Election Returns: Statewide Edition
Props. 5 & 9 go down, the rest win. Among the wins, gay marriage is now doubly redundant illegal here in Texas. While faux conservatives glee, they seem to be rather forgetful that federal law has already dictated this since the Clinton administration. But who can blame 'em ... most voters would be hard-pressed to identify that reality as well. So it is that many voters went to the polls no doubt convinced that gay marriage was the issue. DallasBlog.com seems to be a bit more honest in realizing the situation:
Prop 2 is a key part of Gov. Perry?s re-election strategy. He hopes to mobilize an army of evangelical Christians in defense of traditional marriage and hopes they will come back next year in November....
Prop 1 also appears to be a major part of Gov. Perry?s re-election strategy. The governor collects lots of large campaign contributions (and in Texas they can get very big) from contractors, engineering companies, and other businesses. This amendment has strong backing from the major chambers and lots of endorsements.
...
And there you have it: the Perry re-election campaign. First, motivate a large base of social conservatives as George W. Bush did in Ohio last year. Second, water the money tree by pushing a wide range of transportation issues. This is not to accuse the governor of being insincere; he truly believes in his Trans-Texas Corridor. But it does have an added advantage.
Funny thing is, that even otherwise intelligent folks on the right fell for this trick by a Governor they can no longer defend. If it's unintended humor you want on the analysis, here's Chris Elam's take: "Roughly 25% of Texans are backwards enough to vote against marriage." To which Rob Booth (who opposed Prop. 2 out of a more honest commitment to libertarian ideals) comments: "I'm here, I'm backwards, get used to it." Yeah, even if a little friendly fire hits one's own party-mates, it's not enough to hold off the bitterness of some. Best of luck to our GOP friends who bend over backwards to make a case for Rick Perry next year.
At some point, however, those on the saner side of this battle ought to spend at least a few moments and ask themselves why they think they lost this one. From the right wing of the spectrum, a battle like this is similar to shooting fish in a barrel. You know the bulk of the organized opposition to Prop. 2 is going to take the bait that this is about gay marriage, and sure enough, they did. The one good thing I'll credit the No Nonsense gang with is identifying the legal glitch in the amendment language. It didn't make a bit of difference in the legality, but it did undercut what little intellectual honesty the other side had about the issue. All we need now is a strict constructionist to look at the language and nullify every marriage in the state. Of course, that'll only happen if you think the GOP really means what it says about judicial theory. Seriously, though ... you should all know better.
Beyond the dueling cases, another tidbit that ought to be taken from this outcome is that it's nearly impossible to make any case widely known in a state as big as Texas unless you've got an endless well of campaign cash to cover every media market (not just Dallas, Harris, & Travis County). That's a high hurdle for a party out of power and one that a few notable leftwing critics of a certain candidate for Governor ought to be very well attuned to after a loss like Prop. 2. If a loss is worth fighting for the end to on an issue closer to home for some, then maybe they'd be wise to look at the meaningfulness of other races and that we Dems aren't just one magic bullet away from turning around our fortunes. It'll take a concerted effort and right now, there's a few people that need to get off the side stage.
So Prop. 2 wasn't about gay marriage? Too bad you didn't tell Glen Maxey that before the election, you could have saved him a lot of trouble.
Other than that, this is an interesting take on the elections future and now past. Going forward, into next year's state elections, where should Democrats go? Should we continue to pursue the Green Party model and fight the least winnable fights for the nihilistic thrill of it, or should we pick some fights we can win and actually do some good?
To win we need experienced candidates, who can raise money, who run on issues that move people.
Experience can include private sector as well as public sector experience, but the private sector experience needs to be impressive if there is no public experience as well. As Democrats, we need to find ways to attract professions other than just lawyers; we need folks whose accomplishments will impress a wide range of individuals.
To raise money, we need more than wealthy folks looking to buy an office. A person with private sector credentials should be able to bring some OPM to the table.
The issues cannot be abstract. They must be real, and current, and compelling. For instance, toll roads are becoming a major issue in many rural and semi-rural areas. A great Democratic opportunity! And private interests are buying up vast water supplies in those areas. How long before that becomes a problem?
We all know that Texas needs to be a major player in alternative energy sources, but really, a wind farm off the coast of Galveston? So that a big storm not only knocks over power lines, it destroys the power supply as well? We need a Democrat who can talk about this issue with confidence and authority, and help create solutions that make sense.
We are so far away from that goal that it makes me wonder how we will even get through the next election cycle.
Since when does Glen Maxey listen to anyone other than Glen Maxey for advice on anything? I've stated several times over that Prop. 2 has nothing to do with actual gay marriage in the past. Even some of our more honest friends on the right are acknowledging that. And if you realize that, even if Prop. 2 were to have been defeated, it would have done absolutely nothing to affect the state law or the national law that already prohibit gay marriage. If the lege were to vote on putting "No Gay Marriage" on the state flag, would you still cling to the view that it's about gay marriage, though? Or would the reality start to sink in that this is just gamesmanship for identifying voters for the next election?
As for where to go from here, I've been equally adamant that there are two ways to get back in the driver's seat: run hard on big ideas, or wait for some superstar candidate that transcends party affiliation to announce for office. The latter might get a quick win, but it would only be a short-term success. The former, clearly, I'm more a fan of.
We disagree on whether or not the wholesale ownership of corruption by the state GOP meets some magical threshold for importance. But when we start to see the failure pile up in terms of under-educated kids, a deterioration of our already low level of help for the poor, and an economic worldview that merely asks what fundraisers can do for candidate rather than what businesses can do for Texas ... I'd rather take the problem out by the root rather than trim around the edges.
Similarly, I think you have to attack politically on every front. I find it odd that you'd compare the "Run Everywhere" approach to anything that eminates from the Green Party (who very famously do NOT run everywhere). I'd no sooner look at my Democratic friends in Cy Fair and tell them tough luck on not having a local candidate they can support than I'd want a Presidential candidate looking at the many good Dems here in the south and writing them off.
That you've been through a few more rodeos than I isn't in doubt. But surely you'd remember the days when we were told that we win if we get 40% of the Anglo vote. And surely you'd remember when that number became 35% ... and that we weren't winning as much. And surely you'd remember as several counties went from voting 35% Dem to something closer to 25% Dem and that this had nothing to do with race. There's ground to make up and I'm all for making it up rather than looking at 40% of the voters in this county and offering them no alternative. But that's exactly what we did here in 2004.
Of course, we should place a priority on those areas where our chances are better. Nobody has ever disputed that. In fact, I've committed a fair amount of bandwidth to elaborating on just how to accomplish that while running everywhere. I just wish a few more old-timers would realize the price we're paying today for the negligence of our party in the past. Is that really asking too much?
My Green Party reference was not a swipe at the "Run Everywhere" approach, with which I have little quarrel. I was referring to our championing of extremely marginal causes (such as gay marriage, or abortion rights for children), leading the general electorate to think even less of us than it did previously.
I'm with you on the Big Ideas front. Stars tend to go supernova too quickly and easily. Nonetheless, it will be individual candidates who will move us forward. After that analysis, I'm stumped. How do you sell an old, frumpy house to a young, unscale buyer? How do you get that buyer looking at the house with new eyes? That's the dilemma we face.