the Realm of the Bushes is now being described–in the Wall Street Journal, no less–as potentially “the next California.” The next big Republican stronghold, in other words, that is headed for a seismic partisan flip. It won’t happen tomorrow, of course. But unmistakable signs of a Democratic breakout are all around. In Dallas, linchpin of the Republicans’ statewide ascendance in the 1980s, an innovative grassroots campaign in 2006 earned Democrats a sweep of more than forty contested judicial races–and Harris County (Houston) seems poised for a similar switch. Democrats won back six Statehouse seats in 2006, bringing them within five of regaining the majority and having a hand in revising Tom DeLay’s infamous Republican-friendly redistricting after the next census. … And in the March presidential primaries, a startling show of Democratic enthusiasm was the big story buried under the Clinton/Obama headlines: just 1.3 million Texans voted Republican, while nearly 2.9 million voted Democratic–more than voted here in either of the last two general elections for Gore or Kerry. Political scientists are projecting that Bush Country will morph, by 2020, into the nation’s second-largest Democratic state. “Texas,” Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean enthused during the DNC’s rules committee showdown in May, “is ready to turn blue.”
Yes, Texas. …
… The Democratic resurrection in Texas could hardly be happier news for the national party’s long-term future. But in the short-term calculus of a presidential election year, it does create a dilemma–albeit a rather pleasant one–for Barack Obama’s campaign.
On the one hand, Texas Democrats stand to gain more ground in local and legislative elections in November, and they could surely make good use of the rocket-boost of grassroots energy and big money that is Obama’s to spread around. Those investments, in turn, would build momentum for a quicker statewide turnaround–meaning, among other things, more members of Congress to bulk up the majority behind Obama’s policies. Down the road, of course, it would also bring the Democrats closer to a potential mother lode of electoral votes–thirty-four at present, with more than forty projected by 2030–that could make national contests vexingly difficult for Republicans to win.
On the other hand, there is no realistic prospect that, barring a national landslide, Obama can carry Texas–until 2012, perhaps. … Besides, no matter how financially fat the Obama organization might be, running a full-scale campaign on Texas’ vast landscape of media markets is dauntingly expensive, with candidates needing to fork over some $1.4 million per week from Labor Day forward to get sufficient advertising on the air statewide. That adds up to a minimum of more than $11 million–money that might pay more immediate dividends in North Carolina, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado or New Mexico, toss-up states where Democratic turnarounds are further advanced.
In the consultant-driven, micro-targeting days of the not-so-distant Democratic past, the Texas dilemma would have been solved easily enough: look at the polls–screw it!–shovel everything into Florida and Ohio! As former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe reportedly declared in a strategy session during the Gore campaign, “All we care about is getting to 270”–electoral votes, that is. Winning the White House, in turn, was supposed to be a magic bullet for building the party nationally–though Democrats in states like Texas reaped no benefits from President Clinton’s two wins.
But it’s not only a new day for Democrats in Texas–it also looks like a new day for the national party… David Axelrod, promised in a series of Texas fundraisers in early June that fifteen staffers would be dispatched to Texas for the general election. “He was cagey about their level of investment,” says Molly Hanchey, the ObamaDallas chair. “But he was clear that we won’t be just an ATM this time.” And that’s more important, she says, than making Texas a full-scale presidential battleground in November.