttoned-up and too buttoned-down. Jim Moore gets into this in detail, though I think he's a bit harsh in some ways, and a bit generous in one other way.
Part of that problem stemmed from her state Senate personal and past campaign staffers, but some of it surely came from Battleground Texas and its imported DC handlers. (Moore is too generous in blaming only DC folks for this.)
Battleground Texas, per a piece by Jonathan Tilove, also inflated many Texas Democrats expectations way out of reason, especially when connected with Davis' abortion filibuster:
(S)aid political scientist Joshua Blank, who manages both the University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll and the Texas Lyceum poll, that very excitement also loosed many Democrats, in Texas and around the country, from a more sober appreciation of the enormity of the task at hand.
“Wendy Davis and Battleground Texas created a set of expectations that were wildly unrealistic and probably helped the Republicans re-energize their coalition in ways they might have had trouble with after a grueling primary and runoff and fissures within the party over just how conservative to be,” Blank said.
Well put. BGTX also buttoned her down more when her original campaign appeared disorganized, but by then, it was probably too late even for a better candidate.
Meanwhile, whether BGTX wants it or not, by directly hitching its star to that of Davis, including with campaign finance/fundraising commingling, has put itself under the gun earlier than it probably planned to do. No excuses; if these are DC pros, they should have vetted Davis' electoral chances better before jumping in the shark tank with her.
Perry and I will have to disagree here. He thinks that this piece by Dave Mann at the Texas Observer is pretty much off the rails, while I think it's pretty much spot-on. Mann discusses this same issue, the entwinement of Davis and BGTX.
Here's Mann's wrap:
The other part also seems true. The Abbott campaign was spitting raspberries at BGTX all throughout the campaign and will do so again in 2018.
Anyway, for whatever reasons, the seeming original mission of BGTX, get out the vote?
Perry and I will have to disagree here. He thinks that this piece by Dave Mann at the Texas Observer is pretty much off the rails, while I think it's pretty much spot-on. Mann discusses this same issue, the entwinement of Davis and BGTX.
Here's Mann's wrap:
But the facts are these: The filibuster forced Davis to run, but also left her forever associated with abortion, a difficult issue for Democrats in Texas. Now, the Democrats have seen one of their once-rising stars discarded to the pile of failed statewide candidates. They’ve also lost a Texas Senate seat to a tea party candidate. And, perhaps worst of all, they’ve seen the image of Battleground Texas severely tarnished. That may hamper future fundraising and damage Democrats’ efforts to turn Texas blue.
Fifteen months ago, the energy produced by the abortion filibuster offered Texas Democrats hope for the 2014 election, hope that the filibuster might kickstart a Democratic resurgence. Instead, in a dark irony, the filibuster likely did just the opposite: It may well have set back a Democratic resurgence for years to come.Exactly what I've been saying. And, since the filibuster did, in reality, force her to run, while not making reproductive choice the centerpiece of the campaign, again, she could have done more than run away from that filibuster during the campaign.
The other part also seems true. The Abbott campaign was spitting raspberries at BGTX all throughout the campaign and will do so again in 2018.
Anyway, for whatever reasons, the seeming original mission of BGTX, get out the vote?
Since, as adjusted for population, voting turnout was BELOW that in 2010, that's strike one, especially since the dropoff was all Democrats. (Abbott got about exactly the same numbers as Rick Perry in 2010.) It's still a bit early to say whether that was more its fault, or rather, it was doing the best it could against an upstream tide of disenchantment by many women, minorities and liberals.
What the answer is, I'm not sure. I'd love to see more openly socialist politics. That said, it's got to be sold better than either state or national Democratic insiders have sold the last detritus of neoliberalism.
Back to turnout.
And, locally, the minority turnout in midterm elections issues? Anecdotally reinforced for me firsthand. In the county where I live, the most minority-heavy county commissioner precinct, with probably half of the county's total minority population if not more, had a turnout of only about 60 percent that of the other three precincts.
Whether it was state and national office candidates running away from Obama, as seems to be one talking point, or what, I don't know. But black, and possibly Hispanic (even compared to their normal "baseline") voters didn't turn out in my county.
And, as Perry notes in another piece, in Texas, Abbott won the woman's vote over Davis, and in general, nationally, Democrats lost some of their previous advantage with women.
Elsewhere, I don't know whether this is because some women thought some Democrats' campaigns (Mark Udall) were too single-issue focused to the point of condescension or what, I don't know.
What the answer is, I'm not sure. I'd love to see more openly socialist politics. That said, it's got to be sold better than either state or national Democratic insiders have sold the last detritus of neoliberalism.
Back to turnout.
And, locally, the minority turnout in midterm elections issues? Anecdotally reinforced for me firsthand. In the county where I live, the most minority-heavy county commissioner precinct, with probably half of the county's total minority population if not more, had a turnout of only about 60 percent that of the other three precincts.
Whether it was state and national office candidates running away from Obama, as seems to be one talking point, or what, I don't know. But black, and possibly Hispanic (even compared to their normal "baseline") voters didn't turn out in my county.
And, as Perry notes in another piece, in Texas, Abbott won the woman's vote over Davis, and in general, nationally, Democrats lost some of their previous advantage with women.
Elsewhere, I don't know whether this is because some women thought some Democrats' campaigns (Mark Udall) were too single-issue focused to the point of condescension or what, I don't know.
Other strikes are ahead. Per Tilove's piece, Hispanics in Texas aren't as reliably Democratic as in some states, and to the degree they are, their turnout is even worse in Texas than other states.
Demographics won't be a savior otherwise. Millennials aren't as much in the tank for Democrats as they have been thinking, contra demographic-based hopes and wishful thinking.
I blogged in detail already last fall "warning" Democrats (as if any are listening to the likes of me) not to make such glib assumptions.
Beyond this all, I think BGTX has to figure other things out.
Is it primarily a get out the vote group? Primarily a candidate development incubator? A quasi-PAC? A bit of all of the above?
And, re the second option for what it does? I'll tackle that below.
Beyond this all, I think BGTX has to figure other things out.
Is it primarily a get out the vote group? Primarily a candidate development incubator? A quasi-PAC? A bit of all of the above?
And, re the second option for what it does? I'll tackle that below.
Looking ahead?
The 2016 elections, with no major statewide races (no top state positions, no U.S. Senate seat), may be a time for Democrats in Texas to lick their wounds, regroup, and figure out what's next.
Right now, it seems that what's next is not a black Democrat for statewide office, and is not either Castro brother for statewide office. Good thing 2016 has no statewide races, because as of right now, Texas Democrats don't have a deep "bench."
And, while Tricky Ricky Perry was a bit wrong Tuesday night about it being 25 years (actually, 20, with Bob Bullock "hanging on" in 1994) since a Democrat won statewide office, it's essentially been 25 years.
