THEY have more resources to waste than we do.

leading slightly in FL right now and in Ohio.

They could spend that money to effectively erase those 2 and 3 point leads OR spend that money trying to save a state with A LOT of electoral votes that they never dreamed could go blue.

Bottomless well/bucket/pit.

I really wish the filthy rich liberals could give as much as the casino magnets.

How 'money' = free speech... I will never understand.

money PAYS for speech, in media etc., so can't legally constrain those who want to give. P.S., I hate it, and disagree with it.
And can't PAY for FREE SPEECH; we've all got that.

Let the Gods of Demographics continue to do their works for four more years.

And we would need a candidate with the appropriate good ole' boy credentials. That is NOT Andrew Cuomo or Martin O'Malley.

I really hope I live to see Texas go blue, and the reactions to that!

The only way to make them spend money in Texas is to make it competitive enough that they feel they need to spend time/money there...

... but the only way to make that happen is for us to spend time/money there (and more of it than they'll have to).

And they look like they'll have much more to spend than we will.

I believe Obama would end up using more of his funds than the Romney camp if they try to cause havoc with Texas. Not worth it. Putting that money towards a swing state would be best.

"When asked in 2003 about whether he planned to run for office himself, Bush replied that his grandmother, Barbara Bush, had advised that anyone thinking about entering politics should distinguish himself in some other field first: "Make a name for yourself, have a family, marry someone great, have some kids, buy a house, pay taxes, and do the things everyone also does instead of just running out and saying, 'Hey, I'm the nephew of or the son of or the grandson of...'."[6] Speaking specifically of his father's White House ambitions, he cites "Bush fatigue" as a discouraging factor.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

May we never forget.

I personally would like to see some attention paid to Texas. I personally think that Romney will under perform in this state due to the religion issue in that a decent percentage of Texas voters will not vote for a Mormon. In addition, Texas would be a swing state is Texas Hispanics voted in the same percentages as California.

The Texas Democratic Party just elected Judge Hinojosa as party chairman and we are concentrating on increasing Latino voter registration and voting turnout. Texas will be competitive at some point if Hispanic turnout increase. This may not happen until 2016 but it will happen

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't help but look at Texas. But the meme seems to be that Obama hates Texas, I just don't think that is a liberal meme, so I wonder where it comes from. Didn't Texas vote blue in 1976?

were just elected. If those pigs can win here, Romney could also be a problem.

look this up...but I want to say at least a third of Texans are Hispanic.



Obama won Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, andAustin last time so why not.
He lost by 11....

Texas is where California was before Hispanic voters got mad at the GOP.

There are quite a few Texan DU members, and we don't like blanket trashings of our state, particularly by those who are supposed to be our political allies. 3.5 million Texans voted for Obama in 2008---deal with it, and learn some manners, while you're at it......

was Rick Perry's succession talk and the positive response he got for that position. Teach me to go with my first thought. Your are invited to make fun of Indiana. We seem to deserve it when you look at our elected officials - Gov Daniels, GOP senate candidate Mourdock and all their cronies are just the tip of the iceberg.

Once again I apologize,
Kevin

You'll have plenty of company from a lot of Texans, including myself. And thank you for your gracious response.

Texas is probably winnable for the Democrats at some point over the next decade if the right factors come together: a) the Democrats need to start registering voters that are unregistered, and that includes many Latinos b) need to develop a better ground operation and outreach to Texas, c) the type of Democratic nominee that can appeal to enough voters in the state.

Even Bill Clinton wasn't able to come that close to winning Texas in either of his elections, despite being from the South, and despite being able to win many other Southern states like Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky etc. Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the last one to win it.

The demographics in Texas are changing, and the Latino population is getting bigger, and the majority of them would vote Democratic, but unfortunately many are not registered. If the DNC makes the effort over the coming years, it could be done.

If it close in the fall maybe if it will put Mittens on the defense

Do you know how lonely it's been since we lost Ann Richards as Governor?

I was hoping that the vacancy that has opened for Kay Bailey Hutchison's U.S. Senate seat would create an opportunity for the Democrats, but it doesn't seem to be working out so far. It looks like Lloyd Bentsen might remain Texas's last Democratic Senator for some years to come.

Who will be the next Lloyd Bentsen? (or Ralph Yarborough?)

There may be some bleed over.

and considering the fact that this time Romney will have what are basically unlimited resources at his disposal (i.e. the Kochs and Sidney Adelson), this time will be closer than the last.

I think the money needs to go to the must win states first - NC, VA, CO, OH, and FL... I think with the huge leads Obama has with latinos, he's got NM, and likely even NV (but this state will also require resources). At the same time, it's important he cements larger leads in PA, WI, and NH...

Let's face it, that map he got in '08 is about the best shot he has again this time. He's playing defense in more ways than one. The only state I can see him going for which he lost is MO, and that's because he lost it by a few thousand votes....

I agree. I think too many Democrats are taking this for granted and assuming Obama has it in the bag. It's important to be ambitious and continue to expand the electoral map, BUT you can never underestimate the Republicans. They are ruthless, and will even engage in voter fraud if they have to.

While the electoral map has favored the Democrats for the past 20 years (eg. the Republicans have not decisively won an election since 1988), you can never know for sure what will happen. George Bush I was the last Republican to break the 300 EV mark. By contrast, the Democrats have done so 3 times in the last 20 years - 1992, 1996 & 2008. The Democrats also won the popular vote in 2000, of course.

But with devious people like Karl Rove behind the scenes of Romney's campaign, with massive amounts of money wiping out Obama's 2008 financial advantage, and with the possibility of bad economic news in the months ahead, the advantage Obama enjoys in the Electoral College could deteriorate.

ineligible voters vote presumably for Dems). Likewise, Dems typically accuse Repigs of 'election fraud' (meaning eligible votes again presumably for Dems are mis-, under- or uncounted).

IMO, most of the Repig allegations of 'voter fraud' by Dems are never proven definitively, while Dem allegations of 'election fraud' rely more on statistical extrapolations, e.g., actual vote counts vs. exit polls, and thus can never be definitively proven either.

There are fifty states, folks. And the DNC strategy of constant retreat from any state that have even a purple tinge to it hasn't been doing us any favors. Gov. Dean's Fifty-State strategy made sense then, it makes sense now.

blue state - you won't.

It would be cool to have Obama go to an Alaskan dem rally, wouldn't it.

Dems should push to get all states.

Obama = 332
Romney = 206
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=nXG

This is also my prediction for Novemeber

BTW - I think Texas should wait for 2016. There's too much riding on this election.
We'll know when Texas is ready to invest in, because Arizona will be leaning (at least) to the blue column.

I am all for the Electoral Votes, but can we work a deal to pull out funding along with all Liberals after the election. The savings on funding can be used to relocate the sane Texans to New Mexico or Colorado. It is where they vacation, so a win for all.

From the Obama campaign stating that funding this election is going to be a serious problem. Therefore, no money should be spent in Texas other than races that can actually be won. (In blue districts in the major cities)

It's really not "should we push to get Texas"? But rather, should we push to get Texas BACK?

I'm old enough to remember when my beloved Texas was a Democratic state - and a darn sight better place to live when it was.

To answer your question, however (and thank you for thinking of us!!!), it is essential that resources be used wisely for this election, so I'm guessing there are better places to spend time and money for this particular election cycle. We're just not "there" yet in Texas.

But again, thank you for thinking of us. And don't forget us! There are a lot of people down here working very hard to take Texas BACK to the blue!!! And we're going to make it some time soon!