In the last couple of days there has been a boomlet of U.S. Senate discussion about Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez due to trial balloons being floated by former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes & the DSCC. Before I adress the main point of this post, I encourage readers to take a look at any of the following articles to glean some further insight into Sanchez.
I'm not surprised by the quick response in the political press and blogosphere; after all, it's less than a year away from the (expected) Texas primary and the only announced candidate Sean Hubbard, excluding the Draft Tommy Lee Jones movement. Other obvious potential candidates aren't available or interested, ranging from former Gubernatorial nominees Tony Sanchez, Chris Bell, & Bill White to former US Senate nominees Rick Noriega, Victor Morales, or Gene Kelly (if he's still alive). I half suspect that Barbara Radnofsky's name might get floated at some point but I haven't heard from her since her unsuccessful second statewide bid last fall. No big city mayors are in the pipeline other than Mayor Julian Castro in San Antonio who's running for re-election. Heck, it's been so bad that even the perennially rumored John Sharp no longer makes the media's obligatory candidate short list.
Texas Democrats recognize that our bench took a beating last November and are desperate for any hint of a candidate to run in a rare open US Senate seat. That desperation isn't new, it's just more obvious now that 2010 exposed the underlying structural failings of the Democratic Party as it exists in Texas. There is a much bigger discussion that needs to take place about the nuts and bolts re-building of the Democratic Party in Texas, one that I hope will be part of the now open race and debate for the next TDP Chair since Boyd Richie is not running for re-election. But this post isn't about that, at least not directly.
I believe the initial debate over the potential of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's candidacy has to go deeper than arguments over his involvement and handling of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In fact, I'd argue that we are having the wrong debate entirely. Every cycle since at least 2000 Democrats have focused around "Winnability" in the major nominees we have put forward as our top of the ticket standard-bearers, and look where that has gotten us.
2002: Tony Sanchez & Ron Kirk would build and fund a winnable rainbow coalition. Lost.
2006: Chris Bell would build a moderate winnable victory in a unique fractured general election. Lost.
2006: Barbara Radnofsky, a female mediator, would be able to make a reasoned dent in Hutchison's personal popularity. Lost.
2008: Rick Noriega, a Hispanic soldier, was the ticket and would get the Hispanics that Tony Sanchez couldn't. Lost.
2010: Bill White would win as a well-funded popular business-friendly mayor of Texas' biggest city. Lost.
2012: Ricardo Sanchez, a economically conservative Hispanic general, will get the Hispanics that Noriega & Tony Sanchez couldn't.
Are we seeing a pattern here? For the most part Democrats have spent the last decade focused on Winnability and received nothing in return but one heart-breaking loss after another. Yet year after year, our aging Democratic institutional and luminary leaders propose "the next sure thing" strategy of running relatively unoffensive moderate nominees with the "right demographics" and year after year we buy it- and lose.
Maybe it's time to for Texas Democrats to stop searching for nominees based upon this model of "winnability" and instead, search for a nominee based upon our Party's "values".
How many more times are we going to ask the Democratic base of this state to trudge out to the polls and "get excited" by our winnable candidates? Seeing as our "winnable" strategy never wins, is there any harm in nominating someone with a strong Democratic identity who runs a campaign centered on our Democratic values? What if we sought out someone who's more interested in running a multi-million dollar campaign focused on calling out Republicans for their failure of leadership and bankrupting of this state's treasury and future rather than calling up Republicans to plead for their checks and votes?
What if the path to winnability is grounded in our Democratic values?
Consider this.
Cycle after cycle the Democratic "winnability" strategy has centered around "awakening the sleeping giant" of minority voters, particularly Hispanics.
If the 2010 election taught us anything, it's that minority voters in Texas are almost all that's left of the Democratic Party.
It is unlikely that Anglo Texans are going to have a rush of baby-making or that Democrats are going to ever win the Anglo vote back. So it would make sense to me, given the three points above, that there really isn't any harm (or other option) in going all-in with the "demographic change" strategy; except instead of waiting around for it to happen, we invest in making it happen. We seek out engaging Democratic, Progressive, or Populist candidates that can talk to minority voters also known (now) as "the base". In the process we build stronger, longer lasting infrastructure and institutions. We make an argument to voters that spans election cycles by spending money and organizing around our values, not short term candidate based winnability.
Developing better mail pieces and TVs ads isn't going to change our fate. They can help us win, when we are close, but we still need to get close enough to win, and that starts with voters identifying with our candidates. The kind of change we need now requires a movement as much as it requires money, and we're never going to build a movement in this state until we have the motivation and subsequent momentum to really go out and kick some ass. Moderates may get us money, but they're not getting us movement and they're hurting any momentum we could build. Maybe it's time for us to give the Linda Chavez-Thompsons of the world the same all-in support and consideration as our more "winnable" candidates.
Who knows, we might just find out that running on our values is the most winnable strategy for the future of Democrats in Texas.
