Ranting On...Beto O'Rourke & the Texas Senate Race

Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX)

In the past few days, I have gotten into a large number of fights on political Twitter, as well as in the comments section of my favorite website over a specific Senate race that is heating up in Texas.  I have written at length about the need for Stacey Abrams to run for the Senate in Georgia (she didn't) or for John Hickenlooper to skip the Senate race as he's not needed (so far he's listening) or for Steve Bullock to run for the Montana Senate race rather than for POTUS because that's where he's needed (don't have an article to link for this, but it's all over the blog, and he still hasn't listened yet).  However, there's a fourth contest that I have talked about a bit, and now just want to dive into because it is the stuff that Twitter quarrels are made of in recent weeks, and got me my first ever block on the platform: the Texas Senate race, and whether or not Beto O'Rourke should get into the contest.  I want to talk through why there are so many passions on both sides of this decision, and then to get into why O'Rourke is needed in the Texas Senate race, even if it makes me a few enemies.

For starters, let's give an overview of the Texas Senate race, which will feature Sen. John Cornyn (R) a conservative Republican who is attempting to win a fourth term in the US Senate.  Cornyn has never really struggled to win reelection in the Lone Star State (his 2014 election he took by almost 30-points), and considering the place Texas holds in Republican hearts, essentially the "Red California" in terms of being the anchor in an electoral college battle, it's been hard to imagine Cornyn losing this race.  However, in 2018 the Democrats nearly did something they haven't done since 1988-win a Senate seat from Texas.  Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a passionate speaker with a pretty progressive voting record, managed to ride the Senate race almost to the finish line, losing to Ted Cruz by less than 3-points.  This was a landmark moment in Texas, as O'Rourke started his race easily dismissed, someone who was trying for a quixotic bid that was going to end in disaster.  Instead, O'Rourke became a supernova, and quickly graduated to the upper echelons of presidential politics.  It looked, for at least a bit there, like we were witnessing Barack Obama circa 2004.

But that hasn't been the case.  While O'Rourke has run a respectable presidential race, he has completely failed to catch fire in the contest in 2020.  This is likely because the Democrats have moved left on a national level in a way O'Rourke has not (look at the power of Elizabeth Warren), or how another gifted upstart has stolen some of his thunder (Pete Buttigieg), and a bit because O'Rourke, without the actual victory of a Senate race (which Obama had) doesn't seem able to dethrone Joe Biden (aka the "Hillary '08" candidate of this field).  O'Rourke has made it to the third debate, but as we illustrated Sunday, he is not going to be elected president next year.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

What he could be, though, is a future president, but only if he decides to run for the Senate against Cornyn.  Polls have shown them tied (no other Democrat comes close to beating Cornyn), and have shown him actually beating Trump in the Lone Star State.  That is a huge deal, and there are definitely indications that Texas' internals for the GOP are rough.  In the past few weeks, three swing-district House Republicans (Pete Olson, Will Hurd, & Kenny Marchant) have headed for the doors, and rumors persist that a fourth (Mike McCaul) might do the same rather than having to face a Democrat in the 2020 environment where O'Rourke could actually win Texas.  As a US Senator from Texas who isn't even fifty yet, O'Rourke would remain a national figure, and almost certainly would be relevant in 2024 or 2028 as a presidential candidate, so his hopes of the White House would get better if he ran here, rather than worse.  All-in-all, it seems like only a fool would turn down such an opportunity, and I am not a fool (and am hoping that Beto O'Rourke isn't either).

O'Rourke's fans and detractors get angry about the suggestion that his place is in the Senate race rather than the presidential primaries, and their complaint fall into one of three camps: 1) Beto should be president, not a senator, 2) Beto already declined the race & we should respect his decision and 3) there are already competent Democrats running for Senate, so it's offensive to suggest that Beto should be given priority over these other figures who are already running.  I get where these criticisms are coming from, but want to address them as I don't think they're sufficient enough to give up on such a golden opportunity.

The first is the easiest to counter-Beto O'Rourke is not going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020.  For all of the good press that he'll receive from his recent "what the fuck?" comments in regards to President Trump's racism (basically saying-"duh, of course he's racist"), that probably won't matter much in terms of actual movement in the Democratic race, and it's likely it won't impact his numbers outside of Texas for the better.  Saying O'Rourke should be president and he shouldn't explore other options, and countering that the only acceptable answer is to endorse him for president is ignoring reality.  The poll numbers clearly indicate that O'Rourke is not doing well enough in early states or nationally to warrant hope that he'll be the nominee.  While there is "always hope," every major presidential candidate was polling significantly better than O'Rourke is nationally right now at this point in the race (who ultimately won the nomination).  Even John McCain, who is kind of the poster boy for candidates who came from behind and won the nomination, was performing significantly better at this point in 2008 (more in-line with someone like Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris in this contest) than O'Rourke is now.  O'Rourke has no historical avenue to winning the nomination, and he started the race with enough name recognition to be in a stronger position-people just didn't think it was his time.  If you want Beto for President, you need him to be president in 2024 or 2028 or beyond.  And if you want that, you need him to hold a Senate seat, as he won't be able to sustain this kind of momentum for another 4-8 years without holding a prominent public office.

The second reason is that "we should respect his wishes," which is the one that feels a bit novice to me.  Politicians are pressured into races all. the. time. that they initially declined to run for, and then were coaxed into the race.  Look at someone like Cory Gardner, who in 2014 declined the Colorado Senate race because he didn't think he was ready for it (read: "I didn't think I could win") and then eventually changed his mind (read "I found I could win...and I did").  Chuck Schumer practically teaches a class on how to convince governors that they should give a Senate bid a try even though they don't think they'll like it.  And O'Rourke hardly can say he doesn't want to be a senator-he ran for the body just last year!  O'Rourke likely wouldn't have run for POTUS in 2020 had he known that his poll numbers were strong enough to beat Cornyn, which they now appear to be, and would be the perfect candidate to be able to counter Cornyn by scooping up even more of the suburbs on a ticket where John Cornyn is going to struggle mightily in formerly Republican areas with Donald Trump on his ticket.  Politicians change their minds about running all the time-it's not mean or disrespectful to pressure them into the race where they're most needed.