If BGTX envisions its future as being in part a candidate incubator and developer, it had better have hit the road yesterday. Not today, not tomorrow, yesterday. Much short of that is little different than putting some new DC deck chairs on the Titanic.
This ties back to Davis. Friend Perry is probably right that she was the most available candidate, as well as the best candidate within that group. Take that statement as it is.
Looking ahead, Part 2?
Via what I've seen in comments at new media websites, there's plenty of old white Democrats who are, if anything, even more conservative on modern social issues than Bullock was. Well, they claim they're still Democrats. Democratic candidates should learn to treat them as Republicans and, based on Tuesday's results, to treat independent voters as Republicans, too.
Get out your base, strengthen your base, run a good campaign, make a play for independents only on issues that don't compromise your core, and go from there.
Or else?
Maybe Greens will figure out how to make more noise.
Speaking of ...
One bright spot is Jim Chisolm getting 9 percent of the vote for Supreme Court Place 8, Judith Sanders-Castro getting 10 percent of the vote for Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 and George Joseph Altgelt getting 9 percent of the vote for CCA Place 9. With just one of those three candidates above the 5-percent mark, Greens have ballot-wide party line access in 2016. Now, can and will they build on it, for then and for 2018? Please, no more Brandon Parmers running for statewide office, OK? Like Democrats, start doing more work to recruit candidates.
Brief national wrap, based on yesterday's post with brief updates, below the fold.
And, while Tricky Ricky Perry was a bit wrong Tuesday night about it being 25 years (actually, 20, with Bob Bullock "hanging on" in 1994) since a Democrat won statewide office, it's essentially been 25 years.
If BGTX envisions its future as being in part a candidate incubator and developer, it had better have hit the road yesterday. Not today, not tomorrow, yesterday. Much short of that is little different than putting some new DC deck chairs on the Titanic.
This ties back to Davis. Friend Perry is probably right that she was the most available candidate, as well as the best candidate within that group. Take that statement as it is.
Looking ahead, Part 2?
Via what I've seen in comments at new media websites, there's plenty of old white Democrats who are, if anything, even more conservative on modern social issues than Bullock was. Well, they claim they're still Democrats. Democratic candidates should learn to treat them as Republicans and, based on Tuesday's results, to treat independent voters as Republicans, too.
Get out your base, strengthen your base, run a good campaign, make a play for independents only on issues that don't compromise your core, and go from there.
Or else?
Maybe Greens will figure out how to make more noise.
Speaking of ...
One bright spot is Jim Chisolm getting 9 percent of the vote for Supreme Court Place 8, Judith Sanders-Castro getting 10 percent of the vote for Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 and George Joseph Altgelt getting 9 percent of the vote for CCA Place 9. With just one of those three candidates above the 5-percent mark, Greens have ballot-wide party line access in 2016. Now, can and will they build on it, for then and for 2018? Please, no more Brandon Parmers running for statewide office, OK? Like Democrats, start doing more work to recruit candidates.
Brief national wrap, based on yesterday's post with brief updates, below the fold.
November 02, 2014
Pre-election roundup and observations
First, if early voting is any indication, Battleground Texas' get out the vote push is a big fat flop.
And, with that as a baseline, we can go on to an overview of Texas' elections likelihood, which is largely similar to what friend Perry says.
First, in the main Texas race? Rick Perry beat Bill White 55-42 in 2010. Based on the turnout news above, what I'll take as semi-scientific findings from my reader poll on this race, at right, and other information, I'll be surprised if Wendy Davis narrows that gap by more than 2 percentage points against Greg Abbott. I'll also be surprised if Abbott widens it more than two percentage points. Unless Dems field a truly godawful candidate, I think 40 percent for a statewide non-judicial race is probably a Democrat baseline.
In addition to not bolstering turnout, BGTX and Dems in general, in Texas and beyond, are finding more and more evidence that demographics, whether of age or minorities, will NOT be their savior. I've blogged about this myth, especially re Hispanic voters, for a full year or more. Latest confirmation comes in the age-related issue: Millennials are moving more away from Dems.
Post-mortems on why BGTX couldn't get more people out, and why Davis didn't run better, will be saved for when the death is officially pronounced. Per Tiger Beat on the Potomac, the semi drive-by hit nature of the piece aside, the post-mortems of the two will be connected, and will be judged on two things: overall turnout and the percentage point gap.
Second, I'm sure Perry's right that no House seats change hands. Per the turnout info, he's also probably right that the GOP may actually add a few states in the Lege. If so, doorknob help us with Abbott as gov and Dan Patrick as lite guv.
That said, if there's any chance of preventing that, or of bolstering the Green Party as it looks for better candidates, here's my endorsements and suggestions.
There's also one constitutional amendment on the ballot. In a separate piece, I say why I think you should vote No on it.
Briefly, national numbers and races. I expect the Senate to be either 50-50 or maybe 51-49, counting any independents who may get elected as caucusing Democratic. Per Perry, we may not know for sure until some December runoffs. I expect Rick Scott to lose narrowly in Florida but Scott Walker to stay on in Wisconsin. And, in a major state initiative, I expect, for both better and worse, that Oregon will pass a GMO labeling law.
And, with that as a baseline, we can go on to an overview of Texas' elections likelihood, which is largely similar to what friend Perry says.
First, in the main Texas race? Rick Perry beat Bill White 55-42 in 2010. Based on the turnout news above, what I'll take as semi-scientific findings from my reader poll on this race, at right, and other information, I'll be surprised if Wendy Davis narrows that gap by more than 2 percentage points against Greg Abbott. I'll also be surprised if Abbott widens it more than two percentage points. Unless Dems field a truly godawful candidate, I think 40 percent for a statewide non-judicial race is probably a Democrat baseline.
In addition to not bolstering turnout, BGTX and Dems in general, in Texas and beyond, are finding more and more evidence that demographics, whether of age or minorities, will NOT be their savior. I've blogged about this myth, especially re Hispanic voters, for a full year or more. Latest confirmation comes in the age-related issue: Millennials are moving more away from Dems.
Post-mortems on why BGTX couldn't get more people out, and why Davis didn't run better, will be saved for when the death is officially pronounced. Per Tiger Beat on the Potomac, the semi drive-by hit nature of the piece aside, the post-mortems of the two will be connected, and will be judged on two things: overall turnout and the percentage point gap.
Second, I'm sure Perry's right that no House seats change hands. Per the turnout info, he's also probably right that the GOP may actually add a few states in the Lege. If so, doorknob help us with Abbott as gov and Dan Patrick as lite guv.
That said, if there's any chance of preventing that, or of bolstering the Green Party as it looks for better candidates, here's my endorsements and suggestions.
There's also one constitutional amendment on the ballot. In a separate piece, I say why I think you should vote No on it.
