Burnt Orange Report Endorsements: US Senate: Sean Hubbard

A NON-ENDORSEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN STRONGER (3.00 / 1)

Both Sean Hubbard and Paul Sadler seem like perfectly nice men, but let's face it: neither are the best that Texas Democrats could have put forward this election cycle. In fact, none of the people who filed for this seat at any point in this primary cycle are ones who are fit to be the standard bearer for Texas Democrats.

True, this race is a long shot for Democrats. But in races like this, it's important that we acknowledge the playing field and then assess the landscape to cull from it what we can: building a larger Democratic email list and pushing a progressive message around the state that helps us build a donor and activist base for future election cycles. I'm not convinced that the candidates in this race see it this way, nor do I think that any appear to be able or prepared to meet these objectives.

And so long as our institutional leaders are reluctant to step up, and so long as our Democratic organizations are willing to endorse any candidate that files, it may not change.

In short: if we keep doing what we're doing, we're going to keep getting what we've been getting.

On principle, we should support the eventual Democratic nominee from Texas for US Senate in the fall. However, also on principle, it would be a bolder statement to abstain from endorsing in races that offer entire fields of candidates who are not up to the task of running for an office like this.

The progressive community should not feel an obligation to offer endorsements in primaries which offer candidates that are at best mediocre. In doing so, the message that is effectively sent is: "it's OK that these are the choices." Because the truth is, it's not.

---

by: edespinoza @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 01:39:50 AM UTC

That's nice but... (0.00 / 0)

...when it's hard enough to get people to vote in the primary to begin with, I really don't see much point in trying to do everything we can to get people to vote and then turn around and tell them to not vote when they finally do.

It would be nice to not have to make a decision. But someone still has to be the nominee and unless 100% of the electorate abstains from voting, someone will be.

It's easy to say nothing but ultimately, like the current Texas Democratic Party, it doesn't accomplish much.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 01:50:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

A non-endorsement isn't telling people not to vote, nor does it avoid a decision - particularly if it is accompanied by a statement of support for whoever the general election nominee will be. In this instance, not endorsing could send a message on our current state of affairs that is as strong (or possibly stronger) than an actual endorsement.

---

by: edespinoza @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 02:24:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know what's stronger? (0.00 / 0)

Endorsing a candidate that our entire staff actually feels some excitement about. We can write plenty more stories about how broken things are, but not participating is not going to fix it.

It's not like there is limited ink or wordspace.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 02:34:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We are speaking different languages (0.00 / 0)

My remarks are not exclusively aimed at BOR or any one particular organization. And while my suggestion is in the abstract, that a non-endorsement should not be considered non-participation, it is one that suggests leveraging the endorsement process as a platform.

---

by: edespinoza @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 02:41:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand that (0.00 / 0)

But our platform to Texas Dem insiders (because of the publication we are) is pretty constant regardless of when or what the occasion is to write.

A non-endorsement would not have been shared by any campaign or their supporters. Only people who are ticked off at the party, etc. But they can share that any time we write about it (and going into the state convention after the primaries, we are planning on it).

I get where you are coming from, especially since I've chatted with you in person about a lot of the current problems. It's just that I think you are putting too much weight on our endorsements being the only time when we can send a message about the current state of affairs.

Plus, again, we all like Sean. I actually look forward to voting for him which is more than I can say for most of my ballot.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 03:04:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh (3.00 / 3)

Because KT feels the same way about "no endorsement" that he feels about anything in all-capital-letters. ;-) Joshing aside, you make a very valid point. We have a chicken-egg problem here in Texas.

What comes first, the great candidates or the viable party apparatus? I think it's more likely to be the candidate who engages in this kind of party building, but who of our tremendous bench in the Legislature is willing to run and almost certainly lose? I have heard it argued that such a campaign "ruins" their future statewide chances, while also guaranteeing future success through enhanced name ID.

It's a valid question -- and one I'd hope people reading this (because it is getting beaucoup de traffic actually answer. Do you, blog readers, think that running as that visionary, statewide, inspiring leader all while knowing that the likelihood of losing is high would poison the well, so to speak, for a future successful run for that same candidate?

Does the next group of leaders only get one electoral bite at the apple in a statewide? I've heard his argued compellingly both ways. What do people think?  

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX

---

by: Katherine Haenschen @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 03:44:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lack of long term vision is a real problem (3.00 / 2)

I agree with you in part, Katherine.  I would argue that the candidate would lose but that would happen even if we had a great, well functioning, and well funded state party.  None of our candidates today have statewide name recognition.  They will have to run at least once (and probably lose) in order to get their name out there.  