A trial balloon is being floated for a potential Democratic US Senate candidate to run in 2012 for the open seat being vacated by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, a native of Rio Grande City, has been courted by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee as confirmed by DSCC Chair Sen. Patty Murray and former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes.
Sanchez was the top military commander in Iraq during 2003-04 under former President George W. Bush before being effectively forced out of the job in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. While Sanchez will not confirm or deny his intent to run, he gave the following response to the press.
"I would describe myself as during my military career as supporting the president and the Constitution," Sanchez said. "After the military, I decided that socially, I'm a progressive, a fiscal conservative and a strong supporter, obviously, of national defense."
"It's my views and my history, having grown up in south Texas, depending on social programs and assistance, that America has a responsibility to its people," he said.
While Sanchez openly admits that the Abu Ghraib scandal was responsible for ending his leadership of the Iraq operation, he was cleared by Army investigators and criticized President Bush's handling of the war in his 2008 book, "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story."
Sanchez would enter a mostly empty Democratic field where only 30 year old Sean Hubbard has announced any intention of running for the open Senate seat.
The Statesman's Jason Embry reports that President Barack Obama will headline August 9 fundraisers in Austin and Houston for the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, respectively.
The event in Austin is "tentatively scheduled" for the Four Seasons with tickets starting at $5000 a person.
Bill White spokesperson Katy Bacon told the Statesman that White "had no plans to attend" either events and said instead "Bill will be talking with Texans about the future of our state." Some will try to twist this into a negative, but White is doing exactly what he should do: focus on his state and his race.
That presents a clear contrast with Rick Perry, who most recently appeared with the national Republican Party's most sought after campaigner, Sarah Palin, in Tyler on June 28. After going on sixteen years of governors who are eager to make their mark on national politics and ignore problems here in Texas, it is time we had a governor whose top priority is the future of Texas, not posturing for higher office.
Detailed fundraising numbers from the Sharp and White Senate campaigns show a striking discrepancy in the source of both candidates' fundraising. In the fundraising quarter ending September 30, John Sharp loaned himself over $500,000 of the $615,000 he reported to the FEC. The following table breaks out the numbers:
Other Peoples' Money
Loans from Candidate
Contributions from Candidate
Total Raised
Expenditures
White:
$1,116,813
$0
$414,399
$1,549,941
$703,108
Sharp:
$107,204
$504,514
$0
$615,210
$170,190
In actual contributions from campaign supporters, White outraised Sharp by over 10 to 1.
Both candidates contributed to their own campaigns: Sharp loaned himself money, while White contributed the $414,399 as part of a donor-matching program during the last three days week of the quarter. White and his wife Andrea matched donations that included $200,000 in online giving through ActBlue and the campaign website. That $200,000 raised online by White in the last three days week of the quarter is more than Sharp raised from all of his donors throughout the three months of the quarter.
It's also interesting to compare these numbers to the candidates' expenses. White is running a full state-wide campaign with organizers and physical office space in most regions of the state. However, he more than raised enough to cover his significant expenses. On the other hand, the Sharp campaign spent more money in Q3 than it took in from outside contributions.
With the DSCC openly encouraging White, Sharp may begin to feel more pressure to switch to another race where Democrats desperately need a strong candidate. Without the FEC limits of $2400 per person, Sharp would likely find it easier to raise money closer to the levels he did as Comptroller. Of course, Sharp has given no public indication that he is considering switching races.
I heard a rumor the other week that the Sharp and White campaigns might be talking to each other again about...
A) if one of them would kindly drop out of the Senate race so the DSCC could finally gear up and help Texas (for once) like it actually wants to (which is a real thing).
"I'm not going to overstate it. Texas is a hard place, except that what we're talking about here is a special election with a much different universe of voters coming out and someone like (Houston Mayor) Bill White" running, Menendez said.
...
Menendez said White is well positioned because he is from Houston - which is the state's largest city - and is a Texas Democrat who "represents the values and positions that would appeal to a broad cross-section" of voters.
A special election to replace Hutchison would draw a "special universe of voters," also giving Democrats a chance, Menendez said. Special elections do not include party primaries. "In a special election ... the turnout can create the opportunity for someone like Bill White to succeed," he said.
Menendez's praise of White is a bit unusual for a party campaign committee leader. Generally, they try to stay neutral when a race, usually a primary, features candidates of the same party. John Sharp, a Democrat and former Texas comptroller, also plans to run for Hutchison's seat.
Charles Kuffner is right in saying that the usual caveats apply with regard there even being a special election whether the electorate will be any better for Democrats in a special depending on when it will be called.
But that aside... yes, folks in DC would prefer to have one candidate in the race. They are being hampered by doing their usual behind the scenes assistance which most states get every cycle (and we would have killed for to the same degree on the Noriega campaign). This is real and the fact that the it's bubbled up, publicly, from the DSCC chair himself should be a signal.
