Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, LCHorn said:

 

I'm looking at Colin Allred's platform (link here) and it's all pretty standard stuff that most voters would identify as leftist. 

I would agree that there's pretty fertile soil for economic populism, particularly five months after the election. 

 

 

It's because I'm skeptical and I want to see a more developed response (which you gave a couple of days ago, but I also want to know what other people are thinking).  At least locally, I don't believe in a big D silent majority just waiting for their hearts to be stirred by Beto, Lina Hidalgo in 10 years or the or someone channeling the ghost of Ann Richards.  I just don't think there's enough of us, despite the more progressive members of Surly trying to shout down anyone espousing that the middle should be targeted. 

If that's correct, then it means the party has to change.  People like @Bozo_Casanova think it's largely self-inflicted, and maybe he's right, but if the remedy is "Texans really are more amenable to classical leftist programs than their own votes are telling us" then I'd like to know which programs.  Texans are voting for abortion restrictions, transgender health restrictions, school vouchers for religious schools, etc., maybe not directly but in their choice of representation.  Maybe you might counter that it's not the policy, it's the politician, but I'm skeptical about that, too, when their standard bearers are Patrick, Abbot, crazy eyes and Ted Cruz.  Is there a single person in that group you'd want to have a beer with?

Texans are like the majority of votes in every other jurisdiction in that they are voting for one thing, and one thing only: inflicting pain.  They don't vote for policies, or ideas.  They vote for the promise of hurting other people.  The entire creed of the GQP is "we will hurt the 'other'....for YOU!"  That's it.  Every single thing they market themselves with comes down to that end point.  

Promise to hurt people.

Keep your promise, and hurt people.

 

Those are the keys to victory.  Take them, start the car, jam down on the gas pedal, and start fucking inflicting pain.  That's how you win.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How come Republicans don't have to move to the middle? 

I think they found it, it’s why they are winning.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

 

I'm looking at Colin Allred's platform (link here) and it's all pretty standard stuff that most voters would identify as leftist. 

I would agree that there's pretty fertile soil for economic populism, particularly five months after the election. 

 

 

It's because I'm skeptical and I want to see a more developed response (which you gave a couple of days ago, but I also want to know what other people are thinking).  At least locally, I don't believe in a big D silent majority just waiting for their hearts to be stirred by Beto, Lina Hidalgo in 10 years or the or someone channeling the ghost of Ann Richards.  I just don't think there's enough of us, despite the more progressive members of Surly trying to shout down anyone espousing that the middle should be targeted. 

If that's correct, then it means the party has to change.  People like @Bozo_Casanova think it's largely self-inflicted, and maybe he's right, but if the remedy is "Texans really are more amenable to classical leftist programs than their own votes are telling us" then I'd like to know which programs.  Texans are voting for abortion restrictions, transgender health restrictions, school vouchers for religious schools, etc., maybe not directly but in their choice of representation.  Maybe you might counter that it's not the policy, it's the politician, but I'm skeptical about that, too, when their standard bearers are Patrick, Abbot, crazy eyes and Ted Cruz.  Is there a single person in that group you'd want to have a beer with?

It's not about whether the party moves left or right or manages to park itself right in some mythical "center." These are abstract concepts that serve more to confuse than clarify. They're not going to help you understand how politics works. There is not a single voter in this country who is a fully rational automaton who just goes into the voting booth and rationally chooses the candidate that proposes the optimal "centrist" policy mix. Most policies are completely immaterial to most voters. Every Texas Republican loved free trade until Trump started dumping on it.  

The Republican party dominates Texas because Texas politics have always been dominated by the "conservative" party. This is because we were a slave state that joined the confederacy and post-reconstruction the slave power reasserted political control of Texas. You see the same pattern in every other confederate state. It's not a coincidence that Democrats have had more success in fucking Kentucky and West Virginia, despite those states being much Trumpier in many ways. 

The remedy isn't progressive policies, because the remedy isn't a policy question. The remedy is making people hate Republicans. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How come Republicans don't have to move to the middle? 

