Reps. Dunnam, Coleman, Gallego: Clinton Has Wrong Attitude Towards Texas

Clinton wont help locally anywhere (3.00 / 1)

Congressional hopefuls ride the Obama wave

Democrats in some of the unlikeliest places are looking forward to running on a ticket with his name on the top line.

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

---

by: MrJJ @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:43:15 AM CST

What wave? (0.00 / 0)

The new LA Times poll shows McCain ahead of Obama and ahead on every issue except for health care.

---

by: Jobu @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 15:05:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm confused (0.00 / 0)

about what you're trying to prove with the chart.  It looks like things got a lot worse after Clinton left office.  Can you clarify?  One thing you might also look at is the changes from 1994 to 2004, since that's when the nationwide Republican "revolution" started (I'd suspect that to be a much more likely causative factor than what I think you're trying to allude to).

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:53:58 AM CST

Correlation (0.00 / 0)

I explicitly stated I wasn't implying causation -- merely talking about correlation. There have been a lot of folks saying that down-ballot Dems may or may do better. I don't know if I believe that or not. But its important to at least get accurate figures out there to discuss.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:06:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I understand that (0.00 / 0)

But I'm looking for a more precise statement of what you're trying to correlate.  What you have above is a display of how bad Democrats sucked in Texas from '92 to '04, which isn't exactly news.  If you're trying to prove that Democrats sucking in Texas is correlated with Bill Clinton's term and afterwards, you need to provide data for at least eight years before Clinton and you can't ignore the last four years (I'm not aware that the party spent any money in Texas the last four).  Otherwise, you're cherry picking data to prove a point that even if true, is far-fetched to begin with (I can correlate Dems sucking in Texas with the rise of gangsta rap but that's not very helpful for your argument).  But you go to the Kennedy school, so you should know all this anyway.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 15:00:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The data (0.00 / 0)

The data used corresponds with the time when there was no national attention paid to TX Dems. Ann Richards grabbed the national spotlight in 1990, but after that, she didn't have as much national attention, and when she lost in '94 it let then-Governor Bush come up to the stage.

We could correlate gangsta rap (though the rise began in the late 80's, so you'd have to go back at least 4 more years). But thats not relevant to a discussion of TX politics. I think you're looking for me to explain some sort of causation. I'm not trying to do that.

Perhaps the fact that there is no causation is an important point...and one others can realize, now that I put those numbers up.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 15:13:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

argh (3.00 / 1)

but even to prove a strong correlation, you still need to do the bookend data.  If you pick the years 1992-2007 as the years the national spotlight wasn't on Texas you need to provide the data before that and after to show that fluctuating Dem performance is correlated with fluctuating national spotlight. (or Bill Clinton's term or whatever it is you're trying to correlate with).  Otherwise, it's not a significant correlation.  Also, you should use a time sequence (line graph) for your data.  A table with two cumulative results isn't very illustrative.

Also Also, you can disclaim away all you want, but you've posted a front page article whose conclusions you've tried to support with this data.  It is important whether or not the data actually supports the conclusion, otherwise why post it at all.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 15:30:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll just say what I wrote already (0.00 / 0)

But stepping back from the day-to-day ground game, there are these questions in the backs of the minds of many political watchers -- and since Senator Clinton said she isn't sure Texas would be in play in the general election, I think it's fair to ask whether or not Texas would want her in play in the general election.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 16:26:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BOR (0.00 / 0)

The Barack Obama Report

---

by: Judith Ford @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM CST

Nope (0.00 / 0)

I had an interview with Senator Clinton's top pollster yesterday. Did you catch that one, or just ignore it?

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Secondly... (0.00 / 0)

If anyone had said this, it would have been a huge deal. There are regular old TX politicians who say things like this, and we take them to task repeatedly on BOR. This is the kindest we've been to someone who dismisses TX in the upcoming election.

Considering we're doing very real work to elect Rick Noriega over John Cornyn, and having another Democrat in the U.S. is important, I think TX should be paid attention to in the upcoming campaign season. The idea that it could be ignored by the top of the ticket is not a pleasant one.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why is Hillary attacked for stating a fact? (0.00 / 0)

So Hillary states a historical fact that Texas is usually not in the electoral calculations for the Democratic nominee and you then leap to the conclusion that she will not campaign or devote resources in a national campaign to Texas? Non sequitur.

In the interview she did not follow this statement of fact with anything of the sort of implication you insinuate.

Please argue for resources from the national and state Democratic party. Living as a Democrat in College Station makes me pretty lonely so I understand you want visibility and help. Why do you have to do it by making an unfounded attack on a Democrat?

At least attack her on the things she actually says. Not the things you think she really meant as if you are Karnack the Magnificent and can read her mind.

Is this posted because 3 Texas pols (who have endorsed her opponent) take umbrage to the nonexistent slight? Does this legitimize the complaint or should we call them out for making up a story about a fellow Democrat?  

---

by: BrettC @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 21:32:54 PM CST

You're ignoring her whole comment (0.00 / 0)

She's making the point that even if she loses TX, she'd still fight for FL and MI, and somehow that is OK to not worry about TX b/c we don't matter in the general.

I felt slighted. I presented two different sets of facts. And I didn't draw any conclusions -- I just asked questions. No one has tried to answer either question, which I think is instructive.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 21:49:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Answers to the Questions (0.00 / 0)

Would she campaign in Texas in the general? If she is the nominee she will owe it almost completely to a Texas win. Campaigning in the state where she would not be "the comeback kid" but Lazarus is a given. As much as Florida? Only if the geniuses running her current effort are still at the helm.

Would other pols want her in Texas?
If she is on the top of the ticket something extraordinary will have happened (including her winning the Texas primary). So I would guess, yes. I doubt candidate Noriega would tell her to take a leap if she went with him to the Valley in a triumphant return to the part of the state that saved her candidacy. (we are speculating here)

---

by: BrettC @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 22:11:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

I thought they were Rhetorical questions.

1. yes
2. yes

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 23:54:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

She's right... (0.00 / 0)

Texas USUALLY isn't in the cards for the Democratic nominee. Phillip, I think the mistake here is in reading too much into this.

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 00:08:11 AM CST

I'm with Phillip on This (0.00 / 0)

I think agree with Phillip and House Dems on this.  For years the message to Texas Democrats has been: I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee; Florida and Michigan are, so I'm going to spend resources and campaign there and leave Texas to fend for itself.  Obviously, Clinton didn't say the last part of that sentence, but she said the first part.  So, while Lucy may actually let us kick the football this time, she's already setting the stage to pull it back.  

---

by: blank @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:45:10 AM CST