This election cycle in Texas is about more than just a few primary delegates. It’s a battle between the Fifty-State Strategy and the Fifty-Year Decline of Democrats in Texas.
The endorsement by Congressman Chet Edwards (D, TX-17) of Barack Obama this week provides a compelling example of how Obama’s candidacy and growing support here in Texas leave Democrats poised to make tremendous gains on a state and national level this November. Conversely, a general election match-up between Hillary and McCain would seriously hurt down-ticket races in Texas, threatening our long, hard efforts to regain a foothold here.
If for no other reason, Obama’s ability to provide a lift up for other Democrats on the Texas ballot makes him a compelling choice in our primary—which, as luck would have it, begins today with early voting.
Charts, video, quotes, etc. on the flip.
The core principle of Howard Dean’s Fifty-State Strategy is for the Democratic Party to contest every race, every district. We need to recruit the best candidates possible at all levels, up and down the ballot. Only by fighting for every inch, every vote, can we really take our country back. Dean wants to contest every seat in the country—-even those in Texas, even those in majority-Republican areas, even those gerry-mandered by Tom DeLay to be inhospitable to Democrats.
Chet Edwards represents one such district--TX-17, an area surrounding Waco and including Baylor and Texas A&M Universities. The district also includes Bush’s "ranch" in Crawford. Yes, Bush is represented in Congress by a Democrat. The Cook report states that Edwards holds the most Republican district of any Democrat in Congress. Originally representing the 11th, Edwards was re-drawn into a new 17th, which included conservative suburbs of Fort Worth. Despite his now majority-Republican district, Edwards was able to hold on to his seat by convincing Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike to vote for him.
Edwards’ broad base of appeal makes it no big surprise that he should place his superdelegate support behind the Democratic candidate showing a similar coalition of support: Barack Obama. Yesterday he released this statement of support for Obama:
"The candidates that win are those who reach out to independent voters, and I think it is such an asset that Senator Obama has an ability to appeal to independent voters and independent-minded Republicans. That is going to be the swing vote in the November election. I think that it is going to be vital to have a leader who can bring together bipartisan support to address the major changes facing our country."--Representative Chet Edwards
Chet Edwards is a Democrat who can win in Red areas, and as such serves as a model for the Fifty-State Strategy. He has broad appeal, and he has enough respect for his constituents to engage with Republicans and Democrats alike and look for common ground. Most importantly, he’s willing to convince those Republicans in his district to try voting for a Democrat. This is how we can grow our majority most rapidly—-by flipping voters one by one from "R" to "D." Strong candidates must be able to win in swing precincts and swing states, and bring the party to areas previously considered anathema to Democrats.
Thus, when I see Hillary’s campaign largely eschewing Red States and Red State voters, I wonder -- is she committed to growing the party?
"With all due respect, unless there is a tsunami change in America, we are never going to carry Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, it’s just not going to happen, but we have to carry the states I’ve been carrying, the primary states, the states that have to be in the winning Democratic column."--Senator Hillary Clinton
Maybe not.
At least Hillary doesn’t seem to be ignoring Texas anymore, now that her lead in the polls has evaporated and our delegates seem to suddenly "matter." (Though I will happily wake up on the morning of March 5th and find out that I don’t "matter" after all!)
But as a Red State voter, life-long Democrat, and volunteer tasked with converting Texas Republicans, I am legitimately worried that our party’s nominee—-the person who is for all intents and purposes considered the best we can do—-doesn’t care, doesn’t want to invest in supporting this same mission.
Here in Texas, we’re at the end of a fifty-year decline in voters self-indentifying as Democrats. Without delving into a lengthy historical analysis of the many factors contributing to this decline, for many reasons it's fair to say that our "brand" as a party is not doing so well in 2008.
Chart via Texas Politics @ University of Texas
I suppose I should offer the caveat that I hope this is the end of this long, slow decline into Red State oblivion. Tom DeLay and his gerrymandering cronies have made it very difficult for Democrats to hold seats or gain a foothold here, crafting districts precinct by precinct that are supposed to vote approximately 55% for Republicans. To win these seats, Democrats need to field candidates who can appeal to the indepdendents, and to the more moderate 10% of Republicans. As the results of this election season have already shown, Barack Obama holds that appeal, consistently winning amongst Independents and cross-over Republican voters.
We need to reverse this half-century trend of Democratic decline in Texas. There are plenty of proud progressives here, and there are many voters who are ready to learn how our platforms and policies will benefit them vastly more than those of the Republican Party. To do this in November, we need to nominate the candidate best capable of supporting Democrats running for office in Texas, whether they're running in Austin or Abilene, Waco or Waxahachie.
Which brings me to the primary contest at hand. Recent polling shows that Obama has steadily eroded Hillary’s lead here in Texas, which stood at 34% back in December but now seems to be in the 5% range. As Texas Democrats decide which way to cast their ballot, they might want to consider the outcome of an Obama or a Hillary candidacy in November. From the Burka Blog:
- Hillary's relatively unpopularity translates into a ballot test that is 4 to 5 points lower (for Democrats) than the generic D vs. R vote.
- Among partisans of both sides it is pretty clear she does well among Ds and poorly among Rs. It is her negatives among independents that are troubling for her. They are real and they will have some impact.
- If the race were held today, there would be a big Hillary downballot drag. That will take tens of millions and good, smart tactics to change.
Do I think our nominee is doing to take Texas this November? I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, but I do think that Obama has the ability to narrow that gap much more readily than Hillary does. However, we’ve got hard-fighting Democrats running in races up and down the ballot who can’t risk a drop of 3-5% based on who we nominate for President.
Now, rumor-mongering abounds about internal Democratic Party polling that shows exactly how negatively Hillary impacts down-ticket races. I haven’t seen it, and I don’t know anyone who has seen it. But within the party, I do sense a real concern that she might risk our perfect-storm opportunities in several key races, most notably Rick Noriega’s in the Senate, where he faces Bush-loving John Cornyn and his tremendously high negatives. Let’s also not forget key races to pick up Texas Legislature seats, which will help us pull even by 2010 and have a voice in the next post-census redistricting. The fact is, while Texas might not go "D" in the general, we need strong coattails to help solidify our hard-won gains at every other level of the ballot.
So. On the one hand, we have the Fifty-State Strategy, and a philosophy of contesting every race, every seat. On the other, we have the Fifty-Year Decline of Democrats in Texas. I firmly believe that the former has the potential to reverse the latter, and that we are poised to make real strides in turning this state Blue again. There is potential for Texas to vote Democratic again, regardless (perhaps because) of what the past 14 years of Bush rule has wrought. Folks like Howard Dean believe in this potential, folks like Chet Edwards believe in it, and folks like Barack Obama believe in it, too.
So for undecided Texas voters out there, remember--this isn't just about one primary, or one Presidential election cycle. It's about making gains for Democrats in Texas, and reversing the decline that brought us folks like Tom DeLay, Phil Gramm, and George W. Bush himself.
So, what'll it be, Texas: Fifty-State Strategy? Or Fifty-Year Decline?