Briefly, national numbers and races. I expect the Senate to be either 50-50 or maybe 51-49, counting any independents who may get elected as caucusing Democratic. Per Perry, we may not know for sure until some December runoffs. I expect Rick Scott to lose narrowly in Florida but Scott Walker to stay on in Wisconsin. And, in a major state initiative, I expect, for both better and worse, that Oregon will pass a GMO labeling law.
October 10, 2014
Democrats, minority voters and thinking beyond 2 social issues
Fort Worth Star-Telegram political columnist Bud Kennedy pens an insightful piece on these issues as gubernatorial voting nears. He starts with a Hispanic opponent from Wendy Davis' first Fort Worth City Council election.
The general tenor of his piece is that many minorities still care more about employment, job security and income, rather than two hot-button issues of abortion and gay rights.
Indeed, as many Hispanics reinvigorate their personal religious lives by leaving Catholicism for conservative Protestant churches, like African-Americans, they may be opposed to liberal stances on those two issues.
As a newspaper editor, at the community level, in a majority-minority small town, I can attest to black religiosity, and the conservativeness of it.
Because of Republicans' bad history with blacks on civil rights, other than the occasional poster child for the Tea Party like Herman Cain or Allen West, the GOP is no threat to make serious inroads on black votes, these issues aside. (And, with things like the attempts at vote suppression through the just-struck-down photo ID law, it's not getting better.)
However, their history with Hispanics is, comparatively, not as bad. (Not that that says a lot, and with things like photo ID, it's not getting better.)
Democrats have a tightrope to walk.
Unfortunately, in many states, as at the national level, more and more Democrats are becoming more neoliberal. And, they haven't learn to riff off the Occupy movement and talk to working-class white voters about socioeconomic class inequality, and solidarity with minorities as part of this.
That's why pundits who keep saying growing Hispanic numbers in particular, and minority numbers in general, will turn Texas blue, or guarantee long-term national Democratic advantage?
Wake up, smell the coffee, and drink about 5 cups of it instead of your current Kool-Aid. You're wrong, or, at a minimum, you're nowhere near being guaranteed right.
That's you, Battleground Texas. That's you, Lone Star Project.
At the same time, liberal white Democrats, with agreed liberal minority allies, shouldn't back off on the reproductive choice (with flexibility), or gay rights issues.
Black storefront church pastors? If you don't like gay marriage, nobody's forcing you to have one. But, 47 years ago, "they" weren't allowing you to have a black-white wedding. Civil rights is civil rights, and "pecking order" battles on civil rights are ultimately no-win games.
The general tenor of his piece is that many minorities still care more about employment, job security and income, rather than two hot-button issues of abortion and gay rights.
Indeed, as many Hispanics reinvigorate their personal religious lives by leaving Catholicism for conservative Protestant churches, like African-Americans, they may be opposed to liberal stances on those two issues.
As a newspaper editor, at the community level, in a majority-minority small town, I can attest to black religiosity, and the conservativeness of it.
Because of Republicans' bad history with blacks on civil rights, other than the occasional poster child for the Tea Party like Herman Cain or Allen West, the GOP is no threat to make serious inroads on black votes, these issues aside. (And, with things like the attempts at vote suppression through the just-struck-down photo ID law, it's not getting better.)
However, their history with Hispanics is, comparatively, not as bad. (Not that that says a lot, and with things like photo ID, it's not getting better.)
Democrats have a tightrope to walk.
Unfortunately, in many states, as at the national level, more and more Democrats are becoming more neoliberal. And, they haven't learn to riff off the Occupy movement and talk to working-class white voters about socioeconomic class inequality, and solidarity with minorities as part of this.
That's why pundits who keep saying growing Hispanic numbers in particular, and minority numbers in general, will turn Texas blue, or guarantee long-term national Democratic advantage?
Wake up, smell the coffee, and drink about 5 cups of it instead of your current Kool-Aid. You're wrong, or, at a minimum, you're nowhere near being guaranteed right.
That's you, Battleground Texas. That's you, Lone Star Project.
At the same time, liberal white Democrats, with agreed liberal minority allies, shouldn't back off on the reproductive choice (with flexibility), or gay rights issues.
Black storefront church pastors? If you don't like gay marriage, nobody's forcing you to have one. But, 47 years ago, "they" weren't allowing you to have a black-white wedding. Civil rights is civil rights, and "pecking order" battles on civil rights are ultimately no-win games.
October 09, 2014
Battleground Texas gets all enthusiastic about new voters; should it?
The Houston Chronicle notes new voter registrations are up in the largest counties in Texas, and Battleground Texas trumpets that fact.
The story's paywalled, so I'll go to Kuffner, who discusses it more, and take some points out.
Here's the Chron's biggie:
First, midterm voting in general falls off, tis true. On the plus side, to revitalize registration in a midterm, this one, is better than doing it in 2012, and Kuff compares this year to 2010. In Harris County, where BGTX did best, it's about 7 percent. In other East Texas metros, it's around 4 percent, and about 7 percent in El Paso.
So, that part is good.
But, second, this is only in the big counties.
The Valley counties aren't small, though. They're certainly mid-sized, some of them. And, that's where Hispanic turnout among the registered, and not registering, among those eligible, are both the most problematic.
So, BGTX can call me back, metaphorically, when we get some numbers out of Webb County (Laredo), Cameron County (Harlingen, Brownsville), Hidalgo County (McAllen), etc.
Will Leticia Van de Putte on the ticket help at all? Will a debate down there have helped? I don't know.
So, BGTX can call me back, metaphorically, when we get some numbers out of Webb County (Laredo), Cameron County (Harlingen, Brownsville), Hidalgo County (McAllen), etc.
Kuff's right that this is a multiyear project. However, in the big counties, county Democratic operatives have already had relatively strong operations. So, again, call me back when the Valley has a jump — and a significant one.
I have been called back. BGTX has modest-moderate increases in both the Valley and also the Golden Triangle.
Again, though, this is just registration, not turnout, as the second of those two links reminds:
The story's paywalled, so I'll go to Kuffner, who discusses it more, and take some points out.
Here's the Chron's biggie:
Nearly 150,000 more Texans in these counties are eligible to vote in November’s election between Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis than could vote in the 2012 presidential election, according to tallies released by Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar and Travis counties midday Monday, the last day to register.
The new registrations, however, did not outpace population growth in these counties, which are expected to have grown by 2.6 percent since 2012. But population growth has not always meant growth in voter registration totals: Following the registration push that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008, voter registration in these counties declined by 140,000, a 2.5 percent drop ahead of the 2010 midterm election.
It remains to be seen what impact, if any, the increased registration will have on voter turnout on the mid-term cycle, which is historically lower than for presidential ballots.
Just 24 percent of Jefferson's eligible voters turned out in 2010, compared to 58 percent in 2008, mirroring a mid-term versus presidential trend, according to Secretary of State data.
Since 2000, presidential ballots have drawn an average of 37,000 more Jefferson County voters to the polls than the mid-term ballots that followed two years later.
