Texas Democratic Party - what would make it successful statewide?

[Js1 85412]

2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Reading this thread, in hindsight I’m shocked that Beto ran for President. I wonder if politics is anything like boxing and no matter your skill and potential, you lose your first 3 bouts and you are branded a loser and won’t get the promotion anymore and your career is over. Gotta win some tomato cans first (I guess he was a congressman first, so 1-4).

Politics is striking while the iron is hot.

His name was sky high after putting a Texas Senate seat in play and barely losing to Lyin Traitor Ted.  You also don't get a lot of stink on you losing a presidential primary as a non-favorite and certainly not in a 20-person primary.  It's a way to get your name out there further, curry up to a nation-wide donor base and jerk off the power players for later. 

Some use them for Cabinet jobs auditions (Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Ben Carson, Mayor Pete) or to get your name out there to be picked as VP (Joe Biden, Christie was the 2016 VP runner up, Kamala Harris).  Some use them to set up runs for something else later (Yang for NYC Mayor; Ted and Marco for 2024; Hillary for 2016). 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

57 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Politics is striking while the iron is hot.

His name was sky high after putting a Texas Senate seat in play and barely losing to Lyin Traitor Ted.  You also don't get a lot of stink on you losing a presidential primary as a non-favorite and certainly not in a 20-person primary.  It's a way to get your name out there further, curry up to a nation-wide donor base and jerk off the power players for later. 

Some use them for Cabinet jobs auditions (Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, Ben Carson, Mayor Pete) or to get your name out there to be picked as VP (Joe Biden, Christie was the 2016 VP runner up, Kamala Harris).  Some use them to set up runs for something else later (Yang for NYC Mayor; Ted and Marco for 2024; Hillary for 2016). 

So if Beto ran for Gov and was beat, he’s still not viewed as damage goods politically as a brand do you think? You seem to know your stuff is why I ask.

[Js1 85412]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

So if Beto ran for Gov and was beat, he’s still not viewed as damage goods politically as a brand do you think? You seem to know your stuff is why I ask.

After two consecutive statewide losses, he'd be done.  I'm already iffy on running losers because you've been rejected once already. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Js1

[DonkeyCigars 143]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

After two consecutive statewide losses, he'd be done.  I'm already iffy on running losers because you've been rejected once already. 

You’d think he’d be better off running for a House position and becoming the Texas male AoC.

[bad_teammate 13216]

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

You’d think he’d be better off running for a House position and becoming the Texas male AoC.

He was born to be in it!!

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

He was born to be in it!!

I forgot about that.

I can imagine Beto in the back of a car getting stoned with his buds and baring his soul, "I was born to be in government!"

 

[wildcat09 29355]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He was born to be in it!!

God that shit was painful.

[TexasEd 8067]

11 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Only option is to build off what he did right, and avoid what he did wrong (guns 18, and any shift left in the pres primary) that and figure out the valley with a big ass Beto 2.0 cast and blast fishing tourney in the valley with Barbacoa, Tripe in the discada, menudo, maybe a fish fry too.
Jam some Doug Sahm and Freddie Fender and Flaco and Augie and get right.

I want to go to this party and my friends call me guero.

Freddy Fender is one of my favorites.  Saw him at the San Antonio Livestock Show in the 80s.

 

[Js1 85412]

39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

God that shit was painful.

Agreed, that was so bad. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Beto should definitely expound on his gun position and own it fearlessly. He said "ARs and AKs". He didn't say shotguns and long rifles with small mags or physical actions. That's it.

Well that’s sort of the rub.  He made sure it was clear he wasn’t “anti gun” during his senate campaign.  Then 6 months later he’s impassioned “I’m taking your shit guy”.  No fuck you, you’re the “I’m going to say what sounds good at the moment guy”.  You add that to the pile of semi disingenuous bullshit that came with him including the nickname and the 9 figure in laws.  
 