I don't think that losing once would destroy them.  That mindset is outdated thanks in part to advances in technology.  With VAN's ability to record voter contact information permanently in the voter file a candidate could build on past efforts in future cycles in ways that were simply unimaginable in the 1990s.  

As for the chicken-egg problem, well, we're going to have to advance both at the same time.  I would love for the Virtual Phone Bank feature in VAN to be used more statewide, especially in regions and counties where we currently don't have much of a presence.  The state party creates generic 'survey' questions in the system for use throughout the state, including one asking if the voter plans to vote a straight Democratic ticket.  

Can you imagine how much useful (and up to date) targeting  data we could get if a statewide candidate ran volunteer phone banks (either off paper lists with barcode data entry afterward or using the Virtual Phone Bank tool) asking that question among the other usual questions?  

I've checked, we still get quite a few votes in the Panhandle, West Texas, Central Texas, and all across North Texas and East Texas.  If we start using the tools and candidate pool we already have then we might actually make some gains in both creating and electing a pool of credible candidates for statewide office and rebuilding our state party structure.

---

by: Michael McPhail @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 14:30:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no no no no no (3.33 / 3)

KH: we've had no shortage of "safe" picks since 1994.

that hasn't worked out well.

Texas has a proven history of electing statewides after a prior failure. no reason that she wouldn't in the future.

we've, frankly, had FAR too many "one and done" candidates. they lose and disappear...proving that they never really cared about our party or values to begin with (see Paul Hobby, Tony Sanchez, Farouk Shami).

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:19:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What comes first, the great candidates or the viable party apparatus? (2.50 / 2)

No doubt about it, it is a viable party apparatus. By the time there is a great candidate it is too late to start building. You know that quote "if you build it, they will come?" It is sort of like that.

---

by: JD Gins @ Wed May 16, 2012 at 15:34:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More than one bite at the apple (2.50 / 2)

A candidate who runs a good statewide campaign advances his career even if he loses by a lot.  Look at Kirk Watson, who was an up-and-coming (former?) mayor of Austin when he ran for AG. He got thumped. But that didn't stop him from becoming a leading State Senator who is on everybody's short list for statewide office. It didn't stop Lloyd Doggett, who ran for the US Senate in the 80s and was trounced.

On the other side of the aisle, it didn't stop G.H.W. Bush, who lost his first race for Congress.

If you make a fool of yourself, like Sanchez or Shami, then its' a different story. But the name recognition from an even remotely credible statewide race can only help in the long run.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed May 16, 2012 at 19:30:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why defeatist about November? (3.00 / 2)

I'm pleasantly surprised by this non-establishment endorsement but am unpleasantly surprised BOR is already throwing in the towel for November.

PPP polling has this as just about a 10-point race in the general with Ted Cruz against either Sadler or Hubbard.  Repubs are not that enthusiastic about David Dewhurst either.  Cruz is too strongly linked to the Tea Party for moderates.  

If Obama comes to Texas a few times and spends some money here, he could close the <10 points he is behind Romney, and that would have effects further down the ballot too.

Don't give up on this race six months before the election ... Texas is purple.

---

by: jfung79 @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 03:17:42 AM UTC

How, exactly? (4.00 / 2)

1.) There's no money for a statewide program. None of the US Senate candidates are raising serious money. The TDP is hardly flush with cash. A statewide race in Texas -- even a barebones GOTV operation with predominantly volunteer labor and minimal paid organizers is a tremendous and huge undertaking that doesn't come cheap. Even just a voter registration effort, just a statewide VBM effort is beyond what funds are available now.

2.) There will be 3-4 hugely expensive Congressional races, 20 fairly expensive State House races, and one extremely important must-win State Senate race. Plus a host of other important county and local elections. So the money has other places to go where it is more likely to contribute to an actual Democratic victory. Why not fund those races?

3.) Meanwhile the Prez kinda has to get himself re-elected which in all likelihood does not mean trips to Texas outside of fundraising. It means trips to Ohio! And that's great because I'd like him to still be President a year from now. He ain't going to win Texas.

So while I completely agree with your sentiment, the cold reality of Democratic politics in Texas right now doesn't make this very feasible. So explain to me how it happens given the actual realities of the current situation here in this state. I'm not being flippant. But what are your specifics to do this that are feasible, reasonable, and could possibly happen?

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX

---

by: Katherine Haenschen @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 04:13:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because Everyone Else Is (5.00 / 1)

Sure, I think this race could appear close, even winnable, if a bunch of people thought so. But no one thinks so.

