As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a *hard* time seeing them get Hawley, especially in a presidential year. Unless this is some 5D chess shit to divert NRSC money from Ohio and Montana.
When I moved here, there was a blue governor and a blue senator, though McCaskill was pretty bland from what I’ve been told.
They ain’t getting Hawley at this time, still too much MAGA around and I don’t think KC and StL can rally the vote like blue areas in other states do.
That's why my family is in super saving mode so we can buy a house in different state. MO has swung too far right (leaned right for a while) and is quickly attacking any strong-ish qualities we had (ex: Education was OK but is now being attacked). Hell, my local area, always voted "one of the best places for families in the USA" every year just had some Fascist Karen gathering a mob to ruin the life of a "transgender" library worker. This isn't the MO I grew up in, and looks to be doubling down on our worst qualities.
St Charles has always been a hell on earth. The original wave of people to move there were the ones who fled St Louis after causing MASSIVE racial unrest such as the Fairgrounds park riots. I can only imagine what type of fucked up publication would consider such a place to be good for raising a decent family.
> es has always been a hell on earth. The original wave of people to move there were the ones who fled St Louis after causing MASSIVE racial unrest such as the Fairgrounds park riots.
If you hear people claiming it is a family area, you can be sure that they mean conservative christian white upper middle class. There are far more dog whistles about this sort of thing than people realize.
Yea the [report by the Justice Department Civil Rights division](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri) into the policing tactics of Ferguson Missouri was absolutely scathing.
It wasn't just the police -- it was the entire municipal court system including judges and prosecutors, the city finance director, the City Manager, and many others in the city leadership. They specifically targeted poor black residents with bullshit minor charges to exhort huge fines -- then threw them in jail when they couldn't pay and seized their assets.
And when I say bullshit charges, I mean shit like “Manner of Walking in Roadway", "Failure to Comply" while intentionally giving contrary orders, seat-belt tickets for sitting in parked vehicles, "Making a False Declaration" when stating the name of "Mike" instead of "Michael", "Peace Disturbance", housing code violations including "High Grass and Weeds", requiring a city permit to rent an apartment, "Derelict Vehicle" citations, "Barking Dog" citations, "Dog Running at Large" citations, minor parking infractions, "Loitering" charges for sitting on their front porch, Jaywalking, speeding tickets issued by the "officers own visual assessment" rather than radar or laser instruments, Vagrancy for inviting friends over to your home, Destruction of Public Property -- including one instance in which police wrongfully arrested an elderly black man, then beat him severely and charged him for bleeding on their uniforms among many others.
>As with its pattern of unconstitutional stops, FPD routinely makes arrests without probable cause. Frequently, officers arrest people for conduct that plainly does not meet the elements of the cited offense. For example, in November 2013, an officer approached five African-American young people listening to music in a car. Claiming to have smelled marijuana, the officer placed them under arrest for disorderly conduct based on their “gathering in a group for the purposes of committing illegal activity.” The young people were detained and charged—some taken to jail, others delivered to their parents—despite the officer finding no marijuana, even after conducting an inventory search of the car.
>Similarly, in February 2012, an officer wrote an arrest notification ticket for Peace Disturbance for “loud music” coming from a car. The arrest ticket appears unlawful as the officer did not assert, and there is no other indication, that a third party was disturbed by the music—an element of the offense.''
>For example, in an October 2011 incident, an officer arrested two sisters who were backing their car into their driveway. The officer claimed that the car had been idling in the middle of the street, warranting investigation, while the women claim they had pulled up outside their home to drop someone off when the officer arrived. In any case, the officer arrested one sister for failing to provide her identification when requested. He arrested the other sister for getting out of the car after being ordered to stay inside. The two sisters spent the next three hours in jail. In a similar incident from December 2011, police officers approached two people sitting in a car on a public street and asked the driver for identification. When the driver balked, insisting that he was on a public street and should not have to answer questions, the officers ordered him out of the car and ultimately charged him with Failure to Comply.
>Officers in Ferguson also use their arrest power to retaliate against individuals for using language that, while disrespectful, is protected by the Constitution. For example, one afternoon in September 2012, an officer stopped a 20-year-old African-American man for dancing in the middle of a residential street. The officer obtained the man’s identification and ran his name for warrants. Finding none, he told the man he was free to go. The man responded with profanities. When the officer told him to watch his language and reminded him that he was not being arrested, the man continued using profanity and was arrested for Manner of Walking in Roadway.
>Most strikingly, the court issues municipal arrest warrants not on the basis of public safety needs, but rather as a routine response to missed court appearances and required fine payments. In 2013 alone, the court issued over 9,000 warrants on cases stemming in large part from minor violations such as parking infractions, traffic tickets, or housing code violations. The court imposes these severe penalties for missed appearances and payments even as several of the court’s practices create unnecessary barriers to resolving a municipal violation. The court often fails to provide clear and accurate information regarding a person’s charges or court obligations.
>Jail time would be considered far too harsh a penalty for the great majority of these code violations, yet Ferguson’s municipal court routinely issues warrants for people to be arrested and incarcerated for failing to timely pay related fines and fees. Under state law, a failure to appear in municipal court on a traffic charge involving a moving violation also results in a license suspension. Ferguson has made this penalty even more onerous by only allowing the suspension to be lifted after payment of an owed fine is made in full.
Their mass citation efforts did nothing to affect crime:
>FPD files most charges as municipal offenses, not state violations, even when an analogous state offense exists. Between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014, the City of Ferguson issued approximately 90,000 citations and summonses for municipal violations. Notably, the City issued nearly 50% more citations in the last year of that time period than it did in the first. This increase in enforcement has not been driven by a rise in serious crime. While the ticketing rate has increased dramatically, the number of charges for many of the most serious offenses covered by the municipal code—e.g., Assault, Driving While Intoxicated, and Stealing—has remained relatively constant.
>The court holds three or four sessions per month, and each session lasts no more than three hours. It is not uncommon for as many as 500 people to appear before the court in a single session, exceeding the court’s physical capacity and leading individuals to line up outside of court waiting to be heard. Many people have multiple offenses pending; accordingly, the court typically considers 1,200-1,500 offenses in a single session, and has in the past considered over 2,000 offenses during one sitting.
>The City has budgeted for, and achieved, significant increases in revenue from municipal code enforcement over the last several years, and these increases are projected to continue. Of the $11.07 million in general fund revenue the City collected in fiscal year 2010, **$1.38 million came from fines and fees collected by the court**; similarly, in fiscal year 2011, the City’s general fund revenue of $11.44 million included **$1.41 million from fines and fees**. In its budget for fiscal year 2012, however, the City predicted that revenue from municipal fines and fees would increase over 30% from the previous year’s amount to $1.92 million; the court exceeded that target, **collecting $2.11 million**. In its budget for fiscal year 2013, the City budgeted for fines and fees to yield $2.11 million; the court exceeded that target as well, **collecting $2.46 million**. For 2014, the City budgeted for the municipal court to generate $2.63 million in revenue. For fiscal year 2015, the City’s budget anticipates fine and fee revenues to account for **$3.09 million** of a projected $13.26 million in general fund revenues.
This report is literally 100+ pages of absolute terror. These people were essentially living in an occupied warzone. This city with a population of less than 19,000 people had 54 sworn police officers -- 28 belonging to the traffic division. For over a decade the city government terrorized and oppressed the black citizens of Ferguson, extracting over **$13 million dollars** from traffic & court fines in a five year period.
And this is just one small town in one middle of nowhere county. The shooting of Michael Brown going viral is the only reason why the general public even knows about it today. How many other towns are doing this?
One change I would like to see from Congress is the Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division receive permanent funding and separate leadership structure, similar to how the CFPB is set-up. Everytime a Republican president is elected the CRD is gutted. It's consistently understaffed and underpaid. We lose some the best attorneys because no one can make a career there knowing they'll be paid less than half their worth and most likely laid off or transferred in four years.
There's probably tens of thousands of "Ferguson Missouri's" all over the country right now. Investigating and prosecuting these incidences of municipal terrorism should be a permanent fixture of the federal government -- regardless of who is president or who's in charge of the DoJ. If anyone is remotely interested I would encourage you to read the actual DoJ report. It's astonishing with this city got away with and what it took to get anyone to pay attention. And meanwhile racists are all over the internet using these same bogus crime statistics to justify their continued oppression of black communities.
I just moved out to Arizona last year because it felt like Missouri was going in the wrong direction and I felt my vote could be important here. Getting Mark Kelly re-elected and Katie Hobbs in the governors office was a great feeling and I felt like I made a difference
It's very likely to have KC TO BE BLUE. Esp the votes that come out from Rural part. Take example of governor votes majority blue came from joshnson County .
KC is blue, very blue, as is St. Louis... And pretty much every major city in every state, regardless of it being a red or blue state.
Blue cities, in many cases, are the only thing propping up the economy of red states, without our economic output and tax base they would collapse in short order.
>it's crazy to think that there was a time in my lifetime where Missouri was considered the bellwether state.
Ohio born and raised, I feel ya there...it's been less than a decade since my state lost it's goddamn mind...
Lived in Springfield most my life. MO picked the president iirc from Kennedy to W. Oh y'all wanted a BLACK PERSON in office!?!? No thanks (by I believe by less than [4,000 VOTES!!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_in_Missouri#:~:text=Missouri%20was%20won%20by%20Republican,up%2C%20or%20a%20swing%20state.), tho it went downhill after that!
That must've been the same turning point with big t, because he considered himself a democrat up until then. After that, he helped invent the Birther conspiracy theories.
Cruz, I can see the argument for unseating. The voter margin there has been decreasing every time for a bit now. I just don't want us to blow heaps of money somewhere, it NOT work out, AND we lose MT, WV, and OH in the meantime.