And yeah, Hispanics may not hunt in large swaths. But they sure don’t bitch when suburban whites are handing over $17-25/ac annually for some land their grandparents left them.  Visit a south Texas town from Sept thru Jan and tell me what’s keeping a lot of the doors open. 
 

How many first time gun owners last year, 7mm iirc. 58% African American if I recall. Yeah it’s all just the small town deer hunters who care about the issue.  

[Bojack 2081]

It probably helps Beto that Texas won't have a US Senate race in 2022 since it's highly unlikely Texas Dems will field a candidate that helps the ticket. 

Republicans are going to portray him as anti-gun no matter what so he might as well own what he said and clarify that he's only talking about AKs and AR-15s.

Edited to add that if you go hunting for a photo op, you'd better be someone that can sell it.  John Kerry wasn't helped by his goose hunt.  Same for John Mackovic with the turkeys.  

Edited January 29, 2021 by Bojack

[bad_teammate 13216]

51 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And yeah, Hispanics may not hunt in large swaths. But they sure don’t bitch when suburban whites are handing over $17-25/ac annually for some land their grandparents left them.  Visit a south Texas town from Sept thru Jan and tell me what’s keeping a lot of the doors open. 

ARs and AKs

Either you're trying to perpetuate a dishonest mischaracterization of Beto's position on purpose or you're doing it on accident. Either way... stop.

Quote

How many first time gun owners last year, 7mm iirc. 58% African American if I recall. Yeah it’s all just the small town deer hunters who care about the issue.  

Gun purchasing went up 58% among blacks. It's not that 58% of new gun owners were black. Misleading.

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Gun purchasing went up 58% among blacks. It's not that 58% of new gun owners were black. Misleading.

If that’s true, that’s fine. That’s what I thought I remembered. I’m ok with it either way. 
 

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

ARs and AKs

Either you're trying to perpetuate a dishonest mischaracterization of Beto's position on purpose or you're doing it on accident. Either way... stop.

ARs and AKs* 

*after his failed senate run and he had a front row seat to a crisis.  What kind of politician would let that go to waste.  I really don’t want to go dig up this dickweeds stance during his senate run, but it wasn’t anti AR then either. 

[bad_teammate 13216]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

ARs and AKs* 

*after his failed senate run and he had a front row seat to a crisis.  What kind of politician would let that go to waste.  I really don’t want to go dig up this dickweeds stance during his senate run, but it wasn’t anti AR then either. 

His position changed after a mass shooting targeting Mexicans in El Paso. It's not that hard to follow.

[Born to Run 6569]

It probably helps Beto that Texas won't have a US Senate race in 2022 since it's highly unlikely Texas Dems will field a candidate that helps the ticket. 
Republicans are going to portray him as anti-gun no matter what so he might as well own what he said and clarify that he's only talking about AKs and AR-15s.
Edited to add that if you go hunting for a photo op, you'd better be someone that can sell it.  John Kerry wasn't helped by his goose hunt.  Same for John Mackovic with the turkeys.  

You can't go hunting for photo ops, outdoorsman will smell the fraud a mile away. You have to start enjoying the sport, then have the photo ops.

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

His position changed after a mass shooting targeting Mexicans in El Paso. It's not that hard to follow.

So the kids targeted in Sandy Hook, Florida, and countless others wasn’t enough for him to form a strong position on it. Interesting.  For the record, I’m ok with people changing their minds. But let’s be honest.  He was apparently OK with them during the countless other massacres that predated his Presidential run. The one that finally affected him was at home (OK, I can understand that I guess).     I also know a politician can’t let a good tragedy go to waste. Especially if you are a recently failed politician trying to make a run at the big time. 

I change my answer.  It’s not his position on guns he needs to change. It’s the disingenuous bullshit he spews.  The textbook Spanish, the cringe cursing, and the howdy aw shucks I’m your everyday Ivy League educated heir to fortune neighbor. He’s going to have a lot more trouble with that than walking back some AR shit that isn’t going to happen.   