Minority voters, especially, may think that Washington is the place to solve all of their problems, as I've blogged before. BGTX certainly has an uphill fight combatting that.
February 18, 2014
What's the matter with ... Demographically delusional Democrats
The DDD: It kind of rolls off the tongue, does it not?
I've already blogged about Battleground Texas' semi-mindless belief that demographics (increased Hispanic numbers, mainly) will make turning Texas "blue" a piece of baklava. For me, at the state level, it's been crunching numbers about how BG's thinking about Hispanics, and how "blue" they're likely to lean, isn't quite as true as they might think.
That said, that leads to broader issues, like assumptions in general, counting chickens before they hatch or otherwise demographically grow up, and so forth.
Well, now, Thomas Frank, editor of The Baffler and author of "What's the Matter with Kansas," weighs in on that very topic, on the 10th anniversary of the book. And, it ties in well with current Texas politics, too, as my pull quote shows.
He starts here:
And, he's exactly right that there's a degree of smugness at play, from what I see. And, that smugness has often failed before in the world of politics.
Let's take a look at that first link, though. Obama himself, it's clear, is ignoring ethnic demographics more than I think Frank accepts. Rather, by targeting two hot-button social issues plus education, he's targeting millennials first and foremost, followed by professionals, especially those in the "creative class." To the degree that pop music and younger generations are more heavily minority, "targeting" of minorities comes along for the ride. That said, the NJ piece is worth a read itself.
Krugman's worth a read, too, just too see what blinders he can wear at times. Like not even mentioning the name of "Ted Cruz."
Frank follows up with a further look at that smugness:
The "liberal mind" link is paywall-protected, rightly, at Harper's. Perhaps it comes free in a month or so.
But, teh Google tells me he starts by triangulating off Krugman's myopia and goes from there. Noting how this smugness has failed in the past, he cites post-1964 Democratic smugness over Barry Goldwater's obliteration as a starting point, as described by Rick Perlstein. Or how FDR blew it in 1938 midterms. From there, he gets more specific about what this leads to:
Corrente sums up its observation:
And why, looking four years ahead, Julian Castro will lose to Abbott in 2018, unless he's smart enough not to run, or to have somebody radically different than BG manage his campaign. However, given that he's one of the "ascendants" who's Obat-leaning, he's not that smart.
Frank himself thinks that at least a few red staters will listen to traditional economic messages. Now, governors have less influence on this than congresscritters, but they have some.
Why, instead of sounding like Tricky Ricky Perry, isn't Davis talking about something like "Let's make Texas more friendly for workers"?
The fact the she isn't, and that Bill White wasn't, probably explains why many potential Ds never vote.
When has the word "union" crossed a Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidates lips on a regular basis?
I've already blogged about Battleground Texas' semi-mindless belief that demographics (increased Hispanic numbers, mainly) will make turning Texas "blue" a piece of baklava. For me, at the state level, it's been crunching numbers about how BG's thinking about Hispanics, and how "blue" they're likely to lean, isn't quite as true as they might think.
That said, that leads to broader issues, like assumptions in general, counting chickens before they hatch or otherwise demographically grow up, and so forth.
He starts here:
These days, the big thinkers of the Democratic Party have concluded that they can safely ignore the things I described. They’ve got a new bunch of voters these days — the famous “coalition of the ascendant,” made up of professionals, minorities and “millennials” — and it pleases them to imagine that with this unstoppable army at their back they will win elections from here to eternity. There is no need to resolve the dilemmas I outlined in “Kansas,” no need to win back working-class voters or solve wrenching economic problems. In fact, there is no need to lift a finger to do much of anything, since vast, impersonal demographic forces are what rescued them from the trap I identified. They now have the luxury of saying, as Paul Krugman did on the day after the 2012 election, “Who cares what’s the matter with Kansas?”
And, he's exactly right that there's a degree of smugness at play, from what I see. And, that smugness has often failed before in the world of politics.
Let's take a look at that first link, though. Obama himself, it's clear, is ignoring ethnic demographics more than I think Frank accepts. Rather, by targeting two hot-button social issues plus education, he's targeting millennials first and foremost, followed by professionals, especially those in the "creative class." To the degree that pop music and younger generations are more heavily minority, "targeting" of minorities comes along for the ride. That said, the NJ piece is worth a read itself.
Krugman's worth a read, too, just too see what blinders he can wear at times. Like not even mentioning the name of "Ted Cruz."
Frank follows up with a further look at that smugness:
Now, maybe doing absolutely nothing about the Kansas conundrum will serve Democrats well in the years to come. I suspect, however, that their smug fantasy of demographically determined triumph will take them the way of all the other smug mechanical dreams to which the liberal mind is so peculiarly given. I recall, in this connection, a conversation I had about Kansas politics with a prominent national Democrat back in 2003. To him, the situation was obvious, as was its solution: The state’s Republicans had pushed too far to the right, and now they were fated for defeat by the laws of physics, by the irresistible swing of that ol’ pendulum.Ahh, it's a decade later, and we see what the result of that smugness has been. Cruz here in Texas. Mike Lee in Utah. A "tea party" of old-resentment GOPers now young and radicalized, dominating the House GOP caucus, and that hasn't backed down from the previous Congress' intransigence.
The "liberal mind" link is paywall-protected, rightly, at Harper's. Perhaps it comes free in a month or so.
But, teh Google tells me he starts by triangulating off Krugman's myopia and goes from there. Noting how this smugness has failed in the past, he cites post-1964 Democratic smugness over Barry Goldwater's obliteration as a starting point, as described by Rick Perlstein. Or how FDR blew it in 1938 midterms. From there, he gets more specific about what this leads to:
Why bother getting out there and building majorities capable of sweeping the G.O.P. out for good? There’s no need, insist Democrats of the optimistic kind, who believe that the impersonal hand of history will soon deliver the world to their doorstep, tied with a bow. (Ralph Nader, who has been observing the progressive collapse for decades, is irked by the demographic argument, which he described to me as “the verbal equivalent of anesthesia for the Democratic party.”)Next, he notes, this both is rooted in, and fuels, a different attitude:
The difference between conservative culture and progressivism couldn’t be more stark. They read the RedState blog and refresh their anger; we read Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog and learn the exact statistical odds of an Obama victory in North Carolina. They are all would-be organizers, alternately Sam Adams or Saul Alinsky (the enemy they love to emulate). On my side, those figures are barely remembered; the model for progressives today is academia.There's no anger of the wingnut sort. Look at Obama himself. Not for nothing is he called President Kumbaya, here and elsewhere. Speaking of ...
Corrente sums up its observation:
One reason arguing with Obots is so hard; they genuinely believe they don't have to do anything. Obama successfully anesthetized a big segment of the professional, creative, and political class. It's amazing. Anyhow, I just remembered you don't actually have to buy the current version of Harper's; you can go to the library and read it there!Totally agreed. And, the Angles and others affiliated with Battleground Texas are all Obats. Which is why Wendy Davis will lose in 2014 to Greg Abbott.