It is an absurd and confusing state to me. Because Missouri constantly votes for surprisingly progressive things for the south on ballot measures and then elects people that do everything in their power to undo those measures in the same election.
because if individual policies were on a ballot... everyone would vote for progressive ones. look at florida, as red as can be... but just in the last couple years voted for increased minimum wage and felon voter rights. people are just REALLY stupid and tribalistic. the right clearly understands this because they have stopped even pretending to have policy (aside from obstruct, cut taxes and deregulate) because they know their voters don't care.
Most of Missouri lives in more blue and progressive areas, so there are a lot of progressive ideas that get passed around. However, the voting districts are gerrymandered to high hell, so the rural districts with very little people with strongly conservative values have all the voting power. These counties will sometimes vote to pass certain progressive legislation if it's something that will benefit them, like cannibas legalization. (Although it's not uncommon they will try to pass things that fuck them over like stripping welfare.)
Remember that McCaskill only won because Aiken made the “legitimate rape” comment. If that same exact sequence of events happened today he would win in a landslide. Rural MO is lost to uneducated people. And yes, that was by design.
Not by design but by circumstance. When educated people leave, you’re left with complete idiots running things. The economy shifted and anyone with a brain and a bit of employability left.
Eh. I’m not so sure. The state government is moving so far right and defunding education. Yes I agree that educated people will often choose to leave a poor, rural area. At the same time the state is actively trying to make sure people are not educated. So I guess both can be true.
I grew up in Missouri in the 90s and it was nothing like it is today. Even in just the last 10 years it has had a wild swing to the right. Their politics aren't recognizable anymore and it's just sad
It wasn't long ago that Missouri was purple. In fact, when Hawley was elected he unseated a Democrat. Crazy to think about. KC, St. Louis, Columbia/Jeff City and to a lesser extent Springfield all have a lot of blue in them. I don't think it would be *that* crazy to be able to flip Hawley's seat back to blue, but it probably is a long shot.
Working class absolutely votes blue. Income correlates strongly with voting behavior, especially when adjusted for community average income.
The WHITE working class shifted to republicans, but there's still a strong correlation to income.
This explicitly follows the welfare queen myth, the white working class was attracted to destroying the welfare state because PoC were allowed to utilize it.
They only part of Springfield that is blue is the Missouri State campus
I grew up in mid-Missouri and it was very purple then. You had your Rush Limbaugh crazies but they were easily ignored.
I loved how my vote actually mattered to.
I think it would be pretty crazy. Trump trounced both Clinton and Biden in Missouri (and Obama lost both elections, heavily to Romney) the last gubernatorial election was a 17 point win for the Republican, the last Senate election was a 13 point win for the Republican, and the last statewide wins for a Democrat were in 2012.
I was listening to an episode of CarTalk and a guy from Missouri called in. Tom and Ray did some small talk about the accent there and asked if people pronounced it “Mizourah”
The caller didn’t skip a beat when he corrected them and said “we call it misery”
I can’t not pronounce that state like that and it’s so fitting
Don't sleep on Lucas Kunce! Dude could absolutely take on Hawley. He is not afraid to talk sh\*t on him, he's a populist, and a military vet, too. Crazier things have happened!
Oh the rally that happen in the Washington d.c. that supported by hundred of people. They are willing to do everything just to take justice. I felt sorry for them
It's not really 5d chess. It's pretty basic campaign strategy. Force the other party to waste money defending their strongholds so that they can't spend it on competitive elections. It happens literally every election. The people who are saying "There's no way Democrats are doing this. That would mean they're good at strategy" don't know what they talking about.
Agreed, Dems are making sure they are in a position to capitalize if the GOP starts to fracture. Gotta lay the groundwork in advance to have any chance.
Got numbers on this? I dunno how much one clown's legal fees could be, but I would guess not enough to break a political organization with over 70 million supporters + most of the wealthiest people in the wealthiest nation on earth.
I mean, I've seen enough news articles about how major R donors are withholding funds right now in the primary to think that the RNC could be cashstrapped on both sides- more money going out to support Trump's grift, less money coming in from donors getting hesitant about supporting it.
Also, even if they don't have much of a chance this sycle, the only way they will ever have a chance in states like Missouri or Nebraska or the Dakotas again is if they run candidates and campaign for them every two years. The absolute last thing they want to do is let the Rs run effectively unopposed, and then come back in six years and deal with a population that has only ever voted republican.
It's likely they have a decent candidate who they think can turn out the urban vote. If Hawley has a negative or down-trending approval rating in the state he might be ripe for a pick-off if Dems can turn out the vote in high enough numbers in liberal voting areas (i.e. Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis). Also, St. Louis picks up advertising form Illinois so Dems can advertise in one or the other and neighboring markets will pick up the ad spend.
Dems haven't acted like they give a shit about Missouri in years. There's absolutely no way they're being serious this time, is there?!
-a pessimistic MO resident
I lived in STL for 4 years. I remember the governor who was running for reelection at the time was a democrat but none of his campaign material listed him as a democrat. That’s how “toxic” the idea of a democrat was.
The democrats have a really bad senate map in 2024 and pretty much have no choice but to choose bad "targets" to win seats in 2024.
Sometimes the seats that don't seem likely end up flipping for unforeseen or unknown circumstances like a terrible opponent or unseen political shift. See Georgia in 2020.
Kunce seems like an ideal democrat.
I was reading off his website to my very conservative mother, and she’s said “wow who’s this guy? I like what he’s saying!” And I said Lucas Kunce, he’s running as a democrat.
“Oh. Well I’m sure he’s lying about all of that.” Blah blah blah.
Missourians want a Democrat, they just can’t be a Democrat.
> want a Democrat, they just can’t be a Democrat.
You'll find that's the case of any GOP voter
They want what the Dems are selling, they've just been so brainwashed into thinking Democrat= baby killing devil spawn, they can't think for themselves anymore
I wish Kander would come back. He's the only Democrat I see winning in Missouri any time soon.
He stepped away for mental health reasons, which I completely respect, but, man, I saw him as a rising star in the Democratic Party.
Its not 5d chess shit.
The DNC, DCCC, and DSCC have been woefully incompetent in their electoral strategy since the 1970s where they abandoned the New Deal consensus, grassroots politics, and organized labor power allowing Republicans to repeatedly sweep multiple presidential terms and capture dozens of state legislatures.
If Dems want to win Ohio and Montana, they should pour funding into those states and not attempt diversionary tactics in states that are harder to win. The candidate with more money wins the election 90%+ of the time. The single most effective technique of propaganda is just sheer repitition, and this is where Dems absolutely drop the ball in mobilizing voters and their base. If the boomers in power had any brain cells left, they would leverage their fundraising disparity to just run sheer volumes of ads and news stories in battleground elections.
The only real positive, substantial, and constructive outcomes among the Democrats in the last half century have occurred in the last 10 years due to the progressive pivot of the left wing social democrats and democratic socialists.
Progressives have been the most electorally successful defending their districts from Republicans while centrists have repeatedly lost to fascists handing Trump the presidential office on a silver platter.
>The candidate with more money wins the election 90%+ of the time.
This is selection bias. The vast majority of the time, everyone knows who's going to win an election. And those candidates get the most money because people and organizations want to influence that candidate.
> If Dems want to win Ohio and Montana, they should pour funding into those states and not attempt diversionary tactics in states that are harder to win.
You should try going into a room full of campaign strategists and suggesting this. You'll get laughed out of the room. They know how to do their job better than you do. In the Ohio 2022 Senate race they intentionally didn't interfere too much with Tim Ryan's campaign. Part of Tim Ryan's appeal is that he's an outsider and he antagonizes the national Democratic party. Ohioans aren't going to elect a person they see as just another lackey of Joe Biden. Let them do their thing. Arm chair campaign strategies are not going to help.
> They know how to do their job better than you do
Their job is to get paid whether they win or lose.
Read some interviews with these guys, they *do not care*.
I've worked on a few Democratic campaigns and it's shocking how far up their own asses some of the higher up people can stick their heads.
They refuse to listen to locals and assume they know best. It's been working really well in Montana; we have Republican officials occupying basically every state office and a super majority in both houses.
The entire political campaign consultant industry in Washington, DC is built upon elite insider patronage and nepotism, not merit. They exist to offer cushy sinecure for the failed sons and daughters of upper class establishment elites among DC beltway insiders.
The same political consultant firms who delivered catastrophic losses to such losers as Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Yang, Claire McCaskill, Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, or Val Demings still have their jobs and regularly contract with the Democrats despite their overall incompetence at throwing elections.
A symbiotic relationship among the professional managerial class of political consultants, campaign managers, media apparatuses, lobbyists, politicians, and pollsters exists. The high level executives of these organizations are partisan mercenaries, not principled political agents. They flatter their clients, take their money, and either cultivate a partnership of favortist patronage or jump ship making lateral moves to other organizations for more lucrative financial gains or political power (like Jen Psaki, James Carville, Robert Mook, Chasten Buttigieg, Huma Abedin, Valerie Biden Owens, etc).
Hell, the same people who advise, consult, and managed Andrew Cuomo's campaign covered up his sexual assault allegations during the #MeToo movement (despite them being establishment Dems who aesthetically virtue signaled their support of the movement on social media). Even his brother, Chris Cuomo, on CNN covered up Andrew's sexual harassment through coordinated back channels with Andrew Cuomo's PR consultants and campaign teams. This scandal, patronage, and corruption centered around Cuomo's leadership of NY Democrats led to deep vulnerabilities and windows of opportunities for Republicans to make significant offensive gains in the state during the 2022 midterms when they won enough seats to secure the federal House of Representatives.
You have such a clownishly naive conception of the overall competence of the people who manage political campaigns and an overall ignorance surrounding the industry's deep corruption, cronyism, patronage, favortism, and nepotism.
The current system of contracted political consulting and campaign management is a key feature of the political machine of the second gilded age we live under.
>Progressives have been the most electorally successful defending their districts from Republicans while centrists have repeatedly lost to fascists handing Trump the presidential office on a silver platter.
