Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Beto O’Rourke Officially Declares Run For Governor


Recommended Posts

I can’t say I’m surprised. We’ve discussed this on the forum before but I don’t believe it will pan out well. Beto was helped in part by a blue wave back in 2018. With the red wave coming next year and his controversial statements on gun control, I see this as an uphill battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone born, raised, and living in Texas for most of my adulthood (I lived in TX for a total of 32 years to 5 years in NYC and 5 years in Philadelphia), I think I can say with more authority than most on this forum that Texas Democrats are happy that he's running. We tend to get people with no name recognition in elections with no shot at victory. 

While this is going to be an uphill battle, there's still an outside chance of victory, especially if inflation decreased in a year, which also has an outside chance of occurring. O'Rourke pretty much typifies the Texas Democrat, especially those in the cities. You can expect high turnout in Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, and probably more so than usual in the border counties. Expect Trump-O'Rourke voters in those counties. This said, I still expect Abbott to win if Democrats are as unpopular as they are now. 

I think the only Texas Democrats of note that could probably out compete O'Rourke in this election is Julian Castro. However, I think the strategy is this: If the polls are bad for Biden, expect a certain O'Rourke defeat. I think he knows this. However, Texas is getting bluer and running a no-name person in 2022 could hinder or reverse those gains. As such, Beto might be the perfect sacrificial lamb. He'll lose but still maintain or grow Democrat support in Texas. Beto was/is a strong campaigner in Texas (much less so outside of Texas). I think Julian Castro or another big name Democrats runs for the US Senate soon or for Governor next time. Basically, I think there's a reason why Beto is choosing to announce a run when things are looking bad for Democrats. I think there's a backup strategy in the event he loses. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Cal said:

his controversial statements on gun control

I'm certain it will come up, but that's old news. All he has to do is say something different, although that gun control statement would probably fire up most Texas Democrats. Most TX Democrats strongly favor gun control, even when they own a ton of guns 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I have blue Texas friends who thought the world of Beto when he ran for Senate -- and then didn't recognize the Beto at all that ran fore President, like they were two different people.

It'll be interesting to see which Beto runs for Governor.

Yeah, me and most of my Texas friends thought Beto didn't have his heart in the presidential race. They think he ran under force or because he wanted to keep his name recognition up for a later governor run. Beto was considered the likely Democrat to run for governor as soon as it was clear he wasn't going to win the presidency. So his support in Texas among Democrats really hasn't decreased. He's polling on 1% behind Abbott in a recent poll too, although he's usually about 6% or more behind. He's been narrowing the gap in the average poll considerably. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Sean F Kennedy said:

If Texas has another power grid issue Beto could pull it off, he needs to definitely drop his position on guns and moderate on it. He has a natural charisma, but his previous statements and that Presidential run complicates things. Had he not run for President he’d be a rising star in Texas politics 

Arguably the Pres run kept him in the national eye, which means he probably made it more possible for an increase in out of state donations. He also kept his name recognition in the air. Politically speaking, the 2018 Senate run was ages ago. Most Texans will have some memory of it, but it's good that he kept his name as the one Texas Democrat most non-Texans can name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kitten said:

Abbot has $55 million last I heard 😛

Yeah, but Beto's been officially on campaign for only 1 day. Abbott has been accruing funds for much, much longer than that. Abbott will certainly get some more funds, but Beto's off to a huge start. At this rate, he eclipses that in a month. Abbott's been getting funds for like a year or more. Obviously, Abbott will get more donors too with an opponent now in the race. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm wondering what @vcczar thinks of this. I've brought this facet up once or twice (certainly not harped on it), but it usually gets washed under many other aspects of such a debate in the past, quickly.

I stopped reading three or four lines through it because I got lost. I don't finish posts if I have to reread it to make it understandable. If you post something more concise I'll respond. A sentence shouldn't be a winding journey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switzerland is an interesting case.  High gun ownership (though not as high as it used to be), but I don’t think they’ve had a single mass shooting in 20 years.

Why?  Any combination of the following:

First, Switzerland emphasizes proper gun training for all boys (and girls if they want it, since 1991) from a young age.  They’re taught guns are responsibilities, not toys.  There’s also a military draft, which further emphasizes weapon safety.  And something like 50% of the men who have firearms at home have them as part of their active military or police service (compared to 5% of gun owners in America),

Most citizens are NOT allowed to carry their weapons in public — they’re to be stored at home.  And I have to assume their mental health services are presumably better than ours.  They also take licensing and background checks more seriously than we do.

But even so, Switzerland isn’t perfect. In fact, I believe their rate of violent gun crimes is the highest in Europe, if I recall correctly.  They don’t have mass shootings, but they certainly do have shootings all the same.

Perhaps Switzerland has limits on the types of guns and fire rates that are available?  That would certainly make a difference, but I don’t know if those limits actually exist there or not.


On the other extreme, you’ve got the UK where even most police are not armed, much less the civilians.  Hunting rifles and shotguns are permitted, but pistols generally are not — and definitely nothing semiautomatic or automatic.  

As a result, they have one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world, and average a mass shooting about once every ten years.  For comparison sake, before covid cancelled public gatherings, there was an average of one mass shooting per DAY in the US.


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Perhaps the reasons for the former have nothing to do with the latter, but other, completely unrelated factors. An interesting question, eh? A question the NRA DOES NOT want you to ponder, but instead to carry on with your original unsourced but knee-jerk-thinking conflation from the post I'm quoting... 🤨



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...