Green Party's David Cobb wins 2008 Texas Senate seat?

cop_idcobb_08-09-2004_KV285EK.jpg


2004 Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb with Jean Rickman from Spokane, Washington.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2004/aug/09/green-partys-candidate-makes-pitch/

=============

No, the fellow's not going to win the presidency in 2004. But I'm intrigued by an alternate timeline in which he wins a Texas Senate seat. And he basically becomes another progressive Senator somewhat similar to Bernie Sanders, yes, from the generally very conservative state of Texas.
 
Liberalism has baggage. For a lot of people, the very word 'liberal' reminds people of one or two things they really don't like.

The Green Party is a fresh start. In addition, I remember being very pleasantly surprised when I found out that the Green Party also talked about populist economics, small d democracy, etc. That is, that it had more on it's plate than just environmental protection.
 
Last edited:
Kay Bailey Hutchinson ran for re-election as Texas Senator in 2006 and won with 62% of the vote. Let's say Cobb decides she's too tough an opponent and holds back.

John Cornyn ran for re-election in 2008 and won with 55%. His opponent was Rick Noriega who got 43% of the vote. Yes, I think Rick was probably helped by the fact that fellow Texas Hispanic citizens would tend to view his favorable, at least enough to pay attention to what he was saying. And this is an advantage that DC David Cobb won't have.
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2008/texas/senate/#.WU7i6WaM2Uk
 
Last edited:
Let's say DC wins both the Democratic and Green party nominations in 2008.

First question, is this kind of fusion ticket legal in Texas? If it's not, clearly the Democratic nomination is the more valuable one!
 
No, the fellow's not going to win the presidency in 2004. But I'm intrigued by an alternate timeline in which he wins a Texas Senate seat.

Well, he's not going to win the Texas Senate seat, either--even in the unlikely event that (like Sanders) he has the support of the state's Democrats. In 2008, Cornyn won in Texas by 54.8-42.8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas,_2008 McCain carried the state by 55.39-46.63. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2008 The candidates to the left of Obama did very poorly: Ralph Nader, running as an Independent got 5,751 votes. The Green candidate, Cynthia McKinney got 909 votes or 0.01%. So if Cobb gets all of Obama's votes (which he definitely will not) and all of McKinney's 909 votes and all of Ralph Nader's 5,751 votes in Texas in 2008--he will still lose to Cornyn in a landslide.

BTW, if we're talking about Sanders, he lost the Texas Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 65.19%-33.19%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Democratic_primary,_2016
 
Last edited:
John Cornyn is the fellow who's the Texas Republican and incumbent and who won re-election in 2008 with 55%.

13348646%20-%20SENATE%20DEBATE%20-%2010_09_2008.jpg
 
Last edited:
Even Californians won't vote for Greens. . .
Ah, it is a challenge, isn't it? But then I like challenges. :)

Basically, my response is that if Texas can elect a progressive like Ralph Yarborough in a special election in 1957, and then re-elected him in '58, and '64, yes, during the Civil Rights era, although perhaps him losing in '70 can be viewed as a belated punishment,

. . . then perhaps Texas can find ways to elect other progressives.
 
Ah, it is a challenge, isn't it? But then I like challenges. :)

Basically, my response is that if Texas can elect a progressive like Ralph Yarborough in a special election in 1957, and then re-elected him in '58, and '64, yes, during the Civil Rights era, although perhaps him losing in '70 can be viewed as a belated punishment,

. . . then perhaps Texas can find ways to elect other progressives.
Yarborough was a nominee of a major party and was much less left-wing then Cobb.
 
Last edited:
Yarborough was a Nominee of a major party and was much less left-wing then Cobb.
in this ATL, ol' Dave Cobb wins both the Democratic and Green nominations, and he freely says the Democratic one is the far more valuable one.

Not sure DC is all that left-wing. If he is, he tacks more to the center.
 
David Cobb: ' . . . I will, however, in swing states, tell voters "vote your conscience". If your conscience says you cannot vote for the corporatists and mill trysts like John Kerry, invest your vote in the Green Party, which is the growing, vibrant party for the long-term future of the progressive movement independent this country. If a progressive voter in a swing state you are genuinely terrified of four more years of George Bush, then I understand why you may hold your nose and vote against Bush, not for Kerry, but against Bush and if you do that and if you feel like you are having to do that, then clearly you should be in the Green Party, such a voter should vote Green, down ticket and work with the Greens to institute instant run-off voting so we don’t have to vote against what we hate instead of for what we want. . . '

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/23/to_nader_or_not_to_nader
Not such a bad position. It's clear he's put some thought into it.

And, DC is a free-wheeler. He talks frankly, and that's appealing.
 
Okay, here's a scenario:

In a fluke result, Cobb defeats Barbara Ann Radnofsky in the 2006 Senate Democratic primaries. Meanwhile, Hutchison decides to challenge Perry for the Governor's mansion, and her handpicked successor Florence Shapiro goes down fighting radio host Dan Patrick. Some moderate Republican (Jeff Wentworth? Carole Keeton Strayhorn's eyes were pretty clearly fixed on Perry, but otherwise she'd be good) runs against him as an independent. Cobb runs a moderate campaign and turns Patrick's charges of "extremism" against him. He wins by something like 40-39-21, with the moderate picking up the rear.

...Yeah, I still don't really buy it.
 
Liberalism has baggage. For a lot of people, the very word 'liberal' reminds people of one or two things they really don't like.

The Green Party is a fresh start. In addition, I remember being very pleasantly surprised when I found out that the Green Party also talked about populist economics, small d democracy, etc. That is, that it had more on it's plate than just environmental protection.

The Green Party has not elected a single member of the US House of Representatives, let alone the Senate. At a time of great dissatisfaction with the major party candidates, it could only get 1.07% of the vote for its presidential candidate in 2016. The best that it ever did in a congressional election AFAIK was Carol Miller's showing in NM-03 in 1997. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/20/spotlight/rothenberg/ But that was a flukish special election; Miller dropped to 3.5% in the next general election.
 
. . . At a time of great dissatisfaction with the major party candidates, . . .
That's part of what I'm playing off of.

The Green Party did split in 2004 between DC David Cobb and Ralph Nader. Both were on the ballot in some states. Many Green Party activists found DC too moderate (I know, faint praise, go ahead and laugh).

Think there is room for DC to launch his own fresh version of popularism.
 
And does it matter to everyone's answers that if we took surveys:

1) Should the United States have single-payer health care like Canada?

2) Do you believe corporations currently have too much power in America?

The answers among the general public are surprisingly progressive, even in a red state like Texas.
 
Okay, here's a scenario:

In a fluke result, Cobb defeats Barbara Ann Radnofsky in the 2006 Senate Democratic primaries. Meanwhile, Hutchison decides to challenge Perry for the Governor's