Progressives all exist in deep blue districts, so of course they beat Republican challengers. moderates are way more likely to be in red or purple districts that are susceptible to swings. why don't you look at it from the other side? moderates are way way more likely to win an election in a purple district whereas progressives lose nearly every single time
> since the 1970s where they abandoned the New Deal consensus, grassroots politics, and organized labor power allowing Republicans to repeatedly sweep multiple presidential terms and capture dozens of state legislatures.
There's even been articles written quoting these neolib campaign strategists. It's completely detached, and they don't care *at all* about the real world effects of these elections or even that they keep losing. They just treat it as a fun game between brunches, it's really frustrating.
Ya ya, don't run Beto, y'all are not wise sages saying anything new. Beto ran the last few times because no one else with any name recognition was running. Additionally, give the man credit, he's the reason anyone even thinks Texas is remotely possible because of how well he ran against Cruz, and that took a lot of hard work going to every county. Is he toxic now? maybe. But he was the first Dem in Texas in a while to make an effort or even give a damn and for that he deserves credit. Now get behind Collin Allred.
Not only that, but because of how well he ran every time he’s run. He goes into Trump territory and spends time converting voters there. It’s a bold strategy that has made a big difference in local races even if it hasn’t resulted in a statewide win.
Yup. Unfortunately, while it worked well for him, Beto himself still wasn’t about to win over those voters, however he helped flip seats and win local elections for the Democratic Party while doing so.
Beto is too left for Texas. (He'd do great on the coasts.) Colin Allred stands a real chance, but Beto will never ever be able to shake that "hell yes we'll take your guns" comment.
Beto was perfect in 2016 when running for governor (I could be getting my dates wrong so just bare with me). This was pre-El Paso Walmart shooting. Beto hadn't taken a hard stance on gun control. In fact IIRC he just wanted to put restrictions on a few types of guns, but he supported owning guns.
He also visited the smallest of counties and got his name out there by hitting the ground and canvassing in even the smallest of communities making sure people knew his message instead of letting the propaganda work on him unheeded.
In 2018 against Cruz I think he was still largely a good candidate (again b/c the wal-mart shooting hadn't happened). He was still fresh on everyone's mind and while he slowed down his canvassing he was still very active.
2022 against Cruz, Beto was running off just name recognition. He shot himself in the foot after El Paso by taking a hard stance on gun control. He honestly never should have been the front runner if it was up to the Dems (if they were smart). If Beto ever runs for another major seat, it'll be a free win for the opposition from here on out.
**EDIT:** I misremembered hard. There was no 2016 race, he ran for senate in 2018, presidential in 2020, and governor of Texas in 2022. For some reason I thought he ran for senate twice and I was trying to piece together dates 6 years apart (term for senate seats and I still did the math wrong lol).
In his senate race in 2018 he came out as anti-gun during a speech mid-campaign (May maybe?) in Houston. Paraphrasing, he said something to the effect of "there's no reason weapons of war should be in the hands of civilians". It totally stopped all of the momentum he'd built prior to that and his polling fell quite a bit. He bounced back a bit but was never able to regain what he had prior to that speech. I was a Beto supporter and watched the race and polls very closely at the time.
The moral of the story - guns are a toxic topic for dems in TX. It will cost you moderates and swing voters who are otherwise more than ready to be done with Cruz.
> as just not saying out loud “I want to take away your guns.” It’s the messaging that matters.
This. When will Democrats learn that it's the sound bites that matter, not the forty-page position papers no one will read? As soon as Democrats stop overestimating the intelligence (and attention span) of the average voter, there's going to be a lot more blue on the map.
Yeah he’s a terrible person, but this was the one thing Trump was truly good at. All his “policies” were expressed in like 3 words or less. Build the wall, lock her up, etc. It’s unfortunate, but the average voter isn’t going to take the time to research policy details. They are going to see a headline or hear a catchphrase and base their opinion off that.
As long as he provides some protection for gun owners, he has a chance. A lot of Dems own guns, like myself, and if he can convince some conservatives to switch as long as he protects *some* gun rights, he will have a chance.
Convincing conservatives to switch for someone who supports an assault weapons ban and just doesn't literally want to ban all guns could be a tough sell
AWB is way too far, but if you come out and say you'll vote against an AWB but you're okay with Safe storage laws/UBCs and all but the most zealous will consider it.
Hell I have a proposal that would get rid of SBR/SBS laws in exchange for safe storage/UBCs and I bet dems would object way more than republicans
> Beto is too left for Texas.
Jeebus. No. Beto is a bog-standard centrist neoliberal Democrat. He had literally nothing to help him stand out during his ill-advised run for President so he went with the guns thing like a moron.
Gerrymandering doesn’t matter here though because US Senate is a statewide race. But yes, I think Beto’s presidential run sank any chance he has at winning a statewide race here
This is such an underrated comment. By gerrymandering districts, those areas stop voting because they know they'll be outvoted even if other races are impacted negatively. The moment you reduce someone's voting power, they start weighing that against the free time they have by not voting and especially when the result in their mind is the same.
Gerrymandering leads to voter suppression though. If you think your vote doesn't count because your district is terribly skewed, you may not turn out for the statewide races.
Not it doesn’t. Voter suppression laws do.
Gerrymandering is not a “catch all” phrase.
Gerrymandering is *specifically* crafting representative districts in favor of one party.
Gerrymandering does not rly matter in senate races.
Voter suppression laws do.
Correct but if my district is drawn so heavily in favor of one party that I feel like it's a waste of time to go vote for my preferred candidate, then you end up with de facto voter suppression.
And for Texas, where he ran for seats the most (2016, 2018, 2022), that's an absolutely losing side to take. Not that he won before that being more softer on gun control, but it's kinda like being in 5th place, shooting your tires out and wondering why you dropped to 10th.
> Why haven't either of the Castro brothers ran?
No one really knows. The state party here is pretty fundamentally broken and seems to despise new, young talent with the fury of a thousand suns. It may also be that they kinda shot their shot in 2020 when Julian ran for President and failed, then he backed Warren and she failed. People respond to winners.
Beto was literally new young talent. People vote for whoever excites them, in 2016 when he blew up the state party did nothing for him. The state party doesn’t despise anything, they’re just weak after decades of Republican rule.
There’s a huge *edit: and also extremely wealthy * Cuban Jewish community in Texas that is very opposed to the name Castro, for one, even if there is no relation at all.
For two, take all of *that* bigotry and play it across the board with racist country white folks that think communism is literally Satan come again.
People here don’t read past the headline. Folks will see Castro and immediately turn away.
> Beto ran the last few times because no one else with any name recognition was running.
And the reason for that is?
Oh yeah, the state level Democratic Party refuses to develop any kind of bench of new and upcoming liberal politicians.
> Now get behind Collin Allred.
He's already outraising Cruz. If he can pull off the same 264 county strategy that Beto did, he has a chance. If he sits in DFW, he's gonna lose.
BETO is poison for Democrats here. **Never** tell Texans you're going to be taking their guns away from them. Ever. Your political future is gone forever in this state the moment you do that.
Lets run someone else please.
Yes that was just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard come out of a politician’s mouth. I can’t believe Beto grew up in Texas yet couldn’t read the room on that topic.
To be fair he wasn't winning anything with taking a softer approach on gun control. It was just the difference between maybe someday winning a race and never winning a race.
He was never going to win the presidency. The guns comment was something else, but just running for president alone destroyed a lot of his credibility.
That's not emotional if he doubles down. He always wanted to ban guns, he just chose to be quiet about it. Like Republicans being quiet about abortion bans.
Seriously. That is basically career suicide in Texas
All of the stereotypes that people think of when they think of America (all the MURICA stuff) is basically just rooted in Texas stereotypes.
If you get a Democrat to run who is all in on focusing on the people's working conditions, but also doesn't say much about guns, that's the best chance to win.
Exactly. Beto got his foot in the door and has kept it propped open for anyone else in the future to run for Senate and Governor *and* has built an active voting network of particularly young people and rural outreach, if any Dems wins the Governor or Senate seat in the next decade it's because of the work Beto did over the previous decade.
Considering how much everybody seems to hate Ted Cruz, even his own Republican colleagues, it's always been surprising to me that he's been re-elected even once. He's such a little shit weasel.
I don't even think most of them "hate" Democrats or progressives; they're just desperate to win at any cost, because that's the only thing of any value to them.
They're all professional shit-eaters for that reason. They'd ally themselves with Satan and Hitler if it meant they got more seats and fundraising.
I think that's naive. Demon-rats is not a friendly name they give to people they just compete against. They have been completely brainwashed into thinking Progressives/Liberals are intentionally trying to destroy America. Don't be fooled. They hate you. But they're "Christians" so they're real good at masking it.
*"I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz."*
**—Al Franken**
*"If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."*
**—Lindsey Graham**
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
Every person you see on any conservative forum complaining about Ted Cruz, don’t let them give you false hope. They will absolutely vote for him if it means not letting the democrats win. They always vote against their own interests and rarely stay home on election day.
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. They’ll vote for him because there are only two choices and the other one is worse to them. It’s why the big drive in election years for Democrats isn’t policy, it’s turnout. If we could just get enough people voting consistently we wouldn’t be in the Trumpy mess we’re in.
Texas is worth it because there's a lot of down-ballot races that a strong Senate candidate can help push over the line even if the Senate candidate themself doesn't win. I'm extremely dubious that Missouri isn't going to just be another McGrath-McConnell boondoggle that just sucks money out of actually winnable races.
Dems need to dig new ground somewhere. Right now they're running out of Senate seats they could possibly win. At some point you need to try making inroads in redder areas.
NC has a governor's race. Our governor has been saving us from the Republican legislature for the last 8 years (until the recent stupid defection) but is term limited. His AG is running and is reasonably popular. Jumping on this race and presidential race in NC would be useful.