Which brings us to the third point.  The Democrats in Texas do have a few candidates that are running, most notably 2018 House candidate MJ Hegar, former Rep. Chris Bell, Houston City Councilor Amanda Edwards, and State Sen. Royce West.  If it were 2004 and these were the Democrats' slate in Texas for a statewide office, I'd be fine with it, because these are the sorts of candidates who are there in case you come across a miracle, in case there's a "Roy Moore situation" and suddenly you need someone respectable like Doug Jones who can take advantage of a once-in-a-generation political situation.  But in 2020, there's a decent chance, with the right Senate candidate, that the Democrats could not just "perform respectably" (lose by say 8-10 points), but actually win the race.  And the only candidate who has proven that he can do that is Beto O'Rourke.

MJ Hegar (D-TX)

Before, you protest and stop reading, let me get this out.  In 2018, O'Rourke raised $80 million, an unheard of sum of money, and one that would need to be duplicated in 2020.  No other person in this race is going to do that save, maybe, someone like Julian Castro, and even that's a stretch.  This is partically because there's already a national press vacuum in a presidential race, so unlike the midterms (where Beto could command headlines), upstart candidates are going to struggle to grow their operations since the battle for the White House will get most of the attention.  Look at the highly-touted Hegar, who did raise a sizable $1 million last quarter...but John Cornyn took in $2.5 million.  That's the sort of comparison that gets you an 8-10 point loss.  O'Rourke has national name recognition, is polling well (he can beat Trump in some polls or tie Cornyn, something again that no other person can do), and already has an operation that nearly won in 2018 (one could make the argument he'd have done better if national Democrats didn't think he was just an impressive celebrity in the wrong state, but someone who actually had a chance to win).  This is still Texas-you still need a lot of stars to align in order for the actual win to happen for Team Blue.  O'Rourke is the only candidate in the race who starts with a distinct advantage, and I have to tell you, as someone who has watched politics for a long time, the idea that someone like Hegar or West or Bell or Edwards can also be a lightning-in-a-bottle, once-in-a-decade sort of candidate who comes out of nowhere and makes a "Likely R" race into a "Tossup" is a stretch.  O'Rourke is a known commodity, someone who the state already likes and is clearly someone who could win.  That should matter more than anyone's feelings, especially with what's at stake in this election.

You might protest that it's not fair, and it probably isn't, but politics is not fair, and winning "the right way" has costs that are unfathomably vast.  The Democrats have, by my estimation, five genuine opportunities to flip a Senate seat in 2020: Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, Maine, & Colorado.  O'Rourke being in this race moves it from a "Likely R" to a "Tossup," which gives the Democrats more leeway to ultimately net 3 seats (and they'll probably need four of those contests as Doug Jones will probably lose in Alabama).  Adding a sixth Senate seat (which only O'Rourke can do) to the list of contests that the Democrats can actually win is worth stepping over people's ambitions and moving heaven-and-earth to get toward.  Hegar, West, & Edwards can run a different day (Hegar, hopefully, would run in the 31st again and gain on the momentum she had in that race in a similar fashion to O'Rourke statewide), and honestly sexism doesn't have much to do with it-O'Rourke polls well, runs better, can raise more money, and starts out further in the lead...he's a better candidate to actually win in 2020 than Cornyn.  The same could be said for Steve Bullock in Montana, where he gives the Democrats a fighting chance to win a seat that otherwise would be "Safe R" or Stacey Abrams who would move the Georgia Senate race from "Likely R" to "Slight R"-candidates matter, and actually getting a tangible win matters.  It's not enough to just say "good show" when you could have actually won the contest, and Beto gives the Democrats a real chance to not just say "Texas is turning blue" but "Texas turned blue."

I get that this might not feel right to supporters of his presidential campaign, but would you prefer President O'Rourke & Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, or would you prefer President Harris & Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?  Honestly-it might be a question that sucks, but it's a real world question that you can't just scoff and say "I don't like my options," because it's what's in front of us.  Sometimes you have to suck it up and do what's best for the country.  Sen. Sherrod Brown got that when he turned down a White House run, as he knew that he was the only person who could hold his Senate seat, and it wasn't worth giving up his seat to Mitch McConnell even though he clearly wanted to run for president.  O'Rourke can be best used in the Senate race.  It's entirely possible that Cornyn or O'Rourke will be the difference between signed climate change legislation or gun control bills or student loan relief.  It might not feel right if you're a "Beto for President" or "Hegar for Senate" person, but you need to win the contests that you have to face, and it's going to be cold comfort that you got the race you wanted when Mitch McConnell holds up an appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement for three years to get another Brett Kavanaugh because Hegar was only able to hold Cornyn to an 8-point victory & Beto got fifth in Iowa.  Politics isn't fair, but it does still shape our fate.  Beto O'Rourke is the only Democrat who looks from any vantage point like he can win a Senate seat in Texas that could well decide the majority of the next Senate and with it hundreds of important pieces of legislation.  If you think all of the problems facing this country are worth risking on unknown candidates and a presidential campaign that feels like it's going nowhere, we have very different views on how important this election is.  Hopefully you (and Beto O'Rourke) agree with me that the Senate is just as worth having as the White House, and he needs to get in and win it so the presidential platform he has espoused has a fighting chance of actually becoming reality.