Texas 2020 general election

[TheYoungHorn 58]

3 hours ago, kevwun said:

I believe that there are enough Dems now that it will have to be a moderate.  They can't ram a Tea Party nut through because they won't have enough votes.

No, it will not. Unless the Dems can get to 75 seats for an even split, or more. 

Empower Texans has been pushing for the GOP caucus to have a binding vote for one speaker candidate, and this gets them closer to that being how a GOP led house would select. 

So even if they have only 76 seats, Republicans would vote and choose their speaker within their own caucus. Which should things continue to go MQS and Co's way would be a no-blind vote, so they can pressure and attack those that don't go for their guys. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,449]

On 10/15/2019 at 1:34 PM, WBT said:

The sad thing is that Bonnen did a pretty good job as speaker.  

 

On 10/15/2019 at 1:49 PM, Chad Fuck said:

He did.  But he sure did a poor job of recognizing the snake handing him this apple.

That's the bottom line here for me. Clearly this was a setup from MQS from the get-go, but what the fuck was Bonnen thinking? 

Also, does Burrows survive this?

[TheYoungHorn 58]

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

That's the bottom line here for me. Clearly this was a setup from MQS from the get-go, but what the fuck was Bonnen thinking? 

Also, does Burrows survive this?

If he had any self-respect he would resign as well. 

Even if he does, he'll be a back bencher, non-chairman. 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

7 hours ago, TheYoungHorn said:

No, it will not. Unless the Dems can get to 75 seats for an even split, or more. 

Empower Texans has been pushing for the GOP caucus to have a binding vote for one speaker candidate, and this gets them closer to that being how a GOP led house would select. 

So even if they have only 76 seats, Republicans would vote and choose their speaker within their own caucus. Which should things continue to go MQS and Co's way would be a no-blind vote, so they can pressure and attack those that don't go for their guys. 

This is so stupid. How or why is this even legal? Every single house seat should be able to weigh in on who the speaker should be.

[Guest Lobo]

People do remember that it's been less than a decade since we've had just a 75-73 split?  Dan Patrick and O'shitheap will find a way to fuck this up.  Even with the census coming up.

[zork 629]

Abbott wheels himself into the trans arena:

Moar here:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-here-is-the-one-crucial-detail-everyone-is-overlooking-in-the-case-of-the-transgender-7-year-old

Edited October 24, 2019 by zork

[destroya 376]

On 10/22/2019 at 11:37 AM, TheYoungHorn said:

No, it will not. Unless the Dems can get to 75 seats for an even split, or more. 

Empower Texans has been pushing for the GOP caucus to have a binding vote for one speaker candidate, and this gets them closer to that being how a GOP led house would select. 

So even if they have only 76 seats, Republicans would vote and choose their speaker within their own caucus. Which should things continue to go MQS and Co's way would be a no-blind vote, so they can pressure and attack those that don't go for their guys. 

The GOP caucus had the same rule going into last session.  Bonnen circumvented the rule by having his votes and wrapping up the Speaker's race before the GOP caucus voted; the caucus still voted but it was perfunctory.  I imagine we'll see a similar scenario going into next session if the Rs hold onto the House.

[Guest Lobo]

Why does Dan Patrick get so involved in transgender issues?   I mean that guy will fuck or suck anything.
 

 his mouth was Texas’ first transgender bathroom.  

Edited October 28, 2019 by Lobo

[atomheartbevo 89,656]

5 hours ago, Lobo said:

Why does Dan Patrick get so involved in transgender issues?   I mean that guy will fuck or suck anything.

 his mouth was Texas’ first transgender bathroom.  

Because in politics, it’s best to accuse others of that which you are guilty of?

or because he thinks a smarty-pants Marylander such as himself needs to educate us Texans on which bathrooms to use?

[cactusflinthead 27,598]

 

[cactusflinthead 27,598]

5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Because in politics, it’s best to accuse others of that which you are guilty of?

or because he thinks a smarty-pants Marylander such as himself needs to educate us Texans on which bathrooms to use?

Because hating on gays and transgender people is easy money with the base.