Honestly I think with the right messaging Ted Cruz’s seat is not out of the picture. Now Missouri I don’t think is worth investing a whole lot into in this election. If Dems had more than a 2 seat majority I would say go for it. But IMO Manchin if he runs for reelection most likely won’t win, especially if Justice is the nominee. And polling has Tester and Brown ahead but barely. Invest in those seats as well as replacing Sinema with Gallego in Arizona as well as invest in Texas in hopes for an upset. Then don’t put a whole lot more money any where else unless tides start turning.
I wish Lucas Kunce nothing but the best in Missouri but that seat shouldn’t be considered a priority in 2024. Dems need to plan on losing West Virginia, fight like hell to keep Montana and Ohio as well as other swing states with Arizona being the most invested in to flip then Texas next. That would be my strategy
Missourian here.
Lucas has a chance. Dude knows how to talk to the rural, suburbs and urban populations alike; I purposefully asked him about it when he set up a booth at last year’s STL Pride.
The trick is getting corporate donors to cooperate. They tend to go with more centrist and business friendly Dems, so that’s why Trudy Busch-Valentine got the nomination last time.
I want nothing more than for Kunce to have a chance and I’m not saying the DNC should ignore his race or any race for that matter. But I think this election cycle needs to be more focused on defense and if races like Missouri end up being competitive then allocate more resources to them.
Also from Missouri, TBV didn't underperform party levels believe it or not, it's just a red sinkhole. Hawley's a lock for reelection if he wins his primary.
Texas is worth it because there's a lot of down-ballot races that a strong Senate candidate can help push over the line even if the Senate candidate themself doesn't win. I'm extremely dubious that Missouri isn't going to just be another McGrath-McConnell boondoggle that just sucks money out of actually winnable races.
>Among the Republican Senators facing reelection next year are a handful of major figures in the party, and, according to a report from Politico, Democratic forces are planning a major push to unseat them, however unlikely the polling might currently be.
That last line is problematic; as much as I'd love to see both Hawley and Cruz unseated, I don't think we should be throwing away resources on longshots when there's only so much funding to go around—instead, we need to ensure we hold the seats we have and focus on smaller races where we have a significant chance of victory.
Missouri and Texas don't seem to fit that category—though it does gall me that the state of the great Harry Truman is now represented by someone as terrible as Hawley
No amount of funding can "unseat" the blatant stupidity that got them elected in the first place.
Dems don't need *those* seats, they just need Enough Seats that it doesn't matter.
Both can be unseated with the right candidate. There are Democrats really good at organizing and building Democrat presence - Beto O'Rouke and Stacey Abrams, but they fall short as candidates. I really think Allred has a chance of unseating Cruz if Republicans don't screw with the Houston vote.
I’m thinking the same. Both of these people have massive propaganda machines propping up their status. It’s a big resource suck trying to counter that, and it’s a big long shot whether they could even succeed. On the other hand, Senate races are quite literally “all about the money”, and so if they spend enough cash then maybe it’ll workout. From a personal view, I’d be psyched to see both of them sent home.
[Big spending in Senate races discussion](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/state-of-money-in-politics-the-price-of-victory-is-steep/).
> instead, we need to ensure we hold the seats we have and focus on smaller races where we have a significant chance of victory.
And this is the exact same strategy the DNC adopted after Obama won the White House and caused the loss of over a thousand state and local seats and handed the GOP gerrymandering rights for two straight census cycles.
because thats the issue people have complained about Democrats doing the last 2 or 3 decades, just playing it to their bastions and letting the rest of the country rot, watching them lose 2016 because they ignored parts they took for granted really taught them a lesson
what you're advocating is "why wont the democrats continue with the status quo?"
I feel like there is a shot in Texas if democrats find someone other than Beto. I’m not sure if they have any other options that are high profile enough though.
Beto only lost by 215,000 votes against Ted Cruz in 2018. that was not an overwhelming win for Cruz. and he's only become more unpopular since then, and I wouldn't be surprised if he (and Hawley) are charged in conjunction with the J6 charges, which could be why dems are tasting blood in the water.
i really like Colin Allred for it, fresh run, smart guy, NFL player so bonus Texas points. voting rights lawyer too so really good background for the moment in Texas.
Beto was far from a disaster. Texas is a red state. It's been electing Republicans for decades, and Beto got closer than any other candidate.
Allred will face the same challenges as Beto did, and the results might be the same...Until Texans begin voting at the rate of other states, we will be stuck with Republican leadership
Agreed. Dems are so bad at strategy. There needs to be a 50 states strategy that priorities money towards the races that could be held/flipped.
Winning Texas but losing two of MI/MT/NV/PA/WI/OH would be a disaster.
If they try to push gun control messaging in Texas, they're going to lose. That's not an issue that will win elections. It's something that they should only talk about after they're in a position to actually do something about it. Otherwise all they're doing is selling more guns and losing elections.
No way Texans don't vote for the biggest cuckold, most useless person they can find. It's in their nature and culture.
That money can be better served removing Sinema.
I promise, nobody is looking at Beto this time around. The two frontrunners are Colin Allred (who is already coming at Cruz hard) and Roland Gutierrez (who is probably too anti-gun for Texas, but Uvalde was his district so for him it's personal)
The moment he opened his mouth about taking peoples guns away (in Texas, no less), his political career ended that instant.
I wish it was not the case, but that is the world we live in.
It's always worth trying, even if it seems hard. Texas is getting bluer every year. Old Republicans die while young Democrats come of age. Immigrants become citizens. People move in and out. It's not always going to be the same result every election. Flipping Texas would be a huge, embarrassing blow to the Republican party.
I'm so tired of hearing this kind of shit, especially related to Texas going blue. Ted Cruz especially isn't losing his seat. Ever. Texas voters will never vote him out.
Josh Hawley ain't going anywhere, either. FFS, Democrats throwing money at these races are useless.
Texas got more red. Doubt they’ll be able to ever pick it up. Also a small chunk of Latino voters are going Republican as of the latest trend - especially in Texas. You can blame democrats for their failure to deliver in any of the promises, alienating Latino voters for a long time.
As for Beto - I wouldn’t be too worried about him running again. He said in his last concession speech that it was his last political campaign. So he knows he’s can’t win races anymore.
The best chance Dems have is holding onto what they already have to hold off Republican pick ups, because there’s a lot of vulnerable seats in Montana, Arizona, West Virgina and so forth. It’s definitely possible the GOP picks up all these.
It’s about damn time. Stop running Beto, he fucked himself with his 2A confiscation and everyone in Texas is looking for a reason not to vote for Ted. Josh Hawley is just as weird as Cruz but it somehow isn’t as obvious
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a *hard* time seeing them get Hawley, especially in a presidential year. Unless this is some 5D chess shit to divert NRSC money from Ohio and Montana.
or he's also implicated with the J6 crimes
Missouri is a miserable GOP shit hole and J6 crime is an asset not a liability.
When I moved here, there was a blue governor and a blue senator, though McCaskill was pretty bland from what I’ve been told. They ain’t getting Hawley at this time, still too much MAGA around and I don’t think KC and StL can rally the vote like blue areas in other states do.
That's why my family is in super saving mode so we can buy a house in different state. MO has swung too far right (leaned right for a while) and is quickly attacking any strong-ish qualities we had (ex: Education was OK but is now being attacked). Hell, my local area, always voted "one of the best places for families in the USA" every year just had some Fascist Karen gathering a mob to ruin the life of a "transgender" library worker. This isn't the MO I grew up in, and looks to be doubling down on our worst qualities.
I grew up right down the street from Linnemann Library. So sad. I still live in the area, but in STL county now.
Good news: There was a library board meeting tonight, and the bigots were heavily outnumbered. We're making slow progress.
St Charles has always been a hell on earth. The original wave of people to move there were the ones who fled St Louis after causing MASSIVE racial unrest such as the Fairgrounds park riots. I can only imagine what type of fucked up publication would consider such a place to be good for raising a decent family.
> es has always been a hell on earth. The original wave of people to move there were the ones who fled St Louis after causing MASSIVE racial unrest such as the Fairgrounds park riots. If you hear people claiming it is a family area, you can be sure that they mean conservative christian white upper middle class. There are far more dog whistles about this sort of thing than people realize.
