200,000 votes is getting whipped. And this is after Cruz had a weak campaign while Beto got gobs of out of state funding and publicity. Dems banked hard on the shifting demographics in Texas but jumped the gun.

Forgot about Cortez's age. But seeing as I was arguing she couldnt win, thanks for making my case stronger.

*Talks about two of the arguments.

*Doesn't bother to debate/read the rest.

Still reeling from tuesday I see?

200,000 votes in what was once deep red Texas is absolutely not getting "whipped". I would be willing to bet Cruz was sweating Tuesday. Beto ran an incredible campaign and was instrumental in flipping multiple House seats in Texas. If you truly follow demographics in politics Beto O'Rourke ran a campaign to remember. 

If a Democrat can run close in Texas they can definitely be competitive nationally. Texas is usually most of the most deep red states, he could definitely be formidable in a national election. The Dems really just need Pennslyvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (which they got the most votes in during the mid-terms). Those turn blue again and Trump's goose is cooked.

Beto-Harris would be a solid ticket, but if they could get Michelle Obama to agree to run as a vice president candidate, that would be a slam dunk. Beto-Obama ticket would rip it up and energize turn out like crazy. 

To all of those who are not native Texans, allow me to explain why he got closer than any in Texas. Over the last 5 or so years, Texas has received a massive influx of Californians and Mexican immigrants, both of which vote overwhelming democrat. Beto is not changing anyone's minds, he's benefiting from a change in demographics. If these changes in the population continue, which there's no reason to suspect they wouldn't, Texas will flip by the next house/senate/etc race.

As I said, the fact that he had massive out of state funding, is going up against a republican that even some in his own voter base dislike, and is benefiting from the aforementioned demographic changes, it's obvious why Beto came "close."

And you have to understand just how bad Cruz's push was. My family and most of our friends/acquaintances vote consistently Republican, and there was no Cruz fanfare. You couldn't drive anywhere without seeing slews of Beto signs since at least 2 months ago. The Cruz signs only popped up right after the Kavanaugh hearings ended, and they were dwarfed 3 to 1 by Beto signs, yet Cruz got more votes. I had to go out of my way to look into Cruz's campaign, because no one was talking about him, but Beto was the opposite case. I think the republican primaries actually hurt his image in the eyes of his own party, because nothing about this tells me he's still popular with his party.

Beto should've had an easy win but failed. And had he won, I think he'd have a good shot at defeating Trump. But I just don't see how someone with a losing streak will beat him, when you know Trump will never not draw attention to it, and unlike much of what he says, he'll be right this time.

Texas is still one of the 5 or 6 most conservative states in the country.

You don't even need a perfect candidate, you need someone who will energize the Democratic base, Beto is young, charming, and doesn't have the baggage that Hilary Clinton had. 

Mix him with a VP option like Harris or Michelle Obama and that would be a sound ticket. He needs to get a little meaner though, he's too nice right now, too positive, lol.

If Texas flips to a blue state any time soon, Republicans are fucked either way any how. 

LOL I'm not still reeling from Tuesday.  The democrats won back the house and got close to winning the senate also both of those results are great if you consider the fact that voter suppression is still a thing.  On top of all that the county I live in is turning blue. 

Caitlyn Jenner

Beyond the Beto/Bernie/Alex trifecta, would anyone try to ask Michelle to run?

Man, I really want to like Cortez (cute as hell for one heh) and seems to have some of those Bernie oldschool Democrat, anti-neolib ideals, but a few of her proposals are just asinine:

- Abolish ICE - you need SOME sort of immigration enforcement at least or you really cease to have a nation, and you basically open the doors for insatability and an extremely shaky job market and economy to follow
- Mandated jobs for ALL by the government - Sounds nice in theory but I just don't see how it's feasable with the massive population of the US.
- Eliminate the electoral college - In such a massive country like the US in terms of both land mass and population, this would be a restrictive, backwards, and unjust system. You need fair representation of all 50 states, otherwise you essentially have the highly populated NY and LA dictating every election in the US from here on out, with the power of those in middle America entirely diminished to irrelevancy.

If she ditched those positions and just focused more on the working class, universal health care, her green policies, anti-war stances, etc, I think she'd have a real shot (at least in 2024 when she's actually able to run), she'd certainly have my support.

I totally agree, some of her policies have faults, but so does every candidate really. I'd love to support her in 2024. Part of me worries however she is too progressive for our nation so soon. I would love to be wrong, and would get behind a presidential run for her. For 2020 however I can very well see Warren/Harris/Sanders/Biden as the top contenders. With possibly any mix of those being running mates.