[Js1 85,318]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,511]

What do state gop leaders think about trump and how he’s ruining their party at the state levels?  If Hillary has won in 2016, the Texas gop would be winning an even large majority in the Texas House and Senate. The only thing they would be planning is how gerrymandering is going to be even more effective in 2021.

[Message Board User 12,395]

And Alexi McCommand or, hell, any of the Axios girls, are very very easy on the eyes.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

Pretty healthy win in Texas for Trump over any D.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11/04/democrats-dont-have-candidate-who-would-beat-trump-texas-today-poll/

 

[Js1 85,318]

12 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Pretty healthy win in Texas for Trump over any D.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11/04/democrats-dont-have-candidate-who-would-beat-trump-texas-today-poll/

 

Trump won 2016 by 9, 52-43.  

Unless all undecided voters flip to Trump, which is unlikely but not impossible, only winning by 5-7 against the top 3 contenders with 46% of the vote is.... not that healthy for the Republican party.  A 2-4 point decline in the Republican stronghold of Texas does not bode well. 

Quote

In each matchup, significant numbers of Democrats are holding back their votes — possibly a sign that while they oppose the Republican incumbent, they favor a different Democrat.

This matters a lot.  They aren't going to vote for Trump or sit out, they will rally towards the eventual nominee. 

I mean... Independents are 38% definitely/probably vote to re-elect and 62% probably not/definitely not.  That's god awful.  Overall, he's underwater on reelection in freaking Texas - 48/52

[Brisketexan 105,106]

14 hours ago, Message Board User said:

And Alexi McCommand or, hell, any of the Axios girls, are very very easy on the eyes.

Crenshaw is a flaming piece of shit.

Quote

Crenshaw, 35, the second-youngest House Republican, is skeptical of the idea of specifically recruiting non-white or younger candidates, but acknowledged that “people do want to hear that message from somebody who they can relate with.”

• "I hate engaging in identity politics," he said. "I just don't take it as a given that because you're nonwhite, that we should worry about you voting Democrat."

Really, fuckstick? REALLY?  Yeah, I can't imagine WHY nonwhites would run from the GOP today, being that the president they worship as a god saw fit to excuse and praise a movement ("very fine people on both sides!") whose leader says:

Quote

“My ancestors fucking enslaved those little pieces of fucking shit." 

“Little fucking kikes. They get ruled by people like me. Little fucking octaroons.”

"I rule the fucking world. Those pieces of shit get ruled by people like me. They look up and see a face like mine looking down at them. That’s how the fucking world works."

Dan, your party is all-in on white nationalism.  The reason you say you aren't going to engage in "identity politics' is because....you have sold your soul to identity politics.  It's just that the identity you sold it to is white nationalism, and you'll piss off your base if you do anything to reach out to "kikes" and "octaroons" [aside -- I'm a bit slighted that Richard Spencer didn't see fit to rage against "spics," being that we are the preferred dark-skinned bogeyman these days].

[troph 24,787]

Wrapped up our big fundraiser for Texas Freedom Network last night at Brazos Hall.  Man I love being in the game.  I got to kick it off last night - started with some laughs, some applause, you could hear a pin drop with shock, then anger, then we ended up raising a nice pile of cash.  But here's the take aways...

Texas Rising - look them up.  a brand of TFN - it's the one youth movement, register voters, get out the vote, activate, vote, encourage friends to vote that works.  We are seeing a surge in under 30 voters who by the way make up a HUGE percentage of the voting population and they are extremely progressive and as diverse as any group of people you will ever see.

Numbers 2 and 9 - two senate seats and Dan Patrick can't bring a bill to the floor without Democrats approval.  we need to take these two as a top priority.  more later on which of those two or more seats are.  The nnumber 9 - flip 9 in the house and the Texas House is governed by Democrats.  Can we do it?  Hell yes we can.

Edited November 4, 2019 by troph

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,511]

It's hard to believe that Trump will outperform Cruz much in terms that Cruz beat Beto 51-48.  Sure many people hate Cruz but Trump creates even more divide. I think people would wait in line 10 hours to vote against Trump. Not sure as many Texans would do the same to vote FOR Trump.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

I think it is assumed the wave size gets tamped down in Presidential years, though.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,511]

23 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think it is assumed the wave size gets tamped down in Presidential years, though.