A signal lost on some apparently.
Kelly Fero, a spokesman for Sharp, agreed Democrats could pick up a seat in Texas, but said Sharp would win the special election. "If Bill White wants to be the choice of Washington, D.C. insiders, more power to him. John Sharp wants to be the choice of Texas," Fero said.
Oh please. Bill White has raised more money from more people than John Sharp and all the Republican candidates combined in Texas. And he's actively running a campaign that isn't dependent on the Sharp Strategy which as far as I've been able to piece together consists of....
1) Latent Name ID
2) Loaning Yourself Money
3) Spending Loaned Money (in late negative attacks on White)
4) Get in Runoff
5) Ask DSCC to fund Runoff
I'm not being coy or making stuff up in outlining that strategy. Between conversations with Sharp, supporters of Sharp, and other Austin insiders, folks are pretty open and honest in confirming those elements. I'm actually totally fine with them being open and honest in a simple singular drive to win an election via old school hardball tactics. I appreciate cutting through the bullshit.
But John Sharp needs to be more than the choice of John Sharp if we are going to win a U.S. Senate seat and I think the DSCC sees that.
We could be on a tipping point in Texas as Democrats- not for whether we're going to sweep statewide elections next year. No, we are on the tipping point of national folks taking us seriously and putting real support and real dollars into compressing a 6-10 year trend to victory into a 2-4 year reality.
Pay attention to the signals. This is one of them. So is Organizing for America hiring former TDP Communications Director Hector Nieto. And Martin Frost's Bill White comments. And David Plouffe stating the Obama Re-Election campaign takes a deep look at Texas in 2012 if we get to 47-48% statewide in 2010.
It's equally likely, though, that Texas Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot, unwilling to take risk, and put parochial self interests ahead of big picture possibilities. I'm about as used to that as I am living under Republican incompetence and corruption. Let's hope we can change both.
(Read more from the guru at www.senateguru.com - promoted by Matt Glazer)
Watch NRSC Chair John Cornyn's wooden, uncomfortable, even pained delivery as he apparently reads off of cue cards and stumbles over his words, saying "Facebook" and "Twitter" for probably the first time in his life:
Now compare that with the introductory video from new DSCC Chair Bob Menendez as he speaks to us, not at us. As he invites us into his office and shares with us his uniquely American story, he actually appears conversational, not like Cornyn's "I forgot my lines and am reading off cue cards" delivery:
Just six weeks after the 2008 election, The Hill, a leading capitol newspaper, has singled out Houston Mayor Bill White as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's "first recruiting victory" of the new cycle.
We reported a few weeks ago that John Sharp, the other Democrat who is running for the U.S. Senate, had met with the DSCC.
While they do not do it often, the DSCC does have a history of getting involved in primaries (or, in this case, the first round of a special election).
Do you think the DSCC has a favored Texas candidate? If so, who is it -- White or Sharp?
CORRECTED: Despite previous reports, the DSCC has NOT met with John Sharp in recent months. The DSCC says the last time they met with Sharp was in 2006 to discuss the race for John Cornyn's seat.
I think this is a fair read of the lay of the land for Senate races we are challenging by DSCC chair Sen. Chuck Schumer. From MSNBC's FirstRead...
Here's the picture for the DSCC provided by Schumer:
Top targets: VA, NH, NM, CO, AK. (Schumer says they are ahead here.)
Second tier: OR, MN, ME. (These are blue states; Democrats are not ahead, but are competitive.)
Red-state seats in striking range: KY, NC, MS.
Good candidates with an outside chance: NE, KS, OK, GA, ID, TX. (Schumer says of Texas that he likes Noriega as a candidate and that incumbent Sen. John Cornyn is polling surprisingly low.)
The note on the fourth set about Noriega is actually from Schumer and included in the article so it's nice to see him pointing this race out in particular. There is good reason for this because the Texas Senate race is in all honesty more competitive based on polling than say Maine (in the second tier).
Maine is a lot smaller than Texas and Tom Allen represented half of Maine in Congress verses Rick Noriega representing 1/150th of Texas in the state house. And even with that and the fact that the Texas numbers are pre-primary it seems clear that Texas is well positioned to be heading on up those charts.
The DSCC has started a new video series called the "Road to Victory". Looks like their first stop is Texas!
Not a surprise that no one knows who Cornyn is. Noriega polling last fall showed that a sizable chunk of Texas don't know who he is, even though he's been in statewide office for 20 years.
Thirty-eight percent of likely voters are unable to rate Cornyn - 24% have heard of him but have no opinion about him, while 14% have never heard of him even though he has served in the Senate for five years and as Texas Attorney General for 4 years before that.
A trial balloon is being floated for a potential Democratic US Senate candidate to run in 2012 for the open seat being vacated by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, a native of Rio Grande City, has been courted by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee as confirmed by DSCC Chair Sen. Patty Murray and former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes.
