DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,768
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 10, 2004 20:18:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 11, 2004 17:09:04 GMT -5
That's definitely the perogative of the TX Dem Leader, but I think Kerry is taking the fight to Bush as much as he can do in Repub strongholds without going overboard. The campaign has staked out places like MO. TN, AR, and so forth and is making its move there rather than spending time in TX and WY or other places that would not switch under any circumstances.
Folks criticize Kerry for maybe not spending enough time in the south, but what about Bush and the northeast? He is AWOL in terms of coming to New Jersey and only came once in 2000 after Rove drank some Kool-Aid and thought that the state was in play.
In fairness, neither Bush nor Kerry is wrong for doing this. In this climate, they need to maximize their time and energy in places where votes can be won and states can be turned. For Kerry, TX is not that place, and, for Bush, NJ is not that place.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,768
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 11, 2004 19:08:54 GMT -5
The problem is not that Kerry isn't visiting Texas, but that the DNC is not investing in Congressional or other statewide candidates. As of June 30, Democrats trailed in "cash on hand" for advertising in 23 of the state's 32 Congressional districts. Of these nine, Democrates were essentially unopposed in four of them.
A generation ago, Texas was the most solid Democratic state in the nation. From 1874 until 1970, not a single Republican represented Texas in the House. The state senate went from 1929 to 1970 without a single GOP member. At one point earlier in the century, registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans 821,234 to 15,239 statewide.
And how's this statistic from a state political web site: "Today Republicans hold about 2,000 elected offices across the state. That’s hard to believe, considering that in 1967 there were only four Republican county office holders in the entire state."
With this election, Democrats could lose the Congressional majority they've held in Texas for almost 130 years, and DNC seems resigned to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 11, 2004 19:44:11 GMT -5
In fairness to the DNC, the election districts in Texas have changed due to "The Hammer's" gerrymandering to the degree where even a lot of spending would not necessarily ensure victory for the Dems in many of the seats that they currently hold in Texas.
I won't disagree with you on the historical dynamics in Texas and how the Dems have lost it, but the same can be said of other places. In my Congressional district, the Repubs held the Congressional seat for 98 of 100 years before a Dem (Rush Holt) defeated Mike Pappas in 1998. Holt has one each and every time since then to the degree that the Repubs aren't dumping a ton of money into the campaign.
You make good points, however, but I still think that running a national campaign requires the DNC or DCCC to identify how their resources can be used best. Maybe an argument can be made that they are miscalculating as it relates to Texas. I don't know enough to comment on that specifically, but I can say that they are making inroads elsewhere.
Take IL for example. Barring an absolute miracle, Obama is going to absolutely savage Alan Keyes in the polls.
|
|