And why, looking four years ahead, Julian Castro will lose to Abbott in 2018, unless he's smart enough not to run, or to have somebody radically different than BG manage his campaign. However, given that he's one of the "ascendants" who's Obat-leaning, he's not that smart.
Frank himself thinks that at least a few red staters will listen to traditional economic messages. Now, governors have less influence on this than congresscritters, but they have some.
Why, instead of sounding like Tricky Ricky Perry, isn't Davis talking about something like "Let's make Texas more friendly for workers"?
The fact the she isn't, and that Bill White wasn't, probably explains why many potential Ds never vote.
When has the word "union" crossed a Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidates lips on a regular basis?
February 12, 2014
The packaging of #WendyDavis
At the New York Times Magazine, Robert Draper has an in-depth profile of Wendy Davis. Draper, a native Texan, was on the road with Davis off and on since last summer before filing this longform read.
Much of the piece is about the "packaging" of Davis, in part by her consultants, in part by herself. And, I'm talking about more than then "single mother" campaign bio that got partially deconstructed last month by Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News.
It's a good piece, in line with some other news analysis pieces I've read before. Draper might be seen as similar to Jim Moore — sympathetic, but not pulling his punches.
Here's a good takeout to start with:
One is that said "packaging" isn't easy. The second is that "handlers" often can't see very far outside their bubbles.
There's also this observation about her personality:
And, there's this, that partially undercuts the Texas exceptionalism she used in Waxahachie last year:
Meanwhile, here's the ultimate challenge:
So, I say?
"Grow a pair, Pointy Abandoned Object State residents." That was nearly 200 years ago.
At the same time, the whole story is worth a read. Draper also talks about how J.D. Angle and other "handlers" approached Jeff Davis, her ex, to finesse and massage the issue of how much he funded her higher education and other things.
It also offers more clues as to why her dad was prominent in her political bio, for years, as well as hinting why her mom was and is not.
Draper's "wrap" with Davis, of Draper's last visit, includes this:
But, you've chosen to run on your story above all else, a tough choice as it may be, like this:
Draper's wrap also shines more light on what I already see elsewhere in her personality, from her lawsuit against the Star-Telegram on: Once she stakes out a position on an issue, that's it.
Oh, and feel free to take a second to vote in the poll at right about this race. So far, half of respondents expect Davis to do worse than Bill White in 2010.
Unfortunately, the Texas Green party continues to sit on its ass. And, yes, I may put this comment semi-regularly at the end of posts about Davis.
Much of the piece is about the "packaging" of Davis, in part by her consultants, in part by herself. And, I'm talking about more than then "single mother" campaign bio that got partially deconstructed last month by Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News.
It's a good piece, in line with some other news analysis pieces I've read before. Draper might be seen as similar to Jim Moore — sympathetic, but not pulling his punches.
Here's a good takeout to start with:
The persistence of a gender-based double standard, (Jennifer) Granholm said, “is the oldest story in the book.”Well put, well put. In short, there's two takeaways.
(An) equally familiar tale is about how narratives are spun in American politics. Davis’s rendition — “a Texas success story,” as she put it on the “Today” show — was chosen and packaged by her and her team with the greatest of care, and as Granholm acknowledged, “strategists emphasize some things and downplay other things — that’s true with every candidate on the planet.” The only thing harder to imagine than conservative voters being wholeheartedly supportive of Davis’s life choices is a savvy politician being wholly oblivious to such unease and, in concert with her campaign team, not tailoring her story accordingly.
One is that said "packaging" isn't easy. The second is that "handlers" often can't see very far outside their bubbles.
There's also this observation about her personality:
At the same time, celebrity does not altogether suit Davis. She lacks the salty oratorical verve of Ann Richards. She is unswervingly articulate and genial but maintains a lawyerly remove; her emotional thermostat remains more or less at room temperature.That, as well as her running away from her filibuster last summer, is another puzzler as to why she's running for governor. It's also yet another parallel between her and Dear Leader, Barack Obama.
And, there's this, that partially undercuts the Texas exceptionalism she used in Waxahachie last year:
“But we need to be able to tell a story that includes our whole population. Our real job as state leaders is not to brag about how great we are, but to be forward-thinking enough to deliver on the promise that everyone has a place in that story.”Agreed. But, please, keep that in broader mind.
Meanwhile, here's the ultimate challenge:
Additionally, as the de facto challenger in the race (Governor Perry is stepping down, but Abbott is widely seen as his heir), Davis will have to point out the state’s shortcomings while being careful not to offend its tender sensibilities. The duality of Texas pride and Texas insecurity harks back to its decade-long experience as an independent republic.Draper, a Texan himself, is exactly right.
So, I say?
"Grow a pair, Pointy Abandoned Object State residents." That was nearly 200 years ago.
At the same time, the whole story is worth a read. Draper also talks about how J.D. Angle and other "handlers" approached Jeff Davis, her ex, to finesse and massage the issue of how much he funded her higher education and other things.
It also offers more clues as to why her dad was prominent in her political bio, for years, as well as hinting why her mom was and is not.
Draper's "wrap" with Davis, of Draper's last visit, includes this:
“And it really is, I think, rather absurd that we’ve spent so much time picking over details of my biography.”Well, some of the GOP attacks have been over the top. But, your language has been more than "not tight." It's been fudged, in that "lawyerly remove."
But, you've chosen to run on your story above all else, a tough choice as it may be, like this:
Davis had reassured voters with a near-perfect narrative: a portrait of herself as modern-day Supermom, a woman who existed only in our imaginations.Well put.
Draper's wrap also shines more light on what I already see elsewhere in her personality, from her lawsuit against the Star-Telegram on: Once she stakes out a position on an issue, that's it.
Oh, and feel free to take a second to vote in the poll at right about this race. So far, half of respondents expect Davis to do worse than Bill White in 2010.
Unfortunately, the Texas Green party continues to sit on its ass. And, yes, I may put this comment semi-regularly at the end of posts about Davis.
February 07, 2014
Hispanic alert for Battleground Texas
The Texas Trib gives further confirmation to what I've blogged about before, about Battleground Texas' demographic assumptions on how boosting Hispanic turnout will make turning Texas "blue" a piece of baklava.
The "heads up"? Per this Gallup Poll, Hispanics in Texas, while still Democratic leaning, are less Democratic leaning here in the Pointy Abandoned Object State than elsewhere. Five percent more GOP, six percent less Democratic, is more than an eyeblink of difference.
And, right now, that difference between Texas and national Hispanic numbers is getting WORSE, not better:
Gallup goes on to "helpfully" point out that national vs. state Hispanic voter registration rates show a 7-point gap, too. (Of course, all demographic classes in Texas lag national numbers here.)
