(07-09-2013 11:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Democrats made huge gains under the Clinton years only to have it snatched away in 2000.

That's really not true.

When Clinton started openly campaigning for president in 1991, the Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the US Senate and approx. a 269-166 majority in the US House. Except for a six-year-span in the 1980s when the GOP held the Senate, both ratios were fairly typical of the Democrat dominance since the 1930s. Clinton was, of course, nominated in 1992 and won 43% of the popular vote that year against Bush and Perot. The Democrats lost 10 seats in the House and the Senate had zero net-change, so Clinton took office in January 1993 with a 259-176 majority in the House and a 57-43 majority in the Senate.

What happened over the next 2 or 3 years was extraordinary, and is worth close study by people who are interested in politics. But suffice to say that by the end of 1995 that 57-43 Democrat majority in the Senate had turned into a 55-45 Republican majority -- a net-shift of 12 seats. And the 259-176 Democrat majority in the House had turned into a 236-199 Republican majority -- a net-shift of 60 seats. The shifts among Governors and state legislatures was very dramatic, too. That was the basic political reality for the last 6 years of President Clinton's time in office. The Democrats recouped a little bit of those losses in 1996, 1998, and 2000, but never did regain the House or the Senate until after Clinton had left office, unless you count a few days in January 2001 when the new Senate had been sworn into office but Bush/Cheney had not been. The 2000 elections were actually very good to the Democrats, at least in the Senate races.

Quote:Here is a good article on the manner.
http://www.texasobserver.org/what-must-h...turn-blue/

The Texas Observer has probably been the most prominent voice for Texas liberals over the past 60 years. It is currently serving as a de-facto publicist/cheerleader for Wendy Davis. With the exception of restaurant/BBQ reviews, all of its articles are written through a deep Blue partisan perspective. None of that means that you shouldn't read it, but just that you should be aware it is even more overtly partial than most other media.

(07-09-2013 11:30 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  [quote='oklalittledixie' pid='9478833' dateline='1373428941']Democrats made huge gains under the Clinton years only to have it snatched away in 2000.

That's really not true.

When Clinton started openly campaigning for president in 1991, the Democrats had a 57-43 majority in the US Senate and approx. a 269-166 majority in the US House. Except for a six-year-span in the 1980s when the GOP held the Senate, both ratios were fairly typical of the Democrat dominance since the 1930s. Clinton was, of course, nominated in 1992 and won 43% of the popular vote that year against Bush and Perot. The Democrats lost 10 seats in the House and the Senate had zero net-change, so Clinton took office in January 1993 with a 259-176 majority in the House and a 57-43 majority in the Senate.

What happened over the next 2 or 3 years was extraordinary, and is worth close study by people who are interested in politics. But suffice to say that by the end of 1995 that 57-43 Democrat majority in the Senate had turned into a 55-45 Republican majority -- a net-shift of 12 seats. And the 259-176 Democrat majority in the House had turned into a 236-199 Republican majority -- a net-shift of 60 seats. The shifts among Governors and state legislatures was very dramatic, too. That was the basic political reality for the last 6 years of President Clinton's time in office. The Democrats recouped a little bit of those losses in 1996, 1998, and 2000, but never did regain the House or the Senate until after Clinton had left office, unless you count a few days in January 2001 when the new Senate had been sworn into office but Bush/Cheney had not been. The 2000 elections were actually very good to the Democrats, at least in the Senate races.

Quote:


[quote]Here is a good article on the manner.
http://www.texasobserver.org/what-must-h...turn-blue/

The Texas Observer has probably been the most prominent voice for Texas liberals over the past 60 years. It is currently serving as a de-facto publicist/cheerleader for Wendy Davis. With the exception of restaurant/BBQ reviews, all of its articles are written through a deep Blue partisan perspective. None of that means that you shouldn't read it, but just that you should be aware it is even more overtly partial than most other media.
[/quote]

They aren't painting a very good picture for the democrats turning Texas blue

Those state maps are big but honestly I don't think all the red counties mean much. A majority of those counties are incredibly rural and have very tiny populations. All Texas needs to turn blue would be to come closer in practice to an Ohio or Florida and get some of the counties near the big cities (like my county Fort Bend which is 2 counties over to the left from Galveston County - the blue county south of Houston in the 1996 map) turn blue. Fort Bend has Missouri City (where I live) which can be a blue town because of its large black population and Stafford (another blue city for the most part), but those towns are trumped by Sugar Land and Richmond (much more conservative suburbs). Fort Bend has a better chance of going blue than Montgomery County though (the Woodlands and Conroe) and actually almost voted blue in 2008 (50 percent to 48 percent in favor of McCain).