Because they won. The goal is to figure out how to beat them. Hopefully they don’t move and stay the same because I think we can beat them in 2026 if they remain pat.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think the key messaging point should be “What’s in [any of this] for you?” It transcends race, class, gender, and wouldn’t pin you down to any one lane of political ideology.

Posted
8 minutes ago, bonnieblue said:

I think the key messaging point should be “What’s in [any of this] for you?” It transcends race, class, gender, and wouldn’t pin you down to any one lane of political ideology.

I think it’s even simpler than that. “What’s in it for PA, OH, MI, WI and GA”. The swing states are the ones you need to win.

Posted
1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Because they won. The goal is to figure out how to beat them. Hopefully they don’t move and stay the same because I think we can beat them in 2026 if they remain pat.

But they lose, too, and when they do, I don't seem to recall a whole lot of calls from Republicans to move to the middle.

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, LCHorn said:

People like @Bozo_Casanova think it's largely self-inflicted, and maybe he's right, but if the remedy is "Texans really are more amenable to classical leftist programs than their own votes are telling us" then I'd like to know which programs. 

See this is the problem. Who gives a fuck about any of that?

Democrats have been brainwashed by 40 years of Republican orthodoxy into thinking that their own party revolves around an ideology or a set of policies. That’s cargo cult shit. 
Parties are about who, not what, in all times and all places but that’s especially true for Democrats, in Texas, at this particular moment. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

See this is the problem. Who gives a fuck about any of that?

Democrats have been brainwashed by 40 years of Republican orthodoxy into thinking that their own party revolves around an ideology or a set of policies. That’s cargo cult shit. 
Parties are about who, not what, in all times and all places but that’s especially true for Democrats, in Texas, at this particular moment. 

Texas Democrats need an LBJ.

Texas Democrats get Beto.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

 

I'm looking at Colin Allred's platform (link here) and it's all pretty standard stuff that most voters would identify as leftist. 

I would agree that there's pretty fertile soil for economic populism, particularly five months after the election. 

 

 

It's because I'm skeptical and I want to see a more developed response (which you gave a couple of days ago, but I also want to know what other people are thinking).  At least locally, I don't believe in a big D silent majority just waiting for their hearts to be stirred by Beto, Lina Hidalgo in 10 years or the or someone channeling the ghost of Ann Richards.  I just don't think there's enough of us, despite the more progressive members of Surly trying to shout down anyone espousing that the middle should be targeted. 

If that's correct, then it means the party has to change.  People like @Bozo_Casanova think it's largely self-inflicted, and maybe he's right, but if the remedy is "Texans really are more amenable to classical leftist programs than their own votes are telling us" then I'd like to know which programs.  Texans are voting for abortion restrictions, transgender health restrictions, school vouchers for religious schools, etc., maybe not directly but in their choice of representation.  Maybe you might counter that it's not the policy, it's the politician, but I'm skeptical about that, too, when their standard bearers are Patrick, Abbot, crazy eyes and Ted Cruz.  Is there a single person in that group you'd want to have a beer with?

Texans really don't get to vote on those things though.  Other states put vouchers on the ballot, same for abortion and other hot topics.  But for the most part Texans never get to vote on the actual issues, just the legislature does.  There are polls out there that show that the majority of texas voters object to at least one of the issues you listed, but they seem to be willing to compromise on that single issue "for the overall good of the people" bullshit.  So they keep pulling the R lever because they have been convinced overall that their futures are in better hands with republicans.  

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Texas Democrats need an LBJ.

Texas Democrats get Beto.

Palabra! 
 

I’d happily settle for Preston Smith or Mark White, though. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Gourmand said:

THIS.

What rock has dnaguy been living under to think Dems haven't been doing their darndest in literally every election (especially in Tx) to appeal to centrists and intentionally alienating the left in order to do it?

Jfc, terrible analysis dnaguy.


I’d support ‘kill all the billionaires and let god sort them out’ if I thought it would play…,,

But do we really think eat the rich works when the rich control the means of distribution when it comes to news, attention, and influence?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The remedy isn't progressive policies, because the remedy isn't a policy question. The remedy is making people hate Republicans. 