[bad_teammate 13216]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

He’s going to have a lot more trouble with that than walking back some AR shit that isn’t going to happen.   

He's a Democrat in Texas; he's going to get hit with a lot of crap.

Our job will be to know what to say to take it away from the Republicans.

[Born to Run 6569]

His position changed after a mass shooting targeting Mexicans in El Paso. It's not that hard to follow.

Not really, no. His language got more direct in one soundbite.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018/03/09/where-ted-cruz-and-beto-o-rourke-stand-in-the-debate-over-gun-control/

2018 (remember vegas shooting?) Total assault rifle ban, mag cap restrictions, raise the min age to purchase, ban bump stocks....

I'm fine with all that personally. But you need to come across as genuinely enjoying guns, and not wanting to seize All guns. Plenty of reasonable gun owners are turned off by the freaks who open carry ARs on city streets, but they are also turned off by " hell yeah I'm gonna take your gun" as meaning siezing all your guns.

It's realistic to restrict guns reasonably.
No one is coming to seize All your guns. We have data base. I don't own any guns that I purchased, all were gifts, inherited or won at informal group hunts. But that kind of rhetoric will cost him some winnable votes.

[Brisketexan 105155]

14 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Only option is to build off what he did right, and avoid what he did wrong (guns 18, and any shift left in the pres primary) that and figure out the valley with a big ass Beto 2.0 cast and blast fishing tourney in the valley with Barbacoa, Tripe in the discada, menudo, maybe a fish fry too.
Jam some Doug Sahm and Freddie Fender and Flaco and Augie and get right.

1 -- I wanna go to that party. Shit, I'll help throw it.

2 -- I never fail to smile like hell when I drive by this:

[bad_teammate 13216]

4 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

But you need to come across as genuinely enjoying guns...

Why? To whom?

The vast majority of Texan voters either don't care about ARs/AKs at all or are largely against them/afraid of them. Why do we let the Republicans pick the playing field? What does that get us?

Stop dancing to their god damned tune.

[Brisketexan 105155]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why? To whom?

The vast majority of Texan voters either don't care about ARs/AKs at all or are largely against them/afraid of them. Why do we let the Republicans pick the playing field? What does that get us?

Stop dancing to their god damned tune.

It's not about the majority, it's about the margin.  For example, on the issue of more strict background checks, 54% of hispanics are in favor (that's good)....but 28% want them to stay the same, and 12% want them to be LESS strict (with the remainder having no opinion.  So, 54 to 40.  We don't need 54% of hispanics.  We need around 66% of hispanics.  So, go get me another 12% from the group that OPPOSES more strict background checks.  And do that while spouting anti-gun rhetoric.  Good luck.

While you have spotted some misreading of the electorate, you continue to misread it in other ways.

Texas hispanics aren't Los Angeles or Chicago hispanics.  Being seen as a strident white liberal gun control dude gets you some votes....but it also causes some other votes to shy away.  And those are votes that we need.

[Born to Run 6569]

It's not about the majority, it's about the margin.  For example, on the issue of more strict background checks, 54% of hispanics are in favor (that's good)....but 28% want them to stay the same, and 12% want them to be LESS strict (with the remainder having no opinion.  So, 54 to 40.  We don't need 54% of hispanics.  We need around 66% of hispanics.  So, go get me another 12% from the group that OPPOSES more strict background checks.  And do that while spouting anti-gun rhetoric.  Good luck.
While you have spotted some misreading of the electorate, you continue to misread it in other ways.
Texas hispanics aren't Los Angeles or Chicago hispanics.  Being seen as a strident white liberal gun control dude gets you some votes....but it also causes some other votes to shy away.  And those are votes that we need.

This.

And I would wager the percentage of Texas Latinos that enjoy guns and the whole gun culture is only increasing.

