Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
November 16, 2005The "Run Almost Nowhere" CrowdBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanReading a comment on yesterday's post about Larry Stallings jumping into the HD-122 race against Republican Frank Corte (who hasn't been challenged since 1992) made me respond with a comment that I'd like to lay out as my thoughts on why the "Run Almost Nowhere" concept is failing us in Texas and needs to be qualified. While I'll be the first to agree we should target our resources, there are a couple of concepts that get used over and over (incorrectly) that are inhibiting our Party's growth over time (and may explain in part why it's such a shell of it's former self today). So here goes... You can focus your resources wherever you want, but you can bet that the Republicans will too, and they'll have more money to throw at those same targeted races. I think people are locked into two false ideas... 1) There is limited money. If Stallings runs against Corte, it's doubtful that the 100 kachigers that the Texas Democratic Party might have will ever go there, and they probably won't and shouldn't. So his candidacy won't affect the "targeting" of resources among those that might actually have some. But Stallings' campaign, one which would have quite a real candidate, would likely generate money, volunteers, party building within HD-122, something that district could really use. This can be applied across the state in other districts. The next school of thought (which is wrong) is to assume that the people who volunteer their time and especially money in HD-122 because Stallings is running, would be just as ready to export that to a different district or race to a more "targeted" part of the state. An overwhelming percentage won't in a campaign such as his. Those donors of time and money probably aren't on the same level of those few "mastermind" politicos that frequent BOR comment threads. Therefore Stallings running doesn't affect the "targeting" of other races. And if not, then who cares...his running in HD-122 is a net benefit. Plus, the new volunteers and donor inspired in that district this cycle will show up on fundraising reports, and then every statewide Dem has that many more 'potential' donors years out from now, because if people got activated locally, it's more likely they will start to share the wealth in the future. It's really irritating when the "Run Almost Nowhere" crowd thinks that every new Democrat that announces a bid is doing it because they are out to drain away some "limited" pool of resources. Come on people. That pool is dwindling over time and is only there because the candidates and campaigns of the past made them a pool to begin with. You work with what you've got, but if we care about what we'll have to work with the next time around, we need to start to Change the Equation now. Ergo, Run. Everywhere. Posted by Karl-Thomas Musselman at November 16, 2005 03:49 PM | TrackBackComments
Perhaps I should clarify myself a bit -- I did state I believe in the "Run everywhere" mantra -- I think it's a must in a "representative" democracy. With that said, I stated that the question before us, as Democrats, is where to target our resources, and in my mind, that meant money. As a frequent (small) donor to various campaigns, I weigh the merit of each of them. I would much rather give my hard earned $25 or $50 to HD 48 than HD 122. That's what I mean by "targeting" our resources -- there is a finite amount of money anyone can give. I guess the larger picture is there are donors sitting in HD 122 being untapped -- and by running everywhere (as I think we should do) it brings those folks out of the shadows. I simply meant that often times, the working people party, doesn't have the resources that the Republicans do (and yes, they work as well for all of you trollers) and I have to be more selective, as would TDP and the DNC (or DCCC/DSCC). But I definitely to not put myself in the "Run Nowhere" crowd. Hopefully I've made some sense here... Posted by: Matthew at November 16, 2005 04:14 PMWhen you have local races and there is only one Republican candidate or one Republican incumbent, what does that say to both the Democratic and the Republican voters in that city/county? I suspect what I've observed in Houston/Harris County is pretty much across the board across the state. County chairs deciding a seat isn't worth challenging and focusing only on one or two they have decided for themselves are worth challenging or retaining. In one state race, the Harris County chairman actually asked a Democratic challenger to a Democratic incumbent in a primary to withdraw. It left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. It also signalled how undemocratic the Texas Democratic Party has become. My way or the highway apparently is not an exclusive attitude of the Republicans. I think every local race should have a Democratic candidate. If for no other reason than to signal that the Democratic Party is alive and well and kicking. There are a lot of people, by the way, wondering why there was no Republican challenger to Bill White. Not all Republicans who voted for him the first time would have voted for him the second time. So the assumptions, or misassumptions, are made by everyone. Just more noticeably by Democrats. Run everywhere? Why not? Posted by: Baby Snooks at November 16, 2005 04:56 PMHuh? What? Did someone make a point somewhere? Has Chip Staniswalis invaded K-T and Baby Snooks' keyboard? Where am I? Posted by: CONFUSED at November 16, 2005 05:41 PMMatthew, I'm glad you weigh your contributions. I do as well. But I think people are overly worried that some $15 checks are going to find there ways