Why? At my long original blog post, I noted that, at least for Shrub, Latino Protestants broke in his favor. And, in Texas, many Hispanics, even if their ancestors were from Mexican Catholic backgrounds, appear to be doing the religion shift.
As far as issues? Both Catholic and Protestant Hispanics, if they're newer to Texas, may not care about abortion, but might care about broader birth control issues. They probably don't peg liberal on LGBT issues, true, but they sure as hell don't cotton to open carry gun laws. Just a word to the wise.
At the same time, if top Republican candidates continue to be batshit crazy on "the border" and immigration, Hispanic Republicans, including leaders, may strike their tents. One is already threatening that.
The "heads up"? Per this Gallup Poll, Hispanics in Texas, while still Democratic leaning, are less Democratic leaning here in the Pointy Abandoned Object State than elsewhere. Five percent more GOP, six percent less Democratic, is more than an eyeblink of difference.
And, right now, that difference between Texas and national Hispanic numbers is getting WORSE, not better:
Relative to 2008 -- the year of President Barack Obama's landslide presidential victory -- Texan Hispanics have gradually become more Republican, even as the percentage of Hispanics identifying with or leaning toward the Republican Party has remained relatively stable nationwide. The six-percentage-point gap between the percentage of Texan Hispanics and Hispanics living in all other states who identify or lean GOP is the highest it has been in over six years.
Gallup goes on to "helpfully" point out that national vs. state Hispanic voter registration rates show a 7-point gap, too. (Of course, all demographic classes in Texas lag national numbers here.)
Why? At my long original blog post, I noted that, at least for Shrub, Latino Protestants broke in his favor. And, in Texas, many Hispanics, even if their ancestors were from Mexican Catholic backgrounds, appear to be doing the religion shift.
As far as issues? Both Catholic and Protestant Hispanics, if they're newer to Texas, may not care about abortion, but might care about broader birth control issues. They probably don't peg liberal on LGBT issues, true, but they sure as hell don't cotton to open carry gun laws. Just a word to the wise.
At the same time, if top Republican candidates continue to be batshit crazy on "the border" and immigration, Hispanic Republicans, including leaders, may strike their tents. One is already threatening that.
February 04, 2014
Did #WendyDavis actually outraise #GregAbbott? Not so fast, including you, BOR (updated)
(Update, Feb. 5: Let's see how Burnt Orange Report, the Angle Bros. et al spin THIS, namely, how badly Greg Abbott kicked Wendy Davis' butt in January fundraising. And now, back to your original blog post.)
It sounds like it, right? In the July-December 2013 period, Wendy Davis outraised Greg Abbott in fundraising for the Texas governor's race, by $12.2 million to $11.5 million.
Not so fast. Here's the fine print on that:
Answer? Per the Snooze, some $3.5 million of the total is from the Texas Victory Committee. Split that in half between her and Battleground Texas, and her $12.2 million falls to $10.5 million. Still impressive, no doubt about it. But not Greg Abbott's $11.5 million.
Burnt Orange Report decides to join in the spinning:
Let's say the Texas Republican Party created an alternative to Battleground Texas called, oh, Attack for Liberty. Attack for Liberty and Greg Abbott's campaign then formed Texas Liberty Committee.
And, Texas Liberty Committee raised $3.5M and claimed that as part of his $11.5M?
Don't tell me BOR wouldn't be on that like white on rice. Because, Abbott, Attack for Liberty and the Texas Liberty Committee would be using the exact same explainers it trots out.
That said, BOR does have a live blog of actual, Texas Ethics Commission-filed donations, for all major candidates, with figures also including cash on hand.
And, the January numbers are reflective. Maybe national pro-choice groups are backing off, if David is "prolife." Or national LGBT groups are backing off because Davis allegedly doesn't have time for their endorsement questionnaires (really, she's running away from that, too), but does have time for one from the Morning News, and surely other mainstream papers.
Meanwhile, nobody's claimed that Abbott's money was co-raised with a third party. Because, if it were, BOR would be critiquing Abbott just like I just critiqued Davis.
That includes you, Michael Li, from BOR's story:
Beyond that, I've had a bit of a shootout with at least one GOP consultant vs. other blogging on this site. Per my day job, I'm familiar with all of this.
Beyond that, at times, per the title of this blog, I like being a deliberate contrarian. Or, in this case, a deliberate nit-picker, or whatever you want. So, keep spinning, and I'll keep blogging about it.
Don't get me wrong. Li knows the legal issues around things such as the redistricting fight. But, he's still spinning on this.
Now, I see Harold Cook joined the spinning, too. I get where Cook is coming from. However, I'll venture that if we went to every Abbott event, we might see plenty where the Texas GOP was listed as a separate recipient of funds, or whatever.
Finally, the Texas Ethics Commission has the official numbers. And the filing doesn't count the Texas Victory Committee as part of Davis' totals. It's $11.6M for Abbott and $8.7M for Davis.
Jonathan Tilove at the Statesman rounds up the reality on the spinning. And adds:
And, assuming Abbott does use third-party joint fundraising, you bet your ass he'll report combined numbers from here on out, anyway.
And, Cook, at least, concedes as much:
And, this is where my day job in the press biz kicked in long ago, and takes precedence here over progressive politics. If Abbott had done the same, I'd have kicked him even harder, since he's a conservative, and it's not his first statewide race.
But, comparing apples and apples? Abbott won. Period. End of story. Can we stop with other claims?
In short, a short-term spin could backfire down the road. Assuming it does, we'll see what Li, Cook, et al have to say.
I mean, I've blogged a lot of baseball stuff, for and against certain players' candidacies for the Hall of Fame. Trust me, I've seen numbers and statistics sliced more different ways than 99-cent bologna.
If I wanted to drill down enough, I could probably find that Abbott outraised Davis in some ZIP code in her state Senate district. Or that Davis outraised Abbott among left-handers who live within 300 yards of the Ben Franklin store in Duncanville where they idolize him to death.
So, if you want to be technical, because Abbott chose not to slice and dice his bologna some way, because he wasn't worried about Davis getting that close to him, she "won." Wave your hands in the air, Battleground Texas. If Abbott's really worried about this, he'll find a way to spin your numbers into the grave in the next reporting cycle or two.
And, to be honest, I dig my heels back in on issues like this. Part of it may be "motivated reasoning" on my part, given that nobody likes to stake out a stance then be proven wrong. On the other hand, Cook opened the window himself, with his caveats, essentially admitting this was at least semi-spin, though he refuses to take the extra step of admission.
And, speaking of, I've exchanged enough tweets with Li on this. On my last one, I told him to talk to Tilove, or Jay Root at the Trib. None of us are "GOP operatives." You, Michael, on the other hand, ARE a Democratic operative, even if not officially affiliated with the Davis campaign. And, Cook, a political PR meister, has nothing about this on his blog, either.