[Born to Run 6569]

1 -- I wanna go to that party. Shit, I'll help throw it.
2 -- I never fail to smile like hell when I drive by this:

Let's do this!

His mama named him Baldemar, imma call him

Freddie

[Brisketexan 105155]

2 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

This.

And I would wager the percentage of Texas Latinos that enjoy guns and the whole gun culture is only increasing.

I sure as shit know that the number of minorities and typical Dem voters who have gone out and procured a firearm -- to defend against an ever-growing field of right wing nutjobs who are happy to shoot up synagogues and WalMarts -- is increasing.  I know this first hand.  I've advised several people on firearm purchases.

[bad_teammate 13216]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's not about the majority, it's about the margin.  For example, on the issue of more strict background checks, 54% of hispanics are in favor (that's good)....but 28% want them to stay the same, and 12% want them to be LESS strict (with the remainder having no opinion.  So, 54 to 40.  We don't need 54% of hispanics.  We need around 66% of hispanics.  So, go get me another 12% from the group that OPPOSES more strict background checks.  And do that while spouting anti-gun rhetoric.  Good luck.

If...

54% want stricter background checks
28% want it to stay the same
12% want looser background checks

If we need 66% of Hispanics, there is one answer: Propose stricter background checks and win roughly half of the "stay the same" people (which is likely just disinterested voters saying, "Yeah whatever").

What the hell are you even talking about? Hello?

[bad_teammate 13216]

Also (this was posted in the Beto 2020 thread), here are Texas Latino #s.

80% say gun laws should be stricter

[atomheartbevo 89729]

4 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

So if Beto ran for Gov and was beat, he’s still not viewed as damage goods politically as a brand do you think? You seem to know your stuff is why I ask.

Reagan ran for President in '68, '76, and '80.   Between '68 - '80, there was a helluva lot of turmoil.  

I'd say Beto is operating in a very similar environment right now - pandemic shenanigans by Republicans in Texas fucking with local communities' rights/abilities, election shenanigans by Republicans, insurrection in D.C., Paxton's legal jeopardy, attempts/successes at voter suppression here in Texas.  Parts of Texas are in play now, that weren't in play 4-6 years ago, in part due to a young and engaged voting group that is motivated, that is not liked by the GOP and that hates the GOP.

This is absolutely striking while the iron is hot.  Where you get damaged politically is losing a race you were supposed to win.  Perdue, Loeffler, they are probably finished.  Beto still has plenty of gas left in the tank.

Edited January 29, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[Brisketexan 105155]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If...

54% want stricter background checks
28% want it to stay the same
12% want looser background checks

If we need 66% of Hispanics, there is one answer: Propose stricter background checks and win roughly half of the "stay the same" people (which is likely just disinterested voters saying, "Yeah whatever").

What the hell are you even talking about? Hello?

Or.....propose stricter background checks (something I favor) while also demonstrating that you aren't a "NY liberal gun grabber" (which Texan hispanics are naturally leery of).  As a candidate, I could easily do both.

Responsible, reasonable gun ownership.  Responsible, reasonable gun regulation.  That's a winning path for a Dem candidate in Texas, if they can couch it that way.  Sure, he'll never win the AR-toting crowd in front of the Capitol.  But he'll win more of the Texans, of all ethnicities, who just have an ingrained sense of "you know, all guns aren't bad....grandpa hunted a lot, and he was a good guy."  

But go ahead and walk right into the trap of giving the opposition all the ammo they need, served up on a platter, to portray every Dem candidate as this guy:

That shit.  DOES.  NOT.  SELL HERE.

Be a goddamned Texan.  Go to the pachanga, toss some horseshoes, drink some beer, talk about los Cowboys, shoot some skeet, drive an actual truck, not this:

Have some dirt on your jacket.  Those gloves should show some use.  Wear real boots, with real scuffs.

Want to relate to Jose from Weslaco?  That's how you do it.