Possible.  In reality Trump beat Hillary 54.7 - 45.3 (9.4 points) in Texas, when only counting votes for both of them. Votes for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein were throwaway votes that do not matter. 

While Trump will be the main factor in voting, I think the Dem candidate does make a difference. I think Biden has chance of winning Texas. I know there are plenty that think that the Dems need to run as far left as possible to win. That is a great formula to continue to lose Texas, which may not matter much to the national party but this is a thread about Texas.

 

[Chad Fuck 17,673]

Anyone know anything here about the Ds running for State District 100?  Eric Johnson's old seat? 

I can't find anything really distinguishing about any of them.

• James Armstrong III, a pastor and the CEO of a Dallas-based community development organization
• Lorraine Birabil, a legal associate and a former staffer for U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey
• Daniel Davis Clayton, a community leader and small business owner
• Sandra Crenshaw, a former Dallas councilmember who unsuccessfully ran for HD-100 in 2018

Edited November 4, 2019 by Chad Fuck

[Js1 85,318]

No clue, but the district is 78% black/Hispanic so I think it's safe. 

[Chad Fuck 17,673]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

No clue, but the district is 78% black/Hispanic so I think it's safe. 

Yeah, we've cleared the "safe" bar.  Now I'm hoping for "competent."

 

[RayDog 682]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Possible.  In reality Trump beat Hillary 54.7 - 45.3 (9.4 points) in Texas, when only counting votes for both of them. Votes for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein were throwaway votes that do not matter. 

While Trump will be the main factor in voting, I think the Dem candidate does make a difference. I think Biden has chance of winning Texas. I know there are plenty that think that the Dems need to run as far left as possible to win. That is a great formula to continue to lose Texas, which may not matter much to the national party but this is a thread about Texas.

 

For Democrats to win Texas they need the progressive younger voters to turn out and they will turn out in bigger numbers for a progressive candidate.

Catering to the middle is a losing strategy.

[Js1 85,318]

Winning Texas is a luxury in 2020. If its part of your strategy, you’ve already lost to Trump. Blue wall. IA,  AZ and NC are more likely to go blue than Texas. 

[RayDog 682]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Winning Texas is a luxury in 2020. If its part of your strategy, you’ve already lost to Trump. Blue wall. IA,  AZ and NC are more likely to go blue than Texas. 

Can't someone want Texas to vote Democratic for the good of Texas?

[Voldemort86 2,259]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Winning Texas is a luxury in 2020. If its part of your strategy, you’ve already lost to Trump. Blue wall. IA,  AZ and NC are more likely to go blue than Texas. 

I’m just hoping to see the democratic presidential candidate lose by 5 or less in Texas. Keep that positive trend going. 2024 is when I think we could possibly win it. We still Need more time for some olds to die off and younger voters to join the electorate.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Voldemort86

[Js1 85,318]

22 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Can't someone want Texas to vote Democratic for the good of Texas?

Yes but I’m not comfortable Dems have 270 locked up. 

[berlinerbaer 678]

34 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Winning Texas is a luxury in 2020. If its part of your strategy, you’ve already lost to Trump. Blue wall. IA,  AZ and NC are more likely to go blue than Texas. 

Seriously. The presidential race should play second fiddle in TX in 2020. Flipping the TX State House is doable, would be fantastic, and should be priority #1 for all Texas Democrats and liberal/progressive voters.

Lots of people will be out canvassing and phone banking for the eventual Dem presidential nominee. My real hope is that all of them also put forth their time and energy into the campaign of at least one Dem candidate down ballot.

[atomheartbevo 89,656]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm a bit slighted that Richard Spencer didn't see fit to rage against "spics," being that we are the preferred dark-skinned bogeyman these days].

That’s because he knows y’all are better than the fucking Irish and Armenians.  

[Brisketexan 105,106]

27 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Seriously. The presidential race should play second fiddle in TX in 2020. Flipping the TX State House is doable, would be fantastic, and should be priority #1 for all Texas Democrats and liberal/progressive voters.