That's why Sean Hubbard & Paul Sadler are the most exciting Democratic candidates for the United States Senate. That's why there are candidates for local offices that are easily outraising our US Senate candidates. That's why Gilberto Hinojosa is the only Democrat at all resembling an experienced leader who is willing to run for State Party Chair.

I want to bring the fight full-on. I really do. But no one else does, and how can we work with that?

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:07:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also why does our talent keep leaving? (5.00 / 1)

While we're piling on here, why are so many talented organizers leaving Texas? Is it because there aren't enough competitive races that can provide a decent wage to work on? And if you want to play a major role in winning federal races or statewide races, you most likely need to go somewhere else?  

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX

---

by: Katherine Haenschen @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:14:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sean Hubbard's vanity campaign (3.00 / 2)

Sean Hubbard brings nothing to the contest.    The Dallas Morning News says he didn't respond to their candidate survey by their deadline.  I won't hold my breath waiting for Hubbard to deliver on  creating a statewide organization that will persist after the election.  Joe Biden was a lightweight when he was elected to the US Senate, but unlike Hubbard, Biden had practiced law and been elected as a county commissioner.  Hubbard should have started way lower than US Senator.  This contest reflects the ongoing failure of the tired hacks who populate the Texas Democratic Party's SDEC and serve as the executive director to provide any leadership and to field viable candidates in statewide elections.

---

by: Hermes @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:11:36 AM UTC

For the record.... (2.00 / 3)

The DMN did NOT say Sean Hubbard failed to respond to their questionnaire. In fact, Hubbard responded to it AND sat down with the editorial board. What the DMN said about Hubbard is, "Sean Hubbard, 31, who previously worked for a door company, is an idealistic Dallasite who lacks experience for this post but shows promise if he starts in a local office."

http://www.dallasnews.com/opin...

---

by: benrush @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 19:36:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As for "creating a statewide organization that will persist after the election"... (3.00 / 1)

That's not any candidates job. That's the party's job. The TDP and the Dallas County Dem Party (if not all county parties around the state) almost completely failed to take advantage of the new blood injected into the party by Obama's race. That's not Obama's fault.

But if Hubbard manages to energize a few new voters, the state and local parties will have another chance to take advantage of it. Let's hope they're not so utterly unprepared this time.

---

by: benrush @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 19:43:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's elect Hubbard to the SDEC! (0.00 / 0)

If he has such a talent for getting the next generation of Texas excited about participating, maybe the SDEC is a great place for him to begin showing us what he's got.  

---

by: gillianpar @ Mon May 14, 2012 at 13:54:57 PM UTC

TEPID ENDORSEMENT MISSES THE POINT (1.67 / 3)

If your definition of a Senator is the criteria you spell out in the second paragraph of the "endorsement", where is the integrity of not enriching yourself through office? Where is the courage to stand up for action when no one else thinks it's a "good idea"? Where is the empathy to, and understanding of, the average Texan?

Paul Sadler does nothing to inspire me with either his lege record (he was against gay & women's rights till recently) or his sinking to the most despicable of politician's roles: providing tax breaks to industry on the backs of teachers & schools, only to turn around and directly benefit with a cushy lobbyist job for that industry. I find it disagreeable that he reluctantly entered the race at the last possible minute (during extended filing) and has shown little passion since then. And can I tell you how little I care about his personal relationship with Kevin Costner?

Why do we still view politics as a corporate ladder? I have had the pleasure of hearing Sean Hubbard speak on a number of occassions, and each time, he presents a strong case against the oldest & richest Senate that we currently have - one filled with lawyers and corporate execs instead of engineers and economists and professionals who understand the problems just as well (or frankly, even better) and could actually provide solutions instead of focusing on just the politics of a situation. In the last candidate forum, Mr. Hubbard was the only one that not only demonstrated his knowledge and understanding of the issues but also his ability and openness to listen to others in order to come up with the best possible solution. I want THAT characteristic in my US Senator.

In fact, Mr. Hubbard has presented two ideas for constitutional amendments as solutions to current issues: 1) rejection of corporate personhood and 2) publicly financed campaigns, because he is for an equal playing field which allows for the competition of ideas, rather than rewarding the person with the largest wallet.

I find it a little disgusting that there is so much focus on fundraising and who outspends the rest of the field. I get it - Texas is a big state and it takes $$ to reach the voters. But Mr. Hubbard is doing a remarkable job without big donors and PAC money. And I say BRAVO to that. I'd rather have my US Senator stump around the state like Mr. Hubbard, meeting and listening to residents, rather than having a completely disconnected and disingenuous campaign like the Republicans. And Sadler - nice man that he is - does not have his heart in this race. Have you heard Mr. Hubbard complain about his lack of funds? Nope - but I bet you've seen the BOR & Texas Tribune posts where Sadler complains. Sadler should do this party a favor and go back to promoting wind energy.