Oh, and this also gets at one thing Perry talked about. Davis, like Dear Leader, wasn't supposed to be about politics as usual. But, between this and her David Alameel endorsement, she indeed appears to be Just.Another.Politician.™, and the Michael Lis of the world probably don't want to talk about that at all.
Besides, Bill White outraised Rick Perry at times four years ago. And, we all know how that turned out.
If the last few presidential campaigns have shown us anything, it's that fundraising itself, and how it's framed and phrased, has itself become political gamesmanship.
Get a TV and Internet 30-second, or 15-second, sound bite of one-upsmanship, then get everybody to move on before the details are announced.
Or, if you want an even blunter reminder of how fundraising prowess doesn't always translate into political success? Phil Gramm for president. Before him, John Connally for president.
P. Diddie has more thoughts along this vein. And goes the next step down the road:
I agree with Perry on the money, but it's more than just that. Spinning like this is sophomoric. People who know a lot about politics see through it right away, and call you out on it. Then you have people like Michael Li and Harold Cook doubling down on spinning.
And so, instead of a new type of politics, we have the same old shit. And, I've had tussles with consultant types from the GOP side before, not liking it when I called them out. (Last time over there was for non-monetary reasons, but I still called GOP shit what it was. And gave the same answer as to Li, and now Cook: This is the media part of me operating.)
Beyond the political gamesmanship, this gets back to the question of her endorsement of Texas' latest Democratic Daddy Warbucks, David Alameel, in the Senate primary.
What's in it for her to endorse a candidate worth $50 million or more, but one who hasn't revealed his stances on a single major political issue?
Oh, and I asked Li about this. While trying to spin every which way but loose the news about Davis' and Abbott's campaign contributions, I got bupkis in reply from him about her Alameel endorsement, when I tweeted suggesting he ask about that.
Finally, given the fact that she sued the Startlegram and its corporate parents after losing her 2006 Fort Worth City Council race, I'm thinking more and more we're at the Politics of Usual. More reason than ever to vote Green in the general election if we've got Republicans and Democrats alike offering up a pair of overlawyering lawyers.
Now, I don't buy into wingnuts taking her "mental health was affected" statement as part of filing as part of a claim she has actual mental health problems. That's not my angle.
No, I'm just, as I read more about the suit, raising my eyebrows higher and higher over what appears to be overlawyering mixed with cluelessness about the First Amendment, a thin skin, or something.
She sued over editorials, my friends, not news stories.
Now, I've primarily been at small-town newspapers, but much of my time has been near the Metroplex. And, at least immediately, I cannot recall any other candidate who has lost a race and then sued over opinion articles.
Good fucking doorknob.
I am linking to National Review's story, knowing it's not trotting out the Eric Erickson angle but is seemingly giving a halfway fair overview. I'm trying teh Google to see if I can find a link to any StartleGram stories about the suit after its final disposition.
Yeah, wingnuts may be worried about the likelihood of her success. But, as some currently in the media, I'm pretty sure I don't want a Junior Barack Obama, in terms of attitude toward the First Amendment, running the state.
And, I've now found a copy of the actual editorial. I'll be doing a follow-up post, and the hell if I don't make any progressive writers' groups.
It sounds like it, right? In the July-December 2013 period, Wendy Davis outraised Greg Abbott in fundraising for the Texas governor's race, by $12.2 million to $11.5 million.
Not so fast. Here's the fine print on that:
The senator's campaign finance totals include funds raised by the Texas Victory Committee, a joint effort that splits money between the Davis campaign and Battleground Texas, a group trying to turn Texas blue.So, how much money did SHE raise? (As well as how much cash does she have on hand?)
Answer? Per the Snooze, some $3.5 million of the total is from the Texas Victory Committee. Split that in half between her and Battleground Texas, and her $12.2 million falls to $10.5 million. Still impressive, no doubt about it. But not Greg Abbott's $11.5 million.
Burnt Orange Report decides to join in the spinning:
To call the Texas Victory Committee a "split" between Wendy Davis and Battleground Texas suggests that she won't be the recipient of all of the money. That doesn't accurately convey how the money is to be used -- it will be used by Battleground to elect Wendy Davis. She will be on the receiving end of the electioneering paid for with that fund.Nice, but ... not true!
Let's say the Texas Republican Party created an alternative to Battleground Texas called, oh, Attack for Liberty. Attack for Liberty and Greg Abbott's campaign then formed Texas Liberty Committee.
And, Texas Liberty Committee raised $3.5M and claimed that as part of his $11.5M?
Don't tell me BOR wouldn't be on that like white on rice. Because, Abbott, Attack for Liberty and the Texas Liberty Committee would be using the exact same explainers it trots out.
That said, BOR does have a live blog of actual, Texas Ethics Commission-filed donations, for all major candidates, with figures also including cash on hand.
And, the January numbers are reflective. Maybe national pro-choice groups are backing off, if David is "prolife." Or national LGBT groups are backing off because Davis allegedly doesn't have time for their endorsement questionnaires (really, she's running away from that, too), but does have time for one from the Morning News, and surely other mainstream papers.
Meanwhile, nobody's claimed that Abbott's money was co-raised with a third party. Because, if it were, BOR would be critiquing Abbott just like I just critiqued Davis.
That includes you, Michael Li, from BOR's story:
Amused by the spin on Wendy Davis' fundraising numbers by GOP operatives who understand exactly what a joint fundraising committee is.Amused you think everybody critiquing this is a GOP operative. If you've got goods on Abbott money coming from a joint fundraising committee, feel free to mention it.
— Michael Li (@mcpli) January 1
Beyond that, I've had a bit of a shootout with at least one GOP consultant vs. other blogging on this site. Per my day job, I'm familiar with all of this.
Beyond that, at times, per the title of this blog, I like being a deliberate contrarian. Or, in this case, a deliberate nit-picker, or whatever you want. So, keep spinning, and I'll keep blogging about it.
Don't get me wrong. Li knows the legal issues around things such as the redistricting fight. But, he's still spinning on this.
Now, I see Harold Cook joined the spinning, too. I get where Cook is coming from. However, I'll venture that if we went to every Abbott event, we might see plenty where the Texas GOP was listed as a separate recipient of funds, or whatever.
Finally, the Texas Ethics Commission has the official numbers. And the filing doesn't count the Texas Victory Committee as part of Davis' totals. It's $11.6M for Abbott and $8.7M for Davis.
Jonathan Tilove at the Statesman rounds up the reality on the spinning. And adds:
The most obvious manipulation in the Davis campaign's late release of its fundraising numbers was a spin of omission - its failure to report how much money it burned in the reporting period and how much money it has in the bank going into 2014. Abbott, whose campaign put out its numbers 20 minutes after the Davis campaign put out its numbers, reported that it has $27 million in cash on hand, which will probably prove to be three or four or more times as much as Davis will report today.Bingo. And, the transparency of a lot of this spinning is laughable. So, too, is the faux indignation of a Michael Li. As for saying Romney and Obama did this, fine. If Abbott did, too, we'll find out in the official Texas Ethics Commission wash. One of the oldest reporting tricks in the book, Michael. Mark Twain would have a field day with modern finance numbers.
