At times like these, Congress needs Courage!

This is so true (0.00 / 0)

"This party has got to move beyond the DCCC playbook of only betting on the sure thing or on the close, tight races. That's what lost Texas for the Democratic Party!"

Where are all the resources and investments in candidates we were led to  expect through the Run in All States strategy?  I guess we will just have to show some Lone Star Independence and get John elected in spite of rather than because of the National Party.

I know there has been national net roots support, but I get furious at the DCCC and DSCC when I look at how many disaffected Republicans there are in Texas and how lame the excuses are for not including our races in the constant barrage of begging e-mails that jam my inbox. 

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.

---

by: othniel @ Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 15:52:04 PM UTC

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

"This party has got to move beyond the DCCC playbook of only betting on the sure thing or on the close, tight races. That's what lost Texas for the Democratic Party!"

A lot of inattention from the national organizations for about 20 to 30 straight years also seems to be a cause of the shift in power in Texas.

And along the way, quite a few House seats did shift due to inattention and such.

If the bases in the district include a 35% Democratic base, and possibly a 45% Republican base, with a 20% Independent base, that means that

a) You'll need to get a good chunk of Democrats (90% or so, which is what Kerry got amongst Democrats). That gives you 31.5% right there.

b) You'll need 18.5% of the remaining vote, which is a percentage of 28% of the Republican and Independent vote.

Now, if you win 5% of Republicans, you'd more 80% of Independents to break 50%

With 10% of Republicans, the percentage of Indepdendents needed drops to 70%

With 15%, the percentaged of Independents needed drops to 60%

Although for the sake of reference, Bush is claimed to have won 97% of Texas Republicans.

Basically you'd need something that can appeal to around 1/5th of the Republicans, without alienating Democrats.

Perhaps you all know of something that can work for that mission.

Perhaps it's time to just label the Congress a "Republican Politician Congress" and the culture associated a "Republican Culture of Corruption" that reduces the amount of honest/efficient government.

Or at the very least, try and convince people that you'll be more of a representative to them and less of a rubber stamp to outside interests. While also mentioning that such a thing makes you stand out from your opponent.

Just some advice, put in the form of a semi-rant.

---

by: RBH @ Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 16:14:10 PM UTC

polling (1.00 / 2)

a couple questions for john--

What we are doing in this campaign is tapping into that general discontent with the Republican-led Congress and the Bush White House. We have found in our polling that Lamar Smith only has between a 31 and 35% reelect number. For a 20-year incumbent, that is a formula for disaster, and he knows it. A whopping 69% of the voters polled in the district wanted to replace Smith or at least have some better choices this November. That's a wide-open door for our campaign.


We have met and heard from more disaffected Republicans than you would have thought possible, here in what a lot of outsiders still consider Bush Country.


Even if we take as a given (which we don't) the statistics that the redistricting plans show, that the Democratic base is only 35%, then we only need to take 15%+1 of the Independent and Republican vote. That means we need to convince barely more than 1 of 5 of those voters that it's time for a change in Washington, and that it takes Courage to change.

with those figures, you have to convince every single democrat in the district to vote for courage and to actually do it, in addition to the 15%+1.


with the polling cited, what are the dates of the poll? is this the new district or the old district? the old district included some heavy parts of travis county and probably are not very accurate in this new district as travis has a disproportionate amount of democratic voters who likely said they would vote for change based on the word republican tacked onto smiths name. if those voters are gone, its a new game. if the poll cited is old, it would be interesting to see what the numbers for someone new/reelect smith are for the counties in the district that more accurately reflect the new district: blanco, comal, hays


second question addresses the 15%+1 figure. #1, assuming the district is 35% democratic base, then that means you would have to get every single democratic registered voter to turn out and vote which obviously will not happen even if the candidate were bill clinton. if there were 100,000 people who vote in the district, to get the 35% democratic base means you would need 35,000 democrats to vote to achieve that base. the trouble is that 100% turnout of democrats simply will not happen so this number is a bit skewed.


likely the voter turnout will not be very different between democrats and republicans. not more than something significant, 5-10%. in every scenario, courage still gets crushed. if using a 100,000 voter figure that assumes the gop base is 65% and the democratic base 35%:


suppose the democrats in this district turnout at a high number of 50%. let's say that 100% of them vote for courage. that's 17,500 votes. lets say that is 10% higher than the republican turnout (although unlikely) of 40%. that's 26,000 votes. republicans generally do not vote for democrats. especially the ones voting in an off year election. (of course some democrats will vote for smith, and some republicans will vote for courage, but i imagine this is a small number that will not affect this race in such a vast republican expanse). this makes for a total of 43,500 votes. 26,000 votes out of 43,500 comes to 59.7% of the vote for smith. this applies in almost any situation especially when you do not have the financial firepower to compete.

the raw numbers also do not take into account the fact that according to the latest fec reports, lamar smith has $1,258,552 cash on hand while courage has $72,254. courage's total raised is 5.74% of what smith has. i've heard of david and goliath but really. lamar smith also has franking priveleges where he can let the district know what he has been "great things he has been doing" at the expense of the taxpayers.


i also agree that targeting is bad. but the dccc and dnc are also businesses. there is a reason for targeting. politics is a business and involves money. this is the problem with democrats and troll me to death, but when you're surrounded by cheerleading and nonreality you set yourself up for heartbreak every single time. doesnt mean you dont fiht, but if you ignore what youre up against, you are doomed.

fighting dem eric massa recently received the endorsement of a republican party chair. when courage receives an endorsement from connie taylor, ricky simmons, richard langlois, donald hensz, donald evans, ed nemec, nancy aldrich, or alan sager, i will believe the spin that republicans are going to even possibly vote for someone other than lamar smith.


i would love to not be represented by lamar smith anymore, but in 2002 the district makeup was similar right? and courage got 26% of the vote? personally, i would rather switch my dollars and efforts to the boltons and the farias' of texas where we might actually be able to win. i intend to support tommy calvert with hopes that he will continue to grow in the future. this one is a lost cause.

---