Posted on 06/18/2004 2:31:46 PM PDT by Theodore R.
For Texas Democrats, it's still a rebuilding era
Thursday, June 17, 2004
HOUSTON — OK, Texas Democrats. What now?
At its three-day convention here that begins today, that's the principal question for the party that dominated Texas politics for more than a century.
Can it reverse the Red State Republican status for Texas presidentially — here since 1980 — either in this decade or next?
That question will be paramount as the Democrats party, work to cheer each other up, caucus, choose delegates to go to Boston in July to ratify Sen. John Kerry as their presidential candidate and applaud his running mate — possibly North Carolina U.S. Sen. John Edwards, who is scheduled to speak here.
As recently as 1983, the Democrats held every statewide office, except for Republican U.S. Sen. John Tower. The Democrats also had large majorities in the Texas House and Senate, and every statewide judgeship.
Today they hold none of those. No U.S. senators, no other statewide officials. The Republicans have their first majorities in both houses of the Legislature since just after the Civil War.
And Democrats face losing several congressional seats this November in redistricting.
In contrast with the Republicans in 1983, the Democrats are better off in some respects. Even after some of their probable losses in November congressional races, Democrats will have more than the five members of Congress that the Republicans had in 1983, or the five (of 31) state senators, or the 36 (of 150) House members.
And because of thousands of county officials, Democratic officeholders still outnumber Republicans.
But the Republicans in 1983 had one big thing the Democrats don't in 2004: a president. Ronald Reagan as president for eight years, and George Bush for four more, helped put Texas into the Republican column to the extent it is today.
It is entirely conceivable that a Democrat could be in the White House after 2004. But even if that happens, Texan George W. Bush seeking re-election to the presidency greatly reduces the chances for Democrats to make any major gains this year.
The Democratic presidential (or vice presidential) candidate will come to Texas between now and November only to tweak President Bush's tail in his home state, or to raise money — most of it to be spent in other battleground states.
However, look for the Democrats to put the best face on things; with their team in the cellar, they'll call it a rebuilding year.
Topics for discussion in Houston include:
•Is Republican Gov. Rick Perry so unpopular that the Democrats can win his job in 2006 — not to mention some other statewide offices?
•Will the organizational and fund-raising energy unleashed online by defeated Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean continue into 2004 and beyond?
•Can Hispanics whom even gubernatorial candidate Tony Sanchez couldn't get to vote in 2002 awaken, especially in time for close congressional contests this year and statewide elections next year? If so, will more Hispanics awake as Democrats than Republicans?
No answers yet. But those are the questions.
Dave McNeely's column appears Thursdays. Contact him at 445-3644 or dmcneely@statesman.com.
Leticia VanDeputte serves well as the face of Dems in Texas.
Every defeat has them tucking tail, and running away.
In TX, the "democracy" does not feel that it has "lost" so long as it continues to get media attention.
Speaking as an observer from afar, I think that when the history of these times is written, one of the most important facts will be that the South turned from being nearly complete Democrat territory to embrace the Republicans.
Liberals in Texas are in a state of deep denial. Republican growth in Texas still hasn't peaked. It still has a long way to go - and the main reason for the Democrats' hemorrhage isn't President Bush, its their liberal philosophy which is out of touch with mainstream Texas' values.
Yup, I agree. While there have been conservative dems who later switched Texas was dim for a long time...I recall reading that back at the turn of the last century a commie candidate for governor got more votes than the republican.
And as recently as the 50s the state republican convention was held in a phone booth...and there was room to spare.
It started to turn with John Tower and hasn't peaked yet....
"Liberals in Texas are in a state of deep denial."
...would that be Oklahoma or New Mexico?
I hope you are right, but Republican strength in Texas is due to the same thing that makes them strong in all Southern states; their ability to win a majority of the white vote. Often times its overwhelming like when Bush got 70% of the white Texas vote. White Texans, like most white Southerners, are conservative and that is why the GOP dominates the state right now. If California whites were as conservative as their Texan counterparts then the GOP wouldn't be in such bad shape there.
But of course the demography of Texas is rapidly changing. By the end of this decade, whites will no longer be a majority of the Texas population. Of course they will remain a majority of the electorate for some time after that, but still the fact remains that most of the growth in Texas' population is due to the immigration of Hispanics and the children those Hispanics have. In twenty or thirty years, Hispanics may constitute a plurality of the state's population.
And this matters because Hispanics naturally favor the Democrats. This is proven by almost every important state wide or federal election. Texan Hispanics may be marginally more conservative than their Calif counterparts, but the majority still favor the Democrats.
Of course the GOP should continue outreach efforts, but there will come a time that they will no longer be able to rely on the white vote to garner them victories. If they resort to pandering to get the latino vote then they will simply push away many of their white supporters.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. The GOP depends on Texas in many ways, but I don't see their dominance lasting much past 2010. I don't see how it will survive the demographic shift going on.
According to unofficial results, two-thirds of the Texas Dems went into hiding in an undisclosed location to prevent being forced into doing anything that might benefit the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.