Lots of people will be out canvassing and phone banking for the eventual Dem presidential nominee. My real hope is that all of them also put forth their time and energy into the campaign of at least one Dem candidate down ballot.

This -- one hellacious piece of strategy that I have to credit the GOP for is their plan to target state legislatures.  That was damned smart, and it's paid huge dividends.  So, let's do unto them like they did unto us.

[bolverk 29,671]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Crenshaw is a flaming piece of shit.

Really, fuckstick? REALLY?  Yeah, I can't imagine WHY nonwhites would run from the GOP today, being that the president they worship as a god saw fit to excuse and praise a movement ("very fine people on both sides!") whose leader says:

Dan, your party is all-in on white nationalism.  The reason you say you aren't going to engage in "identity politics' is because....you have sold your soul to identity politics.  It's just that the identity you sold it to is white nationalism, and you'll piss off your base if you do anything to reach out to "kikes" and "octaroons" [aside -- I'm a bit slighted that Richard Spencer didn't see fit to rage against "spics," being that we are the preferred dark-skinned bogeyman these days].

Good gawd, how did I miss that racist rant over the weekend? Went back to the scat site to see who used to have that gotdam Pepe the Frog for his avatar, but they've been disabled over there. Whoever it was, he needs to be mercilessly shamed over here.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,449]

Seriously. The presidential race should play second fiddle in TX in 2020. Flipping the TX State House is doable, would be fantastic, and should be priority #1 for all Texas Democrats and liberal/progressive voters.
Lots of people will be out canvassing and phone banking for the eventual Dem presidential nominee. My real hope is that all of them also put forth their time and energy into the campaign of at least one Dem candidate down ballot.

So much this.

[Texas St. Armadillos 1,381]

Any good reasons to not vote for the 10 props on the ballot tomorrow?

[bolverk 29,671]

3 minutes ago, Texas St. Armadillos said:

Any good reasons to not vote for the 10 props on the ballot tomorrow?

Not unless you consider lazy a good reason. Prop 5 is definitely worth voting for.

[Brisketexan 105,106]

2 minutes ago, Texas St. Armadillos said:

Any good reasons to not vote for the 10 props on the ballot tomorrow?

Yep.

Vote NO on prop 4.  There is no reason to have a Constitutional BAN on a state income tax.  We already don't have a state income tax.  We don't need to hamstring ourselves forever and ever and ever just to score political points today.  I don't support a state income tax today.  But if circumstances change in a few decades, having a pointless constitutional ban on it will be a stupid move to have made.

I wouldn't blame anyone who votes NO on prop 6.  Plenty of reason to be suspicious of the fiscal responsibility of the state cancer fund.

Otherwise, they are either mundane or actually really good ideas/important (see, eg,  the Texas Water Development Board provision, prop 2 -- a really good measure).

 

[bolverk 29,671]

Hmm...I may have misread his question.

[Homercles 10,205]

So...we get no straight ticket next year due to the GOP?  And it was their idea?   Why?

Ill be that sumbitch that takes 10m to vote as I meticulously select D for every item down to county trash commissioner...not because I’m a lifelong Democrat, but because I will forever shit on the chests of the Republicans 

[tantric superman 4,667]

58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This -- one hellacious piece of strategy that I have to credit the GOP for is their plan to target state legislatures.  That was damned smart, and it's paid huge dividends.  So, let's do unto them like they did unto us.

Learned that in 2018.  It's kind of fun going in with the state rep and Senator -- you can get good face time with them and your work is appreciated.  Then tag along on the more involved US Rep race, and do what you can for US Senator and Gov and Lieut Gov.

[Voldemort86 2,259]

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

So...we get no straight ticket next year due to the GOP?  And it was their idea?   Why?

Ill be that sumbitch that takes 10m to vote as I meticulously select D for every item down to county trash commissioner...not because I’m a lifelong Democrat, but because I will forever shit on the chests of the Republicans 

Most of the voters statewide are in cities. Cities mostly vote democratic. It’s a way to make the lines longer. To combat this, cities are letting people go to any precinct county wide. 
 

the Texas GOP are some crooked fuckers. They also made sure that they got this rule in place before 2020 because trump is on the ballot. They think some people will not vote for trump, but still vote republican in a lot of other areas. The Texas gop thinks it will help them in statewide races. I really hate those douches.