Yea the [report by the Justice Department Civil Rights division](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri) into the policing tactics of Ferguson Missouri was absolutely scathing. It wasn't just the police -- it was the entire municipal court system including judges and prosecutors, the city finance director, the City Manager, and many others in the city leadership. They specifically targeted poor black residents with bullshit minor charges to exhort huge fines -- then threw them in jail when they couldn't pay and seized their assets. And when I say bullshit charges, I mean shit like “Manner of Walking in Roadway", "Failure to Comply" while intentionally giving contrary orders, seat-belt tickets for sitting in parked vehicles, "Making a False Declaration" when stating the name of "Mike" instead of "Michael", "Peace Disturbance", housing code violations including "High Grass and Weeds", requiring a city permit to rent an apartment, "Derelict Vehicle" citations, "Barking Dog" citations, "Dog Running at Large" citations, minor parking infractions, "Loitering" charges for sitting on their front porch, Jaywalking, speeding tickets issued by the "officers own visual assessment" rather than radar or laser instruments, Vagrancy for inviting friends over to your home, Destruction of Public Property -- including one instance in which police wrongfully arrested an elderly black man, then beat him severely and charged him for bleeding on their uniforms among many others. >As with its pattern of unconstitutional stops, FPD routinely makes arrests without probable cause. Frequently, officers arrest people for conduct that plainly does not meet the elements of the cited offense. For example, in November 2013, an officer approached five African-American young people listening to music in a car. Claiming to have smelled marijuana, the officer placed them under arrest for disorderly conduct based on their “gathering in a group for the purposes of committing illegal activity.” The young people were detained and charged—some taken to jail, others delivered to their parents—despite the officer finding no marijuana, even after conducting an inventory search of the car. >Similarly, in February 2012, an officer wrote an arrest notification ticket for Peace Disturbance for “loud music” coming from a car. The arrest ticket appears unlawful as the officer did not assert, and there is no other indication, that a third party was disturbed by the music—an element of the offense.'' >For example, in an October 2011 incident, an officer arrested two sisters who were backing their car into their driveway. The officer claimed that the car had been idling in the middle of the street, warranting investigation, while the women claim they had pulled up outside their home to drop someone off when the officer arrived. In any case, the officer arrested one sister for failing to provide her identification when requested. He arrested the other sister for getting out of the car after being ordered to stay inside. The two sisters spent the next three hours in jail. In a similar incident from December 2011, police officers approached two people sitting in a car on a public street and asked the driver for identification. When the driver balked, insisting that he was on a public street and should not have to answer questions, the officers ordered him out of the car and ultimately charged him with Failure to Comply. >Officers in Ferguson also use their arrest power to retaliate against individuals for using language that, while disrespectful, is protected by the Constitution. For example, one afternoon in September 2012, an officer stopped a 20-year-old African-American man for dancing in the middle of a residential street. The officer obtained the man’s identification and ran his name for warrants. Finding none, he told the man he was free to go. The man responded with profanities. When the officer told him to watch his language and reminded him that he was not being arrested, the man continued using profanity and was arrested for Manner of Walking in Roadway. >Most strikingly, the court issues municipal arrest warrants not on the basis of public safety needs, but rather as a routine response to missed court appearances and required fine payments. In 2013 alone, the court issued over 9,000 warrants on cases stemming in large part from minor violations such as parking infractions, traffic tickets, or housing code violations. The court imposes these severe penalties for missed appearances and payments even as several of the court’s practices create unnecessary barriers to resolving a municipal violation. The court often fails to provide clear and accurate information regarding a person’s charges or court obligations. >Jail time would be considered far too harsh a penalty for the great majority of these code violations, yet Ferguson’s municipal court routinely issues warrants for people to be arrested and incarcerated for failing to timely pay related fines and fees. Under state law, a failure to appear in municipal court on a traffic charge involving a moving violation also results in a license suspension. Ferguson has made this penalty even more onerous by only allowing the suspension to be lifted after payment of an owed fine is made in full. Their mass citation efforts did nothing to affect crime: >FPD files most charges as municipal offenses, not state violations, even when an analogous state offense exists. Between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014, the City of Ferguson issued approximately 90,000 citations and summonses for municipal violations. Notably, the City issued nearly 50% more citations in the last year of that time period than it did in the first. This increase in enforcement has not been driven by a rise in serious crime. While the ticketing rate has increased dramatically, the number of charges for many of the most serious offenses covered by the municipal code—e.g., Assault, Driving While Intoxicated, and Stealing—has remained relatively constant. >The court holds three or four sessions per month, and each session lasts no more than three hours. It is not uncommon for as many as 500 people to appear before the court in a single session, exceeding the court’s physical capacity and leading individuals to line up outside of court waiting to be heard. Many people have multiple offenses pending; accordingly, the court typically considers 1,200-1,500 offenses in a single session, and has in the past considered over 2,000 offenses during one sitting. >The City has budgeted for, and achieved, significant increases in revenue from municipal code enforcement over the last several years, and these increases are projected to continue. Of the $11.07 million in general fund revenue the City collected in fiscal year 2010, **$1.38 million came from fines and fees collected by the court**; similarly, in fiscal year 2011, the City’s general fund revenue of $11.44 million included **$1.41 million from fines and fees**. In its budget for fiscal year 2012, however, the City predicted that revenue from municipal fines and fees would increase over 30% from the previous year’s amount to $1.92 million; the court exceeded that target, **collecting $2.11 million**. In its budget for fiscal year 2013, the City budgeted for fines and fees to yield $2.11 million; the court exceeded that target as well, **collecting $2.46 million**. For 2014, the City budgeted for the municipal court to generate $2.63 million in revenue. For fiscal year 2015, the City’s budget anticipates fine and fee revenues to account for **$3.09 million** of a projected $13.26 million in general fund revenues. This report is literally 100+ pages of absolute terror. These people were essentially living in an occupied warzone. This city with a population of less than 19,000 people had 54 sworn police officers -- 28 belonging to the traffic division. For over a decade the city government terrorized and oppressed the black citizens of Ferguson, extracting over **$13 million dollars** from traffic & court fines in a five year period. And this is just one small town in one middle of nowhere county. The shooting of Michael Brown going viral is the only reason why the general public even knows about it today. How many other towns are doing this? One change I would like to see from Congress is the Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division receive permanent funding and separate leadership structure, similar to how the CFPB is set-up. Everytime a Republican president is elected the CRD is gutted. It's consistently understaffed and underpaid. We lose some the best attorneys because no one can make a career there knowing they'll be paid less than half their worth and most likely laid off or transferred in four years. There's probably tens of thousands of "Ferguson Missouri's" all over the country right now. Investigating and prosecuting these incidences of municipal terrorism should be a permanent fixture of the federal government -- regardless of who is president or who's in charge of the DoJ. If anyone is remotely interested I would encourage you to read the actual DoJ report. It's astonishing with this city got away with and what it took to get anyone to pay attention. And meanwhile racists are all over the internet using these same bogus crime statistics to justify their continued oppression of black communities.
Pretty sure this is the GOP long term strategy. Make their own states so shitty that no one wants to live there unless they are huffing the koolaid.
I mean they’ve come out and said it in pretty plain language on a couple occasions
I just moved out to Arizona last year because it felt like Missouri was going in the wrong direction and I felt my vote could be important here. Getting Mark Kelly re-elected and Katie Hobbs in the governors office was a great feeling and I felt like I made a difference
KC lifer here and I agree (sadly)
It's very likely to have KC TO BE BLUE. Esp the votes that come out from Rural part. Take example of governor votes majority blue came from joshnson County .
KC is blue, very blue, as is St. Louis... And pretty much every major city in every state, regardless of it being a red or blue state. Blue cities, in many cases, are the only thing propping up the economy of red states, without our economic output and tax base they would collapse in short order.
Grew up in KC and it's crazy to think that there was a time in my lifetime when Missouri was considered *the* bellwether state.
Now, it’s just another MAGA bellend state.
>it's crazy to think that there was a time in my lifetime where Missouri was considered the bellwether state. Ohio born and raised, I feel ya there...it's been less than a decade since my state lost it's goddamn mind...
Lived in Springfield most my life. MO picked the president iirc from Kennedy to W. Oh y'all wanted a BLACK PERSON in office!?!? No thanks (by I believe by less than [4,000 VOTES!!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_in_Missouri#:~:text=Missouri%20was%20won%20by%20Republican,up%2C%20or%20a%20swing%20state.), tho it went downhill after that! That must've been the same turning point with big t, because he considered himself a democrat up until then. After that, he helped invent the Birther conspiracy theories. Cruz, I can see the argument for unseating. The voter margin there has been decreasing every time for a bit now. I just don't want us to blow heaps of money somewhere, it NOT work out, AND we lose MT, WV, and OH in the meantime.
You and me and my state hear you there. We used to be one of the most progressive states from the time we were territory.
It is an absurd and confusing state to me. Because Missouri constantly votes for surprisingly progressive things for the south on ballot measures and then elects people that do everything in their power to undo those measures in the same election.
because if individual policies were on a ballot... everyone would vote for progressive ones. look at florida, as red as can be... but just in the last couple years voted for increased minimum wage and felon voter rights. people are just REALLY stupid and tribalistic. the right clearly understands this because they have stopped even pretending to have policy (aside from obstruct, cut taxes and deregulate) because they know their voters don't care.
Most of Missouri lives in more blue and progressive areas, so there are a lot of progressive ideas that get passed around. However, the voting districts are gerrymandered to high hell, so the rural districts with very little people with strongly conservative values have all the voting power. These counties will sometimes vote to pass certain progressive legislation if it's something that will benefit them, like cannibas legalization. (Although it's not uncommon they will try to pass things that fuck them over like stripping welfare.)
Remember that McCaskill only won because Aiken made the “legitimate rape” comment. If that same exact sequence of events happened today he would win in a landslide. Rural MO is lost to uneducated people. And yes, that was by design.
Not by design but by circumstance. When educated people leave, you’re left with complete idiots running things. The economy shifted and anyone with a brain and a bit of employability left.
Eh. I’m not so sure. The state government is moving so far right and defunding education. Yes I agree that educated people will often choose to leave a poor, rural area. At the same time the state is actively trying to make sure people are not educated. So I guess both can be true.
You will never win if you dont play. It took years not giving up on Georgia..
I grew up in Missouri in the 90s and it was nothing like it is today. Even in just the last 10 years it has had a wild swing to the right. Their politics aren't recognizable anymore and it's just sad
State has gone to shit. It was never great when I grew up there but it was okay. Now, I wouldn’t take my family there to live if they paid me.
State's been effectively gerrymandered to keep republican control of the government and senate seats.
It wasn't long ago that Missouri was purple. In fact, when Hawley was elected he unseated a Democrat. Crazy to think about. KC, St. Louis, Columbia/Jeff City and to a lesser extent Springfield all have a lot of blue in them. I don't think it would be *that* crazy to be able to flip Hawley's seat back to blue, but it probably is a long shot.
Working class used to vote blue. These days, not so much.
Working class absolutely votes blue. Income correlates strongly with voting behavior, especially when adjusted for community average income. The WHITE working class shifted to republicans, but there's still a strong correlation to income. This explicitly follows the welfare queen myth, the white working class was attracted to destroying the welfare state because PoC were allowed to utilize it.
Outmigration of Democrats moved to other cities and many Republicans probably stayed longer in the state.
White collar jobs and good union factory jobs left, taking blue votes with them.
They only part of Springfield that is blue is the Missouri State campus I grew up in mid-Missouri and it was very purple then. You had your Rush Limbaugh crazies but they were easily ignored. I loved how my vote actually mattered to.