into "mistargeted races" because of what, BOR posting about them? Please. Hardly a reason to not run everywhere. Posted by: Karl-T at November 16, 2005 05:57 PMI don't think anyone would squabble over a "misdirected" $15 check -- but that's not to say there aren't more "important" races to give money to in the short term. But, you have hit the nail on the head -- if it is long term growth we are looking for, Democrats must put aside (at times) what is expedienent in the short term to focus on long term growth -- much like Gov. Dean is doing with his 50-state strategy. By running everywhere, and creating new donors, volunteers, etc, we build the infrastructure for the future of the Democratic Party -- much like how the Repuplicans turned the South red. Until we are able to realize that the continuous short term gain mindset has achieved nothing, the better. Posted by: Matthew at November 16, 2005 07:58 PMOkay. I've been very nice. I want to know who Chip Staniswalis is. Or was. I've heard different stories. All I know is he was in prison when he won a race against Chris Bell. True or not? If true, how can someone in prison be on a ballot? It's bad enough they keep dead people on ballots. They keep convicts on ballots too? The things you never know. Or want to know. What was he in prison for? Why would anyone vote for someone in prison? Amarillo I believe? Shame on them. I drive through Amarillo on the way to New Mexico. I'll get a bumper sticker. Honk if you voted for Chip Staniswalis. Be interesting to see how many people honk. And how many people try to run me off the road. My point was every race should have a Democrat in it. As long as they're not in prison. Posted by: Baby Snooks at November 17, 2005 01:03 AMHere here, KT. I've come up with a saying that summarizes the idea behind Run Everywhere-ism: "The worst we'll do if we try is the best we'll do if we don't." RUN EVERYWHERE. Posted by: Andrew Dobbs at November 17, 2005 03:29 PMLarry Stallings knows there may be better candidates out there to run in 122, but they are not running this time; and he is just pissed off enough about our broken education system, our unjust health delivery system, our endangered aquifer, and the unmitigated corruption known as the Republican party to tilt at the windmill that is Franke Corte. Since I have been the one to poke him when he snores for nearly 31 years, I can tell you he is as idealistic as a medieval knight, and just as tough today as he was serving his country during the first Gulf War. He loves a good fight. A little story: During a pick-up football game at his Army unit picnic, he got tackled pretty badly, and his forhead got a nasty gash. He was unconscious for a minute or so, and the unit wanted to run him to the ER about 30 miles away, but he wanted to help his team win the game, so he had a corpsman put a few stitches in his head, cover 'em with a bandage, and went back in the game. His team won. This was for fun. Just imagine what he will be like fighting now, when his kid's and grandkids' education is at stake, when the purity of our drinking water is at stake, when women are losing control of their own reproductive decisions, and his gay and lesbian friends are losing basic civil rights because of who sleeps next to them. Y'all won't be disappointed in his fight. As a yellow-dog Dem, that is what I think every Democrat should be doing right now. Don't you? Posted by: Diane Stallings at November 17, 2005 04:55 PMBaby Snooks: Chip Staniswalis went to prison AFTER being elected. Chip was light as a feather. I think he was a TV weatherman and Chris Bell was a radio reporter when they faced each other. Chip demanded kick-backs from his state employees; the case was so simple that Ronnie Earle convicted him. Posted by: CONFUSED at November 17, 2005 05:40 PMLarry Stallings is Mr. dksbook? All Right! Woo-hoo! Outstanding! I can think of nothing better than to have a ordinary human being run against Rep. Corte, who seems to view the Legislature as his personal soapbox to attack women's reproductive freedom. I think I will misdirect a check from Harris County to his campaign as soon as I figure out where to send the check ... Posted by: Sarah Berel-Harrop at November 18, 2005 07:56 AM"Chip Staniswalis went to prison AFTER being elected..." So have quite a few others. Posted by: Baby Snooks at November 18, 2005 02:59 PMYes, Ms. B-H, mr. dks is Da Man. Stay tuned for the $ Dump info. We have to wade thru the whole Texas Ethics Commission Thing (Now, doesn't that just sound like an oxymoron if you ever heard one?), set up a PAC, print up some bumper stickers and such. mr dks, junior is the one who is really pumped - getting petition signatures from all eligible voters at his school, suggesting platform positions like the one at the top of his personal list, renewable energy. It is sure a great way to get high school kids paying attention to politics, having the father of one run. Alas, KT, he will not be going to UT next year - he has his heart sent on going someplace with snow and excellent public transportation. But he promises to fly back to vote in November of 06. Thanks for your interest. Posted by: dksbook at November 18, 2005 03:56 PMI am glad to see discussion on my new hero's entry into the fray. After trying to draft four different folks to run against Frank Corte, Mr. Larry Stallings answered the call of every sane Texas Woman, Get that mad man out of the legislature! And if nothing else at least show him we don't like what he's doing to women! Thank you, Larry. Is there is any brave person with charisma and the ability to ariticulate the Democratic message to step forward in CD23? Posted by: Zada True-Courage at November 21, 2005 12:09 AMPost a comment
|
|