[atomheartbevo 89,656]

If the GOP has to spend extra in Texas so that Trump’s margin is a little bigger, or to keep the House and Senate (R), that’s millions that won’t be spent in other states. 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If the GOP has to spend extra in Texas so that Trump’s margin is a little bigger, or to keep the House and Senate (R), that’s millions that won’t be spent in other states. 

Yup.... you’re right. The way it used to be....... the GOP didn’t have to invest in Texas to win it and lots of republicans in Texas donated to other races around the country. In the future, hopefully we will force much more of that money to stay home so it hurts the GOP in other areas.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

I’ll pitch voting yes on prop 5.  We need more money in our state parks.  If you’ve tried to book a camping spot lately you know what I mean. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

Vote NO on prop 4.  There is no reason to have a Constitutional BAN on a state income tax.  We already don't have a state income tax.  We don't need to hamstring ourselves forever and ever and ever just to score political points today.  I don't support a state income tax today.  But if circumstances change in a few decades, having a pointless constitutional ban on it will be a stupid move to have made.

I wouldn't blame anyone who votes NO on prop 6.  Plenty of reason to be suspicious of the fiscal responsibility of the state cancer fund.

Otherwise, they are either mundane or actually really good ideas/important (see, eg,  the Texas Water Development Board provision, prop 2 -- a really good measure).

 

I’m surprised they put this proposition on the ballot right now. It reminds me of a bathroom bill or something. Totally meaningless but designed to drive up a particular turn out.  But there’s nothing else to turn out for here.

[Js1 85,318]

8 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

Yup.... you’re right. The way it used to be....... the GOP didn’t have to invest in Texas to win it and lots of republicans in Texas donated to other races around the country. In the future, hopefully we will force much more of that money to stay home so it hurts the GOP in other areas.

And the best part is they already have to funnel a lot of cash into protecting incumbents like Collins, Tillis, Gardner, Ernst and McSally - and yes, they will put cash into Colorado because Gardner is the NRSC chair and he won't triage his own race to save others. And 2 competitive seats in Georgia. 

Not to mention the huge warchest McGrath is amassing, which means Mitch can't send his money to other states.  

It really means the NRSC is going to have trouble deciding where money goes.  Races like Texas, Alaska, Alabama or Michigan cannot be priorities because the majority hinges on the 7 races mentioned above - Maine, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia x2.  Someone will fall through the cracks. 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

46 minutes ago, Js1 said:

And the best part is they already have to funnel a lot of cash into protecting incumbents like Collins, Tillis, Gardner, Ernst and McSally - and yes, they will put cash into Colorado because Gardner is the NRSC chair and he won't triage his own race to save others. And 2 competitive seats in Georgia. 

Not to mention the huge warchest McGrath is amassing, which means Mitch can't send his money to other states.  

It really means the NRSC is going to have trouble deciding where money goes.  Races like Texas, Alaska, Alabama or Michigan cannot be priorities because the majority hinges on the 7 races mentioned above - Maine, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia x2.  Someone will fall through the cracks. 

I have no idea who is more screwed Doug Jones or Gardner. Probably Jones, but it’s close.

[Js1 85,318]

2 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

I have no idea who is more screwed Doug Jones or Gardner. Probably Jones, but it’s close.

Cory Gardner is going to make sure Cory Gardner has cash to go against Hickenlooper in a blue state and force the Republican in Alabama to just handle it on their own.  Hopefully this means the DSCC lets Jones just run his damn race without national Democratic interference so he can run as his own brand. 

[bolverk 29,671]

PSA to Travis voters: The new machines are a vast improvement and the touch screen makes it go really quick. No more turning the dial to scroll, scroll, scroll, push to click.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

PSA to Travis voters: The new machines are a vast improvement and the touch screen makes it go really quick. No more turning the dial to scroll, scroll, scroll, push to click.

yeah, i was impressed.