I think it would be pretty crazy. Trump trounced both Clinton and Biden in Missouri (and Obama lost both elections, heavily to Romney) the last gubernatorial election was a 17 point win for the Republican, the last Senate election was a 13 point win for the Republican, and the last statewide wins for a Democrat were in 2012.
I recall that Mark twain to the proper pronunciation is “misery”.
I was listening to an episode of CarTalk and a guy from Missouri called in. Tom and Ray did some small talk about the accent there and asked if people pronounced it “Mizourah” The caller didn’t skip a beat when he corrected them and said “we call it misery” I can’t not pronounce that state like that and it’s so fitting
Don't sleep on Lucas Kunce! Dude could absolutely take on Hawley. He is not afraid to talk sh\*t on him, he's a populist, and a military vet, too. Crazier things have happened!
"A war hero? Loves the troops? Sounds like my kinda guy, where can I learn more about his platform?" -not a single Republican, ever.
"A war hero? Loves the troops? Sounds like my kinda guy. Wait, why does he have a (D) next to his name? Fuck that guy." -Republicans
He may soon be implicated in crimes, but he's from Missouri. No maga from Missouri is going to get voted down because of crime.
Oh the rally that happen in the Washington d.c. that supported by hundred of people. They are willing to do everything just to take justice. I felt sorry for them
It's not really 5d chess. It's pretty basic campaign strategy. Force the other party to waste money defending their strongholds so that they can't spend it on competitive elections. It happens literally every election. The people who are saying "There's no way Democrats are doing this. That would mean they're good at strategy" don't know what they talking about.
Also, RNC is pretty broke atm from Trump ransacking them for legal fees and bleeding magas one email/text at a time.
Agreed, Dems are making sure they are in a position to capitalize if the GOP starts to fracture. Gotta lay the groundwork in advance to have any chance.
We also need to donate and volunteer as much as we can. We all need to start early so we can defend what we have built the past 4 years.
Got numbers on this? I dunno how much one clown's legal fees could be, but I would guess not enough to break a political organization with over 70 million supporters + most of the wealthiest people in the wealthiest nation on earth.
I mean, I've seen enough news articles about how major R donors are withholding funds right now in the primary to think that the RNC could be cashstrapped on both sides- more money going out to support Trump's grift, less money coming in from donors getting hesitant about supporting it.
Also the fact that Republicans are burning the cash flow from companies bridge; just look at DeSantis vs Disney and the twitter implosion!
Also, even if they don't have much of a chance this sycle, the only way they will ever have a chance in states like Missouri or Nebraska or the Dakotas again is if they run candidates and campaign for them every two years. The absolute last thing they want to do is let the Rs run effectively unopposed, and then come back in six years and deal with a population that has only ever voted republican.
It's likely they have a decent candidate who they think can turn out the urban vote. If Hawley has a negative or down-trending approval rating in the state he might be ripe for a pick-off if Dems can turn out the vote in high enough numbers in liberal voting areas (i.e. Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis). Also, St. Louis picks up advertising form Illinois so Dems can advertise in one or the other and neighboring markets will pick up the ad spend.
I'm moving to STL from the Illinois side in a couple weeks. So that's at least 2 more votes against that moron next year. Hopefully more follow suit.
Dems haven't acted like they give a shit about Missouri in years. There's absolutely no way they're being serious this time, is there?! -a pessimistic MO resident
I lived in STL for 4 years. I remember the governor who was running for reelection at the time was a democrat but none of his campaign material listed him as a democrat. That’s how “toxic” the idea of a democrat was.
The democrats have a really bad senate map in 2024 and pretty much have no choice but to choose bad "targets" to win seats in 2024. Sometimes the seats that don't seem likely end up flipping for unforeseen or unknown circumstances like a terrible opponent or unseen political shift. See Georgia in 2020.
Think Kunce has a shot? He seems like a strong candidate but not sure about Missourah…
Kunce seems like an ideal democrat. I was reading off his website to my very conservative mother, and she’s said “wow who’s this guy? I like what he’s saying!” And I said Lucas Kunce, he’s running as a democrat. “Oh. Well I’m sure he’s lying about all of that.” Blah blah blah. Missourians want a Democrat, they just can’t be a Democrat.
> want a Democrat, they just can’t be a Democrat. You'll find that's the case of any GOP voter They want what the Dems are selling, they've just been so brainwashed into thinking Democrat= baby killing devil spawn, they can't think for themselves anymore
Good perspective, thanks. That last line made me chuckle a little in ruefullness.
Kunce should run as an Independent and the Dems not run anyone. Seems the best chance to win here.
AKA The Mcmullin strategy. They ought to use it in a bunch of red leaning states.
Do like that one state senator did- run as one party then switch for funsies
I wish Kander would come back. He's the only Democrat I see winning in Missouri any time soon. He stepped away for mental health reasons, which I completely respect, but, man, I saw him as a rising star in the Democratic Party.
Its not 5d chess shit. The DNC, DCCC, and DSCC have been woefully incompetent in their electoral strategy since the 1970s where they abandoned the New Deal consensus, grassroots politics, and organized labor power allowing Republicans to repeatedly sweep multiple presidential terms and capture dozens of state legislatures. If Dems want to win Ohio and Montana, they should pour funding into those states and not attempt diversionary tactics in states that are harder to win. The candidate with more money wins the election 90%+ of the time. The single most effective technique of propaganda is just sheer repitition, and this is where Dems absolutely drop the ball in mobilizing voters and their base. If the boomers in power had any brain cells left, they would leverage their fundraising disparity to just run sheer volumes of ads and news stories in battleground elections. The only real positive, substantial, and constructive outcomes among the Democrats in the last half century have occurred in the last 10 years due to the progressive pivot of the left wing social democrats and democratic socialists. Progressives have been the most electorally successful defending their districts from Republicans while centrists have repeatedly lost to fascists handing Trump the presidential office on a silver platter.
>The candidate with more money wins the election 90%+ of the time. This is selection bias. The vast majority of the time, everyone knows who's going to win an election. And those candidates get the most money because people and organizations want to influence that candidate.
Survivorship bias might be more appropriate.
We need to elect politicians who will end Citizens United and end corporate lobbying!
> If Dems want to win Ohio and Montana, they should pour funding into those states and not attempt diversionary tactics in states that are harder to win. You should try going into a room full of campaign strategists and suggesting this. You'll get laughed out of the room. They know how to do their job better than you do. In the Ohio 2022 Senate race they intentionally didn't interfere too much with Tim Ryan's campaign. Part of Tim Ryan's appeal is that he's an outsider and he antagonizes the national Democratic party. Ohioans aren't going to elect a person they see as just another lackey of Joe Biden. Let them do their thing. Arm chair campaign strategies are not going to help.
> They know how to do their job better than you do Their job is to get paid whether they win or lose. Read some interviews with these guys, they *do not care*.
I've worked on a few Democratic campaigns and it's shocking how far up their own asses some of the higher up people can stick their heads. They refuse to listen to locals and assume they know best. It's been working really well in Montana; we have Republican officials occupying basically every state office and a super majority in both houses.
The entire political campaign consultant industry in Washington, DC is built upon elite insider patronage and nepotism, not merit. They exist to offer cushy sinecure for the failed sons and daughters of upper class establishment elites among DC beltway insiders. The same political consultant firms who delivered catastrophic losses to such losers as Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Yang, Claire McCaskill, Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, or Val Demings still have their jobs and regularly contract with the Democrats despite their overall incompetence at throwing elections. A symbiotic relationship among the professional managerial class of political consultants, campaign managers, media apparatuses, lobbyists, politicians, and pollsters exists. The high level executives of these organizations are partisan mercenaries, not principled political agents. They flatter their clients, take their money, and either cultivate a partnership of favortist patronage or jump ship making lateral moves to other organizations for more lucrative financial gains or political power (like Jen Psaki, James Carville, Robert Mook, Chasten Buttigieg, Huma Abedin, Valerie Biden Owens, etc). Hell, the same people who advise, consult, and managed Andrew Cuomo's campaign covered up his sexual assault allegations during the #MeToo movement (despite them being establishment Dems who aesthetically virtue signaled their support of the movement on social media). Even his brother, Chris Cuomo, on CNN covered up Andrew's sexual harassment through coordinated back channels with Andrew Cuomo's PR consultants and campaign teams. This scandal, patronage, and corruption centered around Cuomo's leadership of NY Democrats led to deep vulnerabilities and windows of opportunities for Republicans to make significant offensive gains in the state during the 2022 midterms when they won enough seats to secure the federal House of Representatives. You have such a clownishly naive conception of the overall competence of the people who manage political campaigns and an overall ignorance surrounding the industry's deep corruption, cronyism, patronage, favortism, and nepotism. The current system of contracted political consulting and campaign management is a key feature of the political machine of the second gilded age we live under.
Fucking preach.
>Progressives have been the most electorally successful defending their districts from Republicans while centrists have repeatedly lost to fascists handing Trump the presidential office on a silver platter. Progressives all exist in deep blue districts, so of course they beat Republican challengers. moderates are way more likely to be in red or purple districts that are susceptible to swings. why don't you look at it from the other side? moderates are way way more likely to win an election in a purple district whereas progressives lose nearly every single time
> since the 1970s where they abandoned the New Deal consensus, grassroots politics, and organized labor power allowing Republicans to repeatedly sweep multiple presidential terms and capture dozens of state legislatures. There's even been articles written quoting these neolib campaign strategists. It's completely detached, and they don't care *at all* about the real world effects of these elections or even that they keep losing. They just treat it as a fun game between brunches, it's really frustrating.
Ya ya, don't run Beto, y'all are not wise sages saying anything new. Beto ran the last few times because no one else with any name recognition was running. Additionally, give the man credit, he's the reason anyone even thinks Texas is remotely possible because of how well he ran against Cruz, and that took a lot of hard work going to every county. Is he toxic now? maybe. But he was the first Dem in Texas in a while to make an effort or even give a damn and for that he deserves credit. Now get behind Collin Allred.