[bad_teammate 13216]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Or.....propose stricter background checks (something I favor) while also demonstrating that you aren't a "NY liberal gun grabber" (which Texan hispanics are naturally leery of).  As a candidate, I could easily do both.

You're acting like Beto is some unknown quantity. He's already run here and was within 3 points of Ted Cruz.

Quote

Responsible, reasonable gun ownership.  Responsible, reasonable gun regulation.  That's a winning path for a Dem candidate in Texas, if they can couch it that way. 

30 years of astonishing failure says otherwise. But I'd love to see your evidence of this bolded statement.

[atomheartbevo 89729]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Be a goddamned Texan.  Go to the pachanga, toss some horseshoes, drink some beer, talk about los Cowboys, shoot some skeet, drive an actual truck, not this:

Have some dirt on your jacket.  Those gloves should show some use.  Wear real boots, with real scuffs.

Want to relate to Jose from Weslaco?  That's how you do it.

Have some hat hair, instead of looking like you just walked out of some $100 hair salon.

Have a truck that looks like an actual human drove it around, instead of it being hauled around on a flatbed.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

On 1/29/2021 at 2:47 PM, bad_teammate said:

You're acting like Beto is some unknown quantity. He's already run here and was within 3 points of Ted Cruz.

30 years of astonishing failure says otherwise. But I'd love to see your evidence of this bolded statement.

If I recall correctly, Beto voted for the House's Universal Background Check bill, which I'm assuming is the same one as the last time I read the actual text of that bill.

So, according to that bill, if your best friend, who you know has a LTC, wants to borrow your fancy over under shotgun for a weekend because he is considering buying his own, you both have to travel to a FFL, fill out the paperwork, and pay the transfer fee (which the bill specifically mentions there is no limit on what they can charge, hello extreme abuse in areas with few FFL's. Typically $25 or so now, but that would likely go up). And ye doesn't even have to go through an NICS background check because he has an LTC. But wait! It gets better. He is now legally the owner of the gun according to the federal government. I mean, if he died while it was in his possession and his grandkids found it you could try suing them to get it back, but they have proof you intended to transfer possession. But the real kicker? You have to do everything in reverse just to get your gun back. 

This is what the Democrats consider "reasonable" gun regulation, and this is why they continue to lose in places like Texas. There isn't anything at all reasonable about that. Anyone who actually owns guns and hunts and has friends who also own guns and hunt and isn't super rich understands this.

[bad_teammate 13216]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If I recall correctly, Beto voted for the House's Universal Background Check bill, which I'm assuming is the same one as the last time I read the actual text of that bill.

So, according to that bill, if your best friend, who you know has a LTC, wants to borrow your fancy over under shotgun for a weekend because he is considering buying his own, you both have to travel to a FFL, fill out the paperwork, and pay the transfer fee (which the bill specifically mentions there is no limit on what they can charge, hello extreme abuse in areas with few FFL's. Typically $25 or so now, but that would likely go up). And ye doesn't even have to go through an NICS background check because he has an LTC. But wait! It gets better. He is now legally the owner of the gun according to the federal government. I mean, if he died while it was in his possession and his grandkids found it you could try suing them to get it back, but they have proof you intended to transfer possession. But the real kicker? You have to do everything in reverse just to get your gun back. 

This is what the Democrats consider "reasonable" gun regulation, and this is why they continue to lose in places like Texas. There isn't anything at all reasonable about that. Anyone who actually owns guns and hunts and has friends who also own guns and hunt and isn't super rich understands this.

I don't know why this is a response to my post.

Can you explain?

[hornmpa96 2618]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If I recall correctly, Beto voted for the House's Universal Background Check bill, which I'm assuming is the same one as the last time I read the actual text of that bill.