Finally, why is everyone so down on this particular race? Yeah - no Dem has won statewide since '94. But have you kept up with the Republicans? Granted - if Dewhurst wins, it might be a difficult Dem campaign because Dewhurst has name recognition - and he's so bland and vanilla that he doesn't scare off the middle. But if Cruz wins, then... the middle is up for grabs! The man is so right-wing (listen to him try to strip all avenues of revenue from the federal gov't & strip women of health rights in the last candidate forum), if there is an ambitious and progressive Dem like Mr. Hubbard running against him, we've got a real freaking race on our hands! Talk about energizing the voters...

I prefer Mr. Hubbard's courage, integrity, and empathy above all other candidates in this race, and I proudly voted for him today.

---

by: iheartmaps @ Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:37:27 AM UTC

please revise (0.00 / 0)

Could you please give at least ONE example of Paul Sadler's voting record or public statements proving he was against gay or women's rights in the past?

I appreciate your enthusiasm for a democratic candidate in Texas but I belittling a candidate on false pretenses is both unfair and misleading.  

---

by: TexanDemocrat @ Tue May 15, 2012 at 20:27:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AS REQUESTED (2.00 / 2)

Sean Hubbard would make the type of Senator that has the courage to stand up for issues before they have huge coat tails that he could ride on.

1. HB 496, Paul Sadler co-authored a bill against same-sex marriage & civil unions (aka a Texas version of DOMA):
 http://www.capitol.state.tx.us...

2. And for very clear examples of "enlightenment" and distinct flip-flopping, check out the statements and very clear dates listed under the "Paul Sadler on Abortion" and "Paul Sadler on Civil Rights" headings:
 http://www.ontheissues.org/sen...

So... hope that helps. I wouldn't have made the claim if I hadn't done my homework.

---

by: iheartmaps @ Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:49:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except you didn't do your homework (0.00 / 0)

@iheartmaps-
Look at the response he left to those very allegations on the We Are Women March-Texas Facebook page.

Consider this an opportunity to resubmit your homework assignment.  

---

by: democrat45 @ Thu May 17, 2012 at 18:33:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RESUBMITTED - BUT EXACTLY THE SAME (0.00 / 0)

How is looking at the legislative record from the state of Texas NOT doing my homework?

As someone who repeatedly requests that we look at his record, Paul Sadler should have made sure that he doesn't have blatant skeletons in his closet. Because I didn't have to dig very far to get to the literal legislative record.

I wonder why, if Paul Sadler is indeed for gay and women's rights now, that he was completely and utterly silent for the 9 years that he was not in office. Was he too busy with the wind energy lobby to come out in support of these very important issues? That's okay by me -- I firmly believe that he should stay in that role and continue to promote alternative energy... not to mention help unify the Democratic party in Texas by supporting a passionate, progressive Democrat like Sean Hubbard, who is actively walking with LGBT, Stonewall Dems, and Dallas Sheriff Lupe Valdez.

I don't mind someone becoming "enlightened" by issues, and in fact encourage it -- but someone who clearly comes out in the exact time of need that people have to hear about his stances... that bothers me.

---

by: iheartmaps @ Sun May 20, 2012 at 03:45:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Embarrasing (2.00 / 1)

Burnt Orange Report,

As a University of Texas at Austin alumni, I am completely embarrassed by your complete hopelessness in the US Senate election.  

As a democrat in the state of Texas, it does get a little lonely out here, even more so reading the language used in this endorsement, specifically, "Democrats won't be winning it in November, no matter who we nominate."  

Everything progressive that has happened in this country over the last 229 years has been met with great opposition.  Thankfully Rosa Parks didn't give up her seat when she did not have "sufficient financial support for [her] campaign."

There are many progressive victories in our history and NOT ONE of them started with the kind of apathetic language in the article above.

Is it the duty of your paper to render your readers docile and wait for the day where maybe, if we're lucky, Democrats in the State of Texas will have their voices heard?  Maybe instead of taking a passive stance on this election, you should try to excite your readers to go out and win this extremely important race.  

UT alumni

---

by: TexanDemocrat @ Tue May 15, 2012 at 21:24:47 PM UTC

AND ... (3.00 / 1)

If you do decide to excite your readers about voting for a democrat in Texas- endorse the person you'd like to see win the election. In this case, Paul Sadler.

This article is embarrassing... for UT Alumni Democrats and informed individuals looking to vote in the election.  

---

by: democrat45 @ Tue May 15, 2012 at 22:41:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]