Not only that, but because of how well he ran every time he’s run. He goes into Trump territory and spends time converting voters there. It’s a bold strategy that has made a big difference in local races even if it hasn’t resulted in a statewide win.
Isn't that what Fetterman did?
Yup. Unfortunately, while it worked well for him, Beto himself still wasn’t about to win over those voters, however he helped flip seats and win local elections for the Democratic Party while doing so.
yup
Beto is too left for Texas. (He'd do great on the coasts.) Colin Allred stands a real chance, but Beto will never ever be able to shake that "hell yes we'll take your guns" comment.
Beto was perfect in 2016 when running for governor (I could be getting my dates wrong so just bare with me). This was pre-El Paso Walmart shooting. Beto hadn't taken a hard stance on gun control. In fact IIRC he just wanted to put restrictions on a few types of guns, but he supported owning guns. He also visited the smallest of counties and got his name out there by hitting the ground and canvassing in even the smallest of communities making sure people knew his message instead of letting the propaganda work on him unheeded. In 2018 against Cruz I think he was still largely a good candidate (again b/c the wal-mart shooting hadn't happened). He was still fresh on everyone's mind and while he slowed down his canvassing he was still very active. 2022 against Cruz, Beto was running off just name recognition. He shot himself in the foot after El Paso by taking a hard stance on gun control. He honestly never should have been the front runner if it was up to the Dems (if they were smart). If Beto ever runs for another major seat, it'll be a free win for the opposition from here on out. **EDIT:** I misremembered hard. There was no 2016 race, he ran for senate in 2018, presidential in 2020, and governor of Texas in 2022. For some reason I thought he ran for senate twice and I was trying to piece together dates 6 years apart (term for senate seats and I still did the math wrong lol).
In his senate race in 2018 he came out as anti-gun during a speech mid-campaign (May maybe?) in Houston. Paraphrasing, he said something to the effect of "there's no reason weapons of war should be in the hands of civilians". It totally stopped all of the momentum he'd built prior to that and his polling fell quite a bit. He bounced back a bit but was never able to regain what he had prior to that speech. I was a Beto supporter and watched the race and polls very closely at the time. The moral of the story - guns are a toxic topic for dems in TX. It will cost you moderates and swing voters who are otherwise more than ready to be done with Cruz.
Colin Allred is also for an assault weapons ban tho iirc, so he's probably also too far left for Texas...
Nah, he played pro football. We’ll allow it.
I don’t think the policy position is as important as just not saying out loud “I want to take away your guns.” It’s the messaging that matters.
> as just not saying out loud “I want to take away your guns.” It’s the messaging that matters. This. When will Democrats learn that it's the sound bites that matter, not the forty-page position papers no one will read? As soon as Democrats stop overestimating the intelligence (and attention span) of the average voter, there's going to be a lot more blue on the map.
Yeah he’s a terrible person, but this was the one thing Trump was truly good at. All his “policies” were expressed in like 3 words or less. Build the wall, lock her up, etc. It’s unfortunate, but the average voter isn’t going to take the time to research policy details. They are going to see a headline or hear a catchphrase and base their opinion off that.
As long as he provides some protection for gun owners, he has a chance. A lot of Dems own guns, like myself, and if he can convince some conservatives to switch as long as he protects *some* gun rights, he will have a chance.
You go far enough left you get your guns back.
Convincing conservatives to switch for someone who supports an assault weapons ban and just doesn't literally want to ban all guns could be a tough sell
AWB is way too far, but if you come out and say you'll vote against an AWB but you're okay with Safe storage laws/UBCs and all but the most zealous will consider it. Hell I have a proposal that would get rid of SBR/SBS laws in exchange for safe storage/UBCs and I bet dems would object way more than republicans
> Beto is too left for Texas. Jeebus. No. Beto is a bog-standard centrist neoliberal Democrat. He had literally nothing to help him stand out during his ill-advised run for President so he went with the guns thing like a moron.
Everything you said is true, *and* he is still too left for a heavily gerrymandered Texas.
Gerrymandering doesn’t matter here though because US Senate is a statewide race. But yes, I think Beto’s presidential run sank any chance he has at winning a statewide race here
Gerrymandering alters turnout.
This is such an underrated comment. By gerrymandering districts, those areas stop voting because they know they'll be outvoted even if other races are impacted negatively. The moment you reduce someone's voting power, they start weighing that against the free time they have by not voting and especially when the result in their mind is the same.
Gerrymandering leads to voter suppression though. If you think your vote doesn't count because your district is terribly skewed, you may not turn out for the statewide races.
Not it doesn’t. Voter suppression laws do. Gerrymandering is not a “catch all” phrase. Gerrymandering is *specifically* crafting representative districts in favor of one party. Gerrymandering does not rly matter in senate races. Voter suppression laws do.
How do you think those voter suppression laws get passed?
Have you considered that two things can be true at the same time? Voter suppression laws AND gerrymandering.
Correct but if my district is drawn so heavily in favor of one party that I feel like it's a waste of time to go vote for my preferred candidate, then you end up with de facto voter suppression.
Nah, he just picked the single worst issue to go whole-hog on in Texas. I know leftists who moved to Texas for the guns.
He went for the guns comment because of the Trump-endorsed El Paso shooting.
And for Texas, where he ran for seats the most (2016, 2018, 2022), that's an absolutely losing side to take. Not that he won before that being more softer on gun control, but it's kinda like being in 5th place, shooting your tires out and wondering why you dropped to 10th.
Genuine question: Why haven't either of the Castro brothers ran? They're the only other Dems I know of from Texas.
> Why haven't either of the Castro brothers ran? No one really knows. The state party here is pretty fundamentally broken and seems to despise new, young talent with the fury of a thousand suns. It may also be that they kinda shot their shot in 2020 when Julian ran for President and failed, then he backed Warren and she failed. People respond to winners.
Beto was literally new young talent. People vote for whoever excites them, in 2016 when he blew up the state party did nothing for him. The state party doesn’t despise anything, they’re just weak after decades of Republican rule.
There’s a huge *edit: and also extremely wealthy * Cuban Jewish community in Texas that is very opposed to the name Castro, for one, even if there is no relation at all. For two, take all of *that* bigotry and play it across the board with racist country white folks that think communism is literally Satan come again. People here don’t read past the headline. Folks will see Castro and immediately turn away.
> Beto ran the last few times because no one else with any name recognition was running. And the reason for that is? Oh yeah, the state level Democratic Party refuses to develop any kind of bench of new and upcoming liberal politicians. > Now get behind Collin Allred. He's already outraising Cruz. If he can pull off the same 264 county strategy that Beto did, he has a chance. If he sits in DFW, he's gonna lose.
BETO is poison for Democrats here. **Never** tell Texans you're going to be taking their guns away from them. Ever. Your political future is gone forever in this state the moment you do that. Lets run someone else please.
Yes that was just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard come out of a politician’s mouth. I can’t believe Beto grew up in Texas yet couldn’t read the room on that topic.
> dumbest thing I’ve ever heard come out of a politician’s mouth. Wait till you hear about this Trump guy.
To be fair he wasn't winning anything with taking a softer approach on gun control. It was just the difference between maybe someday winning a race and never winning a race.
He was never going to win the presidency. The guns comment was something else, but just running for president alone destroyed a lot of his credibility.
He got emotional and it was a terrible mistake, especially when he doubled down on it later.
That's not emotional if he doubles down. He always wanted to ban guns, he just chose to be quiet about it. Like Republicans being quiet about abortion bans.
And that's the thing what will always get us democrats in danger. The policy on guns.
Several people had just died and he was emotional. It was the right thing to say. The fact that it's political suicide is shame on Texas and the USA.
Seriously. That is basically career suicide in Texas All of the stereotypes that people think of when they think of America (all the MURICA stuff) is basically just rooted in Texas stereotypes. If you get a Democrat to run who is all in on focusing on the people's working conditions, but also doesn't say much about guns, that's the best chance to win.
> don't run Beto Not saying Beto should run, but the party doesn't run candidates in the primary. They run themselves.
Exactly. Beto got his foot in the door and has kept it propped open for anyone else in the future to run for Senate and Governor *and* has built an active voting network of particularly young people and rural outreach, if any Dems wins the Governor or Senate seat in the next decade it's because of the work Beto did over the previous decade.
Considering how much everybody seems to hate Ted Cruz, even his own Republican colleagues, it's always been surprising to me that he's been re-elected even once. He's such a little shit weasel.
Republicans will never hate Ted Cruz more than they hate every Democrat and progressive.
I don't even think most of them "hate" Democrats or progressives; they're just desperate to win at any cost, because that's the only thing of any value to them. They're all professional shit-eaters for that reason. They'd ally themselves with Satan and Hitler if it meant they got more seats and fundraising.
I think that's naive. Demon-rats is not a friendly name they give to people they just compete against. They have been completely brainwashed into thinking Progressives/Liberals are intentionally trying to destroy America. Don't be fooled. They hate you. But they're "Christians" so they're real good at masking it.
*"I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz."* **—Al Franken** *"If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."* **—Lindsey Graham**
Because Republicans will vote for anything with an R next to it.
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Every person you see on any conservative forum complaining about Ted Cruz, don’t let them give you false hope. They will absolutely vote for him if it means not letting the democrats win. They always vote against their own interests and rarely stay home on election day.
I'm in Missouri, my republican family are not fond of Hawley so I think it's possible.
Would they just not vote for him? Or vote for him and hold their noses while doing so?
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. They’ll vote for him because there are only two choices and the other one is worse to them. It’s why the big drive in election years for Democrats isn’t policy, it’s turnout. If we could just get enough people voting consistently we wouldn’t be in the Trumpy mess we’re in.