So, according to that bill, if your best friend, who you know has a LTC, wants to borrow your fancy over under shotgun for a weekend because he is considering buying his own, you both have to travel to a FFL, fill out the paperwork, and pay the transfer fee (which the bill specifically mentions there is no limit on what they can charge, hello extreme abuse in areas with few FFL's. Typically $25 or so now, but that would likely go up). And ye doesn't even have to go through an NICS background check because he has an LTC. But wait! It gets better. He is now legally the owner of the gun according to the federal government. I mean, if he died while it was in his possession and his grandkids found it you could try suing them to get it back, but they have proof you intended to transfer possession. But the real kicker? You have to do everything in reverse just to get your gun back. 

This is what the Democrats consider "reasonable" gun regulation, and this is why they continue to lose in places like Texas. There isn't anything at all reasonable about that. Anyone who actually owns guns and hunts and has friends who also own guns and hunt and isn't super rich understands this.

What’s your friend borrowing the shotgun for?

If it’s for hunting, the Bipartisan Background Check Bill of 2019 passed by the House, excluded that from the transfer provisions. 

Is it for skeet shooting? If so, there’s an exception for that as well.

I agree that some of the language isn’t perfect, as arguably there is an issue with transport of the shotgun between the target shooting/hunting location. However, they did try and include some reasonable exceptions in the bill and if the Senate had ever actually allowed consideration of the Bill, maybe this issue could have been fixed.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know why this is a response to my post.

Can you explain?

You said this:

On 1/29/2021 at 2:47 PM, bad_teammate said:

You're acting like Beto is some unknown quantity. He's already run here and was within 3 points of Ted Cruz.

30 years of astonishing failure says otherwise. But I'd love to see your evidence of this bolded statement.

While quoting this:

On 1/29/2021 at 2:40 PM, Brisketexan said:

Responsible, reasonable gun ownership.  Responsible, reasonable gun regulation.  That's a winning path for a Dem candidate in Texas, if they can couch it that way.

 

I assumed you meant that Beto's approach was reasonable and that 30 years of astonishing failure means that reasonable strategy is a failure. However, you may have meant that the strategy is not reasonable.

[bad_teammate 13216]

2 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I assumed you meant that Beto's approach was reasonable and that 30 years of astonishing failure means that reasonable strategy is a failure. 

The 30 years of failure is a reference to the fact that it's been 30 years since a Democrat won the governorship or a Senate seat. In that entire time, the Democrats have constantly been running scared on guns in Texas with their "common sense gun control" mantra in an attempt to not scare gun owners. It hasn't worked as a strategy, so it's a failure of a strategy.

- It doesn't actually satisfy gun enthusiasts.
- It doesn't excite voter bases who actually really want gun control.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The 30 years of failure is a reference to the fact that it's been 30 years since a Democrat won the governorship or a Senate seat. In that entire time, the Democrats have constantly been running scared on guns in Texas with their "common sense gun control" mantra in an attempt to not scare gun owners. It hasn't worked as a strategy, so it's a failure of a strategy.

- It doesn't actually satisfy gun enthusiasts.
- It doesn't excite voter bases who actually really want gun control.

It doesn't excite gun enthusiasts because there is nothing common sense about it, and it doesn't excite the base because they know nothing about the issue and don't care to learn. There is a balance.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

23 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

What’s your friend borrowing the shotgun for?

If it’s for hunting, the Bipartisan Background Check Bill of 2019 passed by the House, excluded that from the transfer provisions. 

Is it for skeet shooting? If so, there’s an exception for that as well.

I agree that some of the language isn’t perfect, as arguably there is an issue with transport of the shotgun between the target shooting/hunting location. However, they did try and include some reasonable exceptions in the bill and if the Senate had ever actually allowed consideration of the Bill, maybe this issue could have been fixed.

It really doesn't matter if they filed a seperate bill as an amendment. In fact, that is a problem. They are too clueless to do things right the first time for people who actually own and use guns to trust them. If they had complete power to do things on their own they wouldn't have bothered with the amendment.

[BillyBadAss 189]

If you want to fire up democratic voter bases in Texas I'd argue there are much better issues to focus on than gun control. 