The large cities will continue to be close but Houston and Dallas occasionally vote blue. Austin, San Antonio and El Paso go blue by a slightly bigger margin. If the suburbs around those towns ever change their demographics much, then Texas has a chance to turn blue. It may not be for 20-30 years, but I've seen predictions that it could happen by say 2032 or 2036.

The other thing about Davis (and I might be dreaming here a bit) but I think a silent but large number of conservative women might actually vote for someone like her at the last moment without telling their friends or husbands. I just believe that women don't appreciate having men telling them what to do with their bodies for the most part, and while they may be pro life in theory, secretly some of them might want a women over a man in higher office to represent their lifestyle choices.

2012



2008



2004




http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

(07-10-2013 07:26 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Those state maps are big but honestly I don't think all the red counties mean much. A majority of those counties are incredibly rural and have very tiny populations. All Texas needs to turn blue would be to come closer in practice to an Ohio or Florida and get some of the counties near the big cities (like my county Fort Bend which is 2 counties over to the left from Galveston County - the blue county south of Houston in the 1996 map) turn blue. Fort Bend has Missouri City (where I live) which can be a blue town because of its large black population and Stafford (another blue city for the most part), but those towns are trumped by Sugar Land and Richmond (much more conservative suburbs). Fort Bend has a better chance of going blue than Montgomery County though (the Woodlands and Conroe) and actually almost voted blue in 2008 (50 percent to 48 percent in favor of McCain).

The large cities will continue to be close but Houston and Dallas occasionally vote blue. Austin, San Antonio and El Paso go blue by a slightly bigger margin. If the suburbs around those towns ever change their demographics much, then Texas has a chance to turn blue. It may not be for 20-30 years, but I've seen predictions that it could happen by say 2032 or 2036.

The other thing about Davis (and I might be dreaming here a bit) but I think a silent but large number of conservative women might actually vote for someone like her at the last moment without telling their friends or husbands. I just believe that women don't appreciate having men telling them what to do with their bodies for the most part, and while they may be pro life in theory, secretly some of them might want a women over a man in higher office to represent their lifestyle choices.

Houston is already a minority majority and still votes Republican. If we elect a Republican in 2016, those blue gains will go back to red. The GOP will simply redistrict those rural counties. It's also going to be harder and harder for the Democrats to retain their minority base as the economic divide among race continues to shrink.

also, A lot of registered Democrats are blue dogs and vote for the conservative party. Oklahoma just to the north has more registered democrats than republicans and not one county in that state is blue.

What I really regret is Dan Patrick, a State Senator, Radio Station owner and former Houston TV Sports Anchor has a good chance of winning the GOP Nomination for Lt. Governor.

The man is a total dipstick, moron, religious whack job.

(07-09-2013 12:06 PM)zyxwvutsru Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 01:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 02:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Wendy Davis will do well to break 40% in a statewide race next year.

She's probably looking at 45-47% (and a future statewide run with much more favorable demographics - or a very high profile appointment by BHO - who will still be President after the 2014 elections). She won't be a pushover, she'll be well funded (unlike any statewide candidate for the Dems in the last 20 years), and she'll have tons of volunteers.

She'll win Travis, Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, El Paso, and Bexar counties.

I think she runs. What is she giving up? A state leg seat as a minority member?

Oh, and watch out for Dewhurst and Abbott to beat the tar out of each other in a nasty polarizing primary that will leave the victor with huge negatives. And both will spend like crazy in that primary.

That will probably happen. Good Call.

Yeah, really good call. Just brilliant.

Latest tally I saw was Abbott 59.6%, Davis 38.6%, with about 88% of the precincts reporting.

No one can beat a Republican in Texas .

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App