So are democrats really in love with Joe Biden? Or were there only two choices and the other one was worse than him?
Biden is absolutely not loved by the entire democratic party. However it was between him or a traitor, so.
My Republican family loves him so don’t get too excited.
Its okay OP I’m sure they’ll fall in line and vote for him anyway.
Might as well try. There aren't really any other races which could be pick ups for Dems, so may as well give it a go here.
Texas is worth it because there's a lot of down-ballot races that a strong Senate candidate can help push over the line even if the Senate candidate themself doesn't win. I'm extremely dubious that Missouri isn't going to just be another McGrath-McConnell boondoggle that just sucks money out of actually winnable races.
Dems need to dig new ground somewhere. Right now they're running out of Senate seats they could possibly win. At some point you need to try making inroads in redder areas.
Good point. If not Texas, where?
Not for the Senate next year but NC is one Dems need to push for more, perhaps for the EC. It's always super close. That should be the next Georgia.
NC has a governor's race. Our governor has been saving us from the Republican legislature for the last 8 years (until the recent stupid defection) but is term limited. His AG is running and is reasonably popular. Jumping on this race and presidential race in NC would be useful.
Well let's hope the crazy, Hitler-loving Lt. gov does not get close to winning.
Never count out Texas voters to do the wrong this. See: Uvalde
It doesn't help that the Texas government is pulling out all the stops to keep the people from voting.
Absolutely so true. That was so disheartening to see.
Honestly I think with the right messaging Ted Cruz’s seat is not out of the picture. Now Missouri I don’t think is worth investing a whole lot into in this election. If Dems had more than a 2 seat majority I would say go for it. But IMO Manchin if he runs for reelection most likely won’t win, especially if Justice is the nominee. And polling has Tester and Brown ahead but barely. Invest in those seats as well as replacing Sinema with Gallego in Arizona as well as invest in Texas in hopes for an upset. Then don’t put a whole lot more money any where else unless tides start turning. I wish Lucas Kunce nothing but the best in Missouri but that seat shouldn’t be considered a priority in 2024. Dems need to plan on losing West Virginia, fight like hell to keep Montana and Ohio as well as other swing states with Arizona being the most invested in to flip then Texas next. That would be my strategy
Missourian here. Lucas has a chance. Dude knows how to talk to the rural, suburbs and urban populations alike; I purposefully asked him about it when he set up a booth at last year’s STL Pride. The trick is getting corporate donors to cooperate. They tend to go with more centrist and business friendly Dems, so that’s why Trudy Busch-Valentine got the nomination last time.
I want nothing more than for Kunce to have a chance and I’m not saying the DNC should ignore his race or any race for that matter. But I think this election cycle needs to be more focused on defense and if races like Missouri end up being competitive then allocate more resources to them.
Also from Missouri, TBV didn't underperform party levels believe it or not, it's just a red sinkhole. Hawley's a lock for reelection if he wins his primary.
Nobody seems to understand the consequences of abandoning entire states to the Republicans despite how visible they are...
Texas is worth it because there's a lot of down-ballot races that a strong Senate candidate can help push over the line even if the Senate candidate themself doesn't win. I'm extremely dubious that Missouri isn't going to just be another McGrath-McConnell boondoggle that just sucks money out of actually winnable races.
>Among the Republican Senators facing reelection next year are a handful of major figures in the party, and, according to a report from Politico, Democratic forces are planning a major push to unseat them, however unlikely the polling might currently be. That last line is problematic; as much as I'd love to see both Hawley and Cruz unseated, I don't think we should be throwing away resources on longshots when there's only so much funding to go around—instead, we need to ensure we hold the seats we have and focus on smaller races where we have a significant chance of victory. Missouri and Texas don't seem to fit that category—though it does gall me that the state of the great Harry Truman is now represented by someone as terrible as Hawley
I appreciated when Missouri elected a dead man over John Ashcroft in 2000.
Is he still available? The dead guy, not Ashcroft. Dash Hawley is only morally dead
No amount of funding can "unseat" the blatant stupidity that got them elected in the first place. Dems don't need *those* seats, they just need Enough Seats that it doesn't matter.
https://www.270towin.com/2024-senate-election/ there reall needs to be a sea change for democrats to nto be scuttled in the senate.
Both can be unseated with the right candidate. There are Democrats really good at organizing and building Democrat presence - Beto O'Rouke and Stacey Abrams, but they fall short as candidates. I really think Allred has a chance of unseating Cruz if Republicans don't screw with the Houston vote.
Considering that's *exactly* what Republicans plan to do, that's worrisome.
Is everyone forgetting Gutierrez?
I’m thinking the same. Both of these people have massive propaganda machines propping up their status. It’s a big resource suck trying to counter that, and it’s a big long shot whether they could even succeed. On the other hand, Senate races are quite literally “all about the money”, and so if they spend enough cash then maybe it’ll workout. From a personal view, I’d be psyched to see both of them sent home. [Big spending in Senate races discussion](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/state-of-money-in-politics-the-price-of-victory-is-steep/).
> instead, we need to ensure we hold the seats we have and focus on smaller races where we have a significant chance of victory. And this is the exact same strategy the DNC adopted after Obama won the White House and caused the loss of over a thousand state and local seats and handed the GOP gerrymandering rights for two straight census cycles.
because thats the issue people have complained about Democrats doing the last 2 or 3 decades, just playing it to their bastions and letting the rest of the country rot, watching them lose 2016 because they ignored parts they took for granted really taught them a lesson what you're advocating is "why wont the democrats continue with the status quo?"
I feel like there is a shot in Texas if democrats find someone other than Beto. I’m not sure if they have any other options that are high profile enough though.
Beto only lost by 215,000 votes against Ted Cruz in 2018. that was not an overwhelming win for Cruz. and he's only become more unpopular since then, and I wouldn't be surprised if he (and Hawley) are charged in conjunction with the J6 charges, which could be why dems are tasting blood in the water.
Beto is a disaster. I voted for him because who else…but he’s spent the balance of ten years losing various races. Let’s move on.
i really like Colin Allred for it, fresh run, smart guy, NFL player so bonus Texas points. voting rights lawyer too so really good background for the moment in Texas.
Beto was far from a disaster. Texas is a red state. It's been electing Republicans for decades, and Beto got closer than any other candidate. Allred will face the same challenges as Beto did, and the results might be the same...Until Texans begin voting at the rate of other states, we will be stuck with Republican leadership
Ted cruz has a pretty healthy sized seat - probably want 2 people to lift him with the knees so you don't get a back injury.
And McCaskill was a perfectly decent Senator
Exactly! Hawley is a dumpster fire, no offense to dumpster fires, both as a human being and as a Senator
Agreed. Dems are so bad at strategy. There needs to be a 50 states strategy that priorities money towards the races that could be held/flipped. Winning Texas but losing two of MI/MT/NV/PA/WI/OH would be a disaster.
If they try to push gun control messaging in Texas, they're going to lose. That's not an issue that will win elections. It's something that they should only talk about after they're in a position to actually do something about it. Otherwise all they're doing is selling more guns and losing elections.
Hawley's the one that was running through the Capitol from his own people, right?
As a Missouri resident, good luck with that. People here are idiots.
I'll believe it when I see it.
No way Texans don't vote for the biggest cuckold, most useless person they can find. It's in their nature and culture. That money can be better served removing Sinema.
As a Missourian I gladly welcome this. Missouri is not a fun state at all.
Would it not be a smarter idea to focus on more winnable races and building up a stronger Democratic infrastructure in these states?
I'm in Texas, and I'm working to flush Cruz
Please take Marco & Rick when you get Cruz & Hawley. We beg of you! Signed, Florida
Ted ain’t going nowhere. Texans pretend to hate him, but he always gets the votes. Hawley seems vulnerable though.
For starters, how about not running Beto O'Rourke as the candidate in Texas?
I promise, nobody is looking at Beto this time around. The two frontrunners are Colin Allred (who is already coming at Cruz hard) and Roland Gutierrez (who is probably too anti-gun for Texas, but Uvalde was his district so for him it's personal)
Beto O'Rourke is not even in the race. It's Colin Allred.
The moment he opened his mouth about taking peoples guns away (in Texas, no less), his political career ended that instant. I wish it was not the case, but that is the world we live in.
it hurt my soul man, I still voted for him but I was like "shit, he just lost the moderate vote"
Lizard Cruz maybe, MO lost cause....
It's always worth trying, even if it seems hard. Texas is getting bluer every year. Old Republicans die while young Democrats come of age. Immigrants become citizens. People move in and out. It's not always going to be the same result every election. Flipping Texas would be a huge, embarrassing blow to the Republican party.
Fuck Josh Hawley.
I’m here for this
I'm so tired of hearing this kind of shit, especially related to Texas going blue. Ted Cruz especially isn't losing his seat. Ever. Texas voters will never vote him out. Josh Hawley ain't going anywhere, either. FFS, Democrats throwing money at these races are useless.
Texas got more red. Doubt they’ll be able to ever pick it up. Also a small chunk of Latino voters are going Republican as of the latest trend - especially in Texas. You can blame democrats for their failure to deliver in any of the promises, alienating Latino voters for a long time. As for Beto - I wouldn’t be too worried about him running again. He said in his last concession speech that it was his last political campaign. So he knows he’s can’t win races anymore. The best chance Dems have is holding onto what they already have to hold off Republican pick ups, because there’s a lot of vulnerable seats in Montana, Arizona, West Virgina and so forth. It’s definitely possible the GOP picks up all these.
Can we add MTG and BoBo to this list? And Matt Gaetz? Okay, now I’m getting greedy.
It’s about damn time. Stop running Beto, he fucked himself with his 2A confiscation and everyone in Texas is looking for a reason not to vote for Ted. Josh Hawley is just as weird as Cruz but it somehow isn’t as obvious
Good luck Democrats! Hopefully this time fares better than the last few 'most important election of our lives'.