Gun control is guaranteed to lose you a fixed/large percentage of voters. Maybe most of those voters wouldn't support you anyway, but gun control all but guarantees quite a few won't listen to another word you say. 

If there is to be any meaningful gun control legislation it has to start at the federal level. And frankly is Sandy Hook didn't tip the scales, you have to conclude it's a losing proposition for the foreseeable future. Why hamstring yourself with it?   

 

[hornmpa96 2618]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It really doesn't matter if they filed a seperate bill as an amendment. In fact, that is a problem. They are too clueless to do things right the first time for people who actually own and use guns to trust them. If they had complete power to do things on their own they wouldn't have bothered with the amendment.

I’m using the text from the bill passed in 2019 by the Democratic lead House (you know when the “crazy Ds” had complete control). Based on your response, the actual text of the legislation doesn’t actually matter. What matters is what you read in the NRA mailer or heard on Hannity. Understood.

[bad_teammate 13216]

6 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It doesn't excite gun enthusiasts because there is nothing common sense about it, and it doesn't excite the base because they know nothing about the issue and don't care to learn. There is a balance.

"balance" is what we've been telling ourselves we need and it's failed us for 30 years. Or would you contend that Texas Dems have been anti-gun radicals up until this point and thus honestly characterized by Republicans?

Part of the massive Dem failure is this absurd idea that voters are all rational actors with graph paper charting policy proposals against each other and all they have to do is triangulate the best policy then the voters will come along... that isn't how it works.

2 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

If you want to fire up democratic voter bases in Texas I'd argue there are much better issues to focus on than gun control. 

The point isn't the gun control laws themselves, it's the attitude and spirit.

Watch this response:

(4) Beto O’Rourke on taking away guns: "Hell Yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47" - YouTube

That's what we need. We need the fire and passion. We need someone who is fearless, because people will follow that and that will tell the voters "this guy will fight for you".

When we trot out YET ANOTHER mealy mouthed Dem playing scared that voter is not motivated.

[TexasEd 8067]

On 1/29/2021 at 1:52 PM, Brisketexan said:

1 -- I wanna go to that party. Shit, I'll help throw it.

2 -- I never fail to smile like hell when I drive by this:

I made a detour to take a picture of that the last time I went to S. Padre.

[wildcat09 29355]

On 1/29/2021 at 12:22 PM, fattyflattie said:

Well that’s sort of the rub.  He made sure it was clear he wasn’t “anti gun” during his senate campaign.  Then 6 months later he’s impassioned “I’m taking your shit guy”.  No fuck you, you’re the “I’m going to say what sounds good at the moment guy”.  You add that to the pile of semi disingenuous bullshit that came with him including the nickname and the 9 figure in laws.  
 

And yeah, Hispanics may not hunt in large swaths. But they sure don’t bitch when suburban whites are handing over $17-25/ac annually for some land their grandparents left them.  Visit a south Texas town from Sept thru Jan and tell me what’s keeping a lot of the doors open. 
 

How many first time gun owners last year, 7mm iirc. 58% African American if I recall. Yeah it’s all just the small town deer hunters who care about the issue.  

Ironic complaint is ironic.

On 1/29/2021 at 2:18 PM, Brisketexan said:

I sure as shit know that the number of minorities and typical Dem voters who have gone out and procured a firearm -- to defend against an ever-growing field of right wing nutjobs who are happy to shoot up synagogues and WalMarts -- is increasing.  I know this first hand.  I've advised several people on firearm purchases.

There's a difference between minorities buying firearms because the nazis all have them and minorities being enthusiastic lovers of aggyish gun culture.

[Brisketexan 105155]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

There's a difference between minorities buying firearms because the nazis all have them and minorities being enthusiastic lovers of aggyish gun culture.

