I think in 2018, the Democrat has at least a fair to middling chance against the Republican in almost every race, and that includes this one. But I’m not convinced that it’s high on the list of Democratic pickup opportunities.
The way I see it, the races that matter the most would be the ones (if any) that put Democrats at 51 seats, 60 seats, and 67 seats. There’s no chance for 60 or 67 this cycle, so it’s the 51st seat that matters. And I don’t think that O’Rourke is likely to be that 51st seat, because in an environment where he wins, probably so do others ahead of him.
I assume you are actually answering JohnT here and I snuck in the middle. How reasonable is it to guess 800k California/NY Dems or Repubs will move to Texas because of the idiosyncrasies of the new tax cuts is what I’m asking.
The Texas population grew 7 million people (@20 to @27) between 2010 and 2016, a rather impressive rate of growth. California grew slightly over 5 million in the same time period. (34 to 39)
The Texas population is getting less and less white and more and more blue.
So even if Beto doesn’t win this time, the trend is in that direction. Especially if Republicans keep driving away minority votes.
I’ve laid this out in other threads, but I’ll rehash it briefly here. The democrats can take the senate by winning all currently held dem seats and flipping two republican held seats. I’m sure all will agree that even holding all D seats is not an easy task. The most tenuous batch consists of MT (Tester), ND (Heitkamp), and WV (Manchin). The two easiest R held seats to go after are probably AZ (open) and NV (Heller). One could argue that there should be a couple more or fewer races added to these five, but my point is come election time if the winds are still favorable to the democratic party there will be a handful of races that the Dems must win to grab the senate.
Now imagine one of those races looks like a lost cause. Maybe a scandal, maybe the R candidate is just running a great campaign and the race looks to be out of reach. Where do you look then for the one more seat you need to get to 51?
In my opinion (based on Cook PVI) it has to be one of these three: TN (open), MS (Wicker), or… TX (Cruz). The alternative is to just throw up your hands and say we’ll get 'em next time.
So while the D team can get to 51 without going after Cruz if everything goes smoothly, they have to go after Cruz or a similarly safe seat if there’s even one significant bump in the road.
Of course, a lot can change in nine months and the Dems certainly have a track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s less likely, but not impossible that by election day we’ll be discussing which race the Dems need to focus on to keep 41 seats in the senate.
You may well be right. I don’t think we can say anything for certain until after the primaries in all those states are over at the earliest.
As I recall both McCaskill and Donnelly both owe a goodly portion of their 2012 wins to their opponent’s shooting themselves in the foot (legitimate rape and pregnancy from rape is a gift from God respectively).
I don’t recall how Heitkamp and Tester won in 2012 or know anything about who their challengers might be this time around.
None of that changes the underlying point I’m making. The ‘easy’ path to 51 includes all of them. If it looks like one one of them is doomed to failure then the Dems have to look for a ‘hard’ path and that ‘hard’ path may very well go through Texas.
Apart from that point, on general principle, for as long as Ted Cruz is in the senate, I think someone should travel the length and breadth of Texas knocking on doors to tell people what a piece of shit Ted Cruz is at least once every six years.
Indeed so - it’s a nightmare map from a Democratic perspective. In addition to having to hold on to seats in states like Indiana, West Virginia, Missouri and so on, they’ve only got a few seats to even challenge, and those are New Mexico (actually favorable), Arizona (doable, I guess), Tennessee (with the new open seat and a solid Democrat, not entirely unfeasible), Texas (. . . maybe), Mississipi, Nebraska, Utah and Wyoming (not outside of Roy Moore deciding to make a change of residence). Texas is one of the only four I see as even outside chances so they’ve got to at least make a stab at it. Beto may be facing an uphill battle here but he’s a serious contender, not like some of the lightweights and vanity candidates we often get for statewide office.
Hell yeah. There’s plenty of Cruz voters that aren’t Cruz supporters, him being the POS you describe.
It’s not so much demographic trends, which are pretty straightforward and mostly agreed upon census numbers, but the assumptions made about how the different demographics will vote into the future. And I didn’t say they were necessarily wrong but Dems have been gloating about the coming Permanent Democratic Majority for a while now, so I’m not holding my breath.
Hard to believe he “literally has no accomplishments”. His wikipedia page seems to say otherwise. In any case, how cool would it be for the US to have a President Castro?
His wikipedia page cites that he asked citizens for ideas on their aspirations. Oh, and he served time as mayor and HUD Secretary. Which are not accomplishments relevant to running for President. The Democratic field resembles a beauty pageant where youth and attractiveness matter more than substance.
Are Democrats shooting for a failed Presidency that will result in a huge Republican wave? You’d think the party might actually want to govern for more than two years at a time every generation or so.
I’m not saying he should be President. I would like someone with more experience. I certainly hope the Democratic Party runs someone with a better resume in 2020. I’m just saying that Trump sets the bar pretty low–like under ground.