May need to change ID to “Remedy,” because I have always hated Republicans. 

Posted

Beto might have been enough had he not uttered the words about the guns.

I want a dem candidate who says “fuck it, the gun horse has left the barn. So here’s my position: all of y’all should arm yourself and right soon. The billionaires and their private police are coming for you , and they’re armed. You should be too. Fuck letting the terrorist Gestapo have a free hand - shoot em.”
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
2 hours ago, cmontexas said:

Need a Democrat that will tell high schools (Midland) they can go back to being called Lee

Wait. I thought Democrats were supposed to avoid identity politics.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, cmontexas said:

Need a Democrat that will tell high schools (Midland) they can go back to being called Lee

Midland ISD made that decision freely, on their own. I grew up in the Permian Basin and we played "Lee" when I was in high school, so I followed the story.

There was no outside influence. It was a purely organic, grassroots push from local residents, themselves. This obviously came in the wake of George Floyd, but Midlanders decided to do the right thing on their own for once, in that moment.

In today's climate, I freely acknowledge the community would probably prefer to go back. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't, if we continue on this path.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Wait. I thought Democrats were supposed to avoid identity politics.

 


They can pretend it's named for Russell Lee, that's what they did in Austin with Robert E. Lee elementary. Just renamed it.

Posted
2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:


They can pretend it's named for Russell Lee, that's what they did in Austin with Robert E. Lee elementary. Just renamed it.

Or do what they did with Lee high school in San Antonio:

Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School

Posted
10 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

See this is the problem. Who gives a fuck about any of that?

Democrats have been brainwashed by 40 years of Republican orthodoxy into thinking that their own party revolves around an ideology or a set of policies. That’s cargo cult shit. 
Parties are about who, not what, in all times and all places but that’s especially true for Democrats, in Texas, at this particular moment. 

You leave those fine South Pacific folks alone! At least they aren't hurting anyone by worshipping crates.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

vodka-two.gif

She was, is, and shall remain a strong "WOULD," even though I know it's a terrible idea.  And man....the magic she could work with a package of tator tots....

Posted
12 hours ago, cmontexas said:

Need a Democrat that will tell high schools (Midland) they can go back to being called Lee

They never couldn't. The Democrats did not force them to change their name.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

She was, is, and shall remain a strong "WOULD," even though I know it's a terrible idea.  And man....the magic she could work with a package of tator tots....

She went woke before woke went broke.

sandra-lee-kwanzaa.0.jpg

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Grassroots push fully funded by George Soros I bet.

Well unelected and unaccountable billionaires with tons of power is bad. Hate to be a radical leftist or anything.

Just now, Gourmand said:

She went woke before woke went broke.

Aren't we currently going broke? I am ready to be woke again.

Posted
15 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Palabra! 
 

I’d happily settle for Preston Smith or Mark White, though. 

The problem we run into here is that those you have listed, including Beto, are all white men.  And there are a lot of voters in the Democratic bloc that do not trust white men and will vote for anyone else first.   We have a lot of voters who don't do any research on candidates and when they go to vote they will choose by name.  Are they a woman?  What race are they?  That's how they decide.  We need to somehow change that and get people to vote for the most electable candidate in November regardless of age, race, gender, etc.  It doesn't even have to be the most qualified candidate, but the one who stands the most chance of winning against the R.    I mean that's how Trump won.  He's not the most qualified, he was the most electable.  It's not the ideal way, obviously.  The risk you run when you take that path is you end up with someone like Trump whose incompetence keeps getting exposed.  Will it harm the Republican party?  Probably not.  Will it harm the country?  Absolutely.    So the trick is finding someone both electable and capable.  

I tell people who start to spit on older white politicians that that is the demo for the people who built and use the system to their advantage.   It's easire to break a good ol boys club up from inside if you infiltrate it as a good ol boy.  Our opposition by their very nature do not see anyone else as their equals, other than other white males (and somehow Cruz has worked around this).  So with that in mind, all the other electeds are fighting just to gain respect, much less get their voices heard on specific issues.  

And that good ol' boy persona rates pretty high in Texas.  

Come on, Ted on Make a GIF

 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...