Correct.  But again, the presumption that a bunch of minorities in Texas do NOT fall into the "moderate gun culture" window -- folks who grew up around them, grew up around hunting, or recreational shooting, and the like -- is a bad, bad presumption.

I mean, I come from a large hispanic extended family, rooted in the border region, that has been friendly with guns, hunting, and law enforcement (several relatives have work a badge), so I'm telling the fans of Texas Dems that they ought to note those proclivities among RGV and border hispanic voters, but hey, nevermind that, let's stick with what we've been doing, which has resulted in the GOP getting an outsized proportion of the S. Texas hispanic vote.  That seems smart.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

23 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

I’m using the text from the bill passed in 2019 by the Democratic lead House (you know when the “crazy Ds” had complete control). Based on your response, the actual text of the legislation doesn’t actually matter. What matters is what you read in the NRA mailer or heard on Hannity. Understood.

From the text you used, "at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;" is the only place such a transfer can take place. So that pretty much means you are full of shit. There is no way I could loan a rifle or shotgun to someone for the weekend or whatever unles we are at something that complies with that text, which doesn't even encompass most hunting situations.

Edited February 1, 2021 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[bad_teammate 13216]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

... let's stick with what we've been doing ...

What have we been doing?

[Brisketexan 105155]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What have we been doing?

Not having any real Texas-Democrat-specific approach to messaging, campaigning, etc.  We've just been piggybacking on national trends, and that ain't enough to win elections based on Texas voters.

We've also done a FANTASTIC job of taking minority votes, particularly hispanic votes, for granted.  That has had the dual effect of 1) not motivating them to show up and vote, and 2) leaving them vulnerable to GOP messaging in the vacuum.  So we're only getting 40% of a small pool that actually shows up to vote.  That's bad.  We should reverse that trend.

[bad_teammate 13216]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Not having any real Texas-Democrat-specific approach to messaging, campaigning, etc.  We've just been piggybacking on national trends, and that ain't enough to win elections based on Texas voters.

We've also done a FANTASTIC job of taking minority votes, particularly hispanic votes, for granted.  That has had the dual effect of 1) not motivating them to show up and vote, and 2) leaving them vulnerable to GOP messaging in the vacuum.  So we're only getting 40% of a small pool that actually shows up to vote.  That's bad.  We should reverse that trend.

I was asking more specifically in the context of what you were talking about, the gun-loving aspect of the Texas Latino vote.

[Brisketexan 105155]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I was asking more specifically in the context of what you were talking about, the gun-loving aspect of the Texas Latino vote.

Sure, easy.  Use rhetoric that actually acknowledges firearms as something that can be a GOOD part of our state and our culture.  And note that we always want to protect that.  While we also protect our schoolchildren and our citizens out just doing their ordinary business.  We keep alcohol out of the hands of children.  We keep cars out of the hands of proven drunk drivers (interlock devices, license suspensions).  Let's keep high-capacity firearms out of the hands of people who have demonstrated that they want to hurt people, or who are mentally unstable.  We can protect our right to bear arms, and our Texas traditions, while also protecting Texans.

The current and recent messaging is shitty.  It's all good old white liberal gun grabby stuff, even if unintentional.

[BillyBadAss 189]

I think most here are arguing that the Texas Dem Party should NOT focus on gun control as an issue. Recognize you're not going to win on that right now, and focus on things you can possibly do something about. 

And if gun control is your thing, maybe attack it from a different angle - focus on mental health services and care instead. 

[Brisketexan 105155]

5 minutes ago, BillyBadAss said:

I think most here are arguing that the Texas Dem Party should NOT focus on gun control as an issue. Recognize you're not going to win on that right now, and focus on things you can possibly do something about. 

And if gun control is your thing, maybe attack it from a different angle - focus on mental health services and care instead. 

Correct.  If an issue does more harm to your electoral prospects than good, then maybe bump it way down your list of priorities and talking points.  Don't play into the opposition's hands for their preferred electoral argument strategy - that would be nice.