And, assuming Abbott does use third-party joint fundraising, you bet your ass he'll report combined numbers from here on out, anyway.
And, Cook, at least, concedes as much:
If Greg Abbott’s team doesn’t want Wendy Davis to claim as part of her fundraising totals that money which she is contributing to a coordinated effort, then Greg Abbott should subtract from his totals whatever amount he anticipates he will eventually contribute to the Republican coordinated effort. If, in the alternative, he is raising money directly into his coordinated effort, as Davis has done, he should have counted it as part of his total – assuming he hasn’t co-mingled that money with that of other Republican candidates who are also contributing to the Republican effort.So, let's just wait until the next fundraising cycle, and compare apples and apples.
And, this is where my day job in the press biz kicked in long ago, and takes precedence here over progressive politics. If Abbott had done the same, I'd have kicked him even harder, since he's a conservative, and it's not his first statewide race.
But, comparing apples and apples? Abbott won. Period. End of story. Can we stop with other claims?
In short, a short-term spin could backfire down the road. Assuming it does, we'll see what Li, Cook, et al have to say.
I mean, I've blogged a lot of baseball stuff, for and against certain players' candidacies for the Hall of Fame. Trust me, I've seen numbers and statistics sliced more different ways than 99-cent bologna.
If I wanted to drill down enough, I could probably find that Abbott outraised Davis in some ZIP code in her state Senate district. Or that Davis outraised Abbott among left-handers who live within 300 yards of the Ben Franklin store in Duncanville where they idolize him to death.
So, if you want to be technical, because Abbott chose not to slice and dice his bologna some way, because he wasn't worried about Davis getting that close to him, she "won." Wave your hands in the air, Battleground Texas. If Abbott's really worried about this, he'll find a way to spin your numbers into the grave in the next reporting cycle or two.
And, to be honest, I dig my heels back in on issues like this. Part of it may be "motivated reasoning" on my part, given that nobody likes to stake out a stance then be proven wrong. On the other hand, Cook opened the window himself, with his caveats, essentially admitting this was at least semi-spin, though he refuses to take the extra step of admission.
And, speaking of, I've exchanged enough tweets with Li on this. On my last one, I told him to talk to Tilove, or Jay Root at the Trib. None of us are "GOP operatives." You, Michael, on the other hand, ARE a Democratic operative, even if not officially affiliated with the Davis campaign. And, Cook, a political PR meister, has nothing about this on his blog, either.
Oh, and this also gets at one thing Perry talked about. Davis, like Dear Leader, wasn't supposed to be about politics as usual. But, between this and her David Alameel endorsement, she indeed appears to be Just.Another.Politician.™, and the Michael Lis of the world probably don't want to talk about that at all.
Besides, Bill White outraised Rick Perry at times four years ago. And, we all know how that turned out.
If the last few presidential campaigns have shown us anything, it's that fundraising itself, and how it's framed and phrased, has itself become political gamesmanship.
Get a TV and Internet 30-second, or 15-second, sound bite of one-upsmanship, then get everybody to move on before the details are announced.
Or, if you want an even blunter reminder of how fundraising prowess doesn't always translate into political success? Phil Gramm for president. Before him, John Connally for president.
P. Diddie has more thoughts along this vein. And goes the next step down the road:
Wendy Davis is on pace to amass the fifty million dollars all the talking heads said she needed to raise in order to have a chance to beat "Wheelchair Ken". In other words, if she loses then she won't be able to say she couldn't raise enough money as an excuse.Yep, and that's why he, and I, worry about ...
I have contributed to her campaign, and I sincerely hope she doesn't lose. But I also don't see any deviation from a path we have trod for decades now, which shows not even the smallest sign of changing the kind of government we have. The one that gets bought and paid for every two years.Wendy Davis is on pace to amass the fifty million dollars all the talking heads said she needed to raise in order to have a chance to beat "Wheelchair Ken". In other words, if she loses then she won't be able to say she couldn't raise enough money as an excuse.
I have contributed to her campaign, and I sincerely hope she doesn't lose. But I also don't see any deviation from a path we have trod for decades now, which shows not even the smallest sign of changing the kind of government we have. The one that gets bought and paid for every two years.
I agree with Perry on the money, but it's more than just that. Spinning like this is sophomoric. People who know a lot about politics see through it right away, and call you out on it. Then you have people like Michael Li and Harold Cook doubling down on spinning.
And so, instead of a new type of politics, we have the same old shit. And, I've had tussles with consultant types from the GOP side before, not liking it when I called them out. (Last time over there was for non-monetary reasons, but I still called GOP shit what it was. And gave the same answer as to Li, and now Cook: This is the media part of me operating.)
Beyond the political gamesmanship, this gets back to the question of her endorsement of Texas' latest Democratic Daddy Warbucks, David Alameel, in the Senate primary.
What's in it for her to endorse a candidate worth $50 million or more, but one who hasn't revealed his stances on a single major political issue?
Oh, and I asked Li about this. While trying to spin every which way but loose the news about Davis' and Abbott's campaign contributions, I got bupkis in reply from him about her Alameel endorsement, when I tweeted suggesting he ask about that.
Finally, given the fact that she sued the Startlegram and its corporate parents after losing her 2006 Fort Worth City Council race, I'm thinking more and more we're at the Politics of Usual. More reason than ever to vote Green in the general election if we've got Republicans and Democrats alike offering up a pair of overlawyering lawyers.
Now, I don't buy into wingnuts taking her "mental health was affected" statement as part of filing as part of a claim she has actual mental health problems. That's not my angle.
No, I'm just, as I read more about the suit, raising my eyebrows higher and higher over what appears to be overlawyering mixed with cluelessness about the First Amendment, a thin skin, or something.
She sued over editorials, my friends, not news stories.
Now, I've primarily been at small-town newspapers, but much of my time has been near the Metroplex. And, at least immediately, I cannot recall any other candidate who has lost a race and then sued over opinion articles.
Good fucking doorknob.
I am linking to National Review's story, knowing it's not trotting out the Eric Erickson angle but is seemingly giving a halfway fair overview. I'm trying teh Google to see if I can find a link to any StartleGram stories about the suit after its final disposition.
Yeah, wingnuts may be worried about the likelihood of her success. But, as some currently in the media, I'm pretty sure I don't want a Junior Barack Obama, in terms of attitude toward the First Amendment, running the state.
And, I've now found a copy of the actual editorial. I'll be doing a follow-up post, and the hell if I don't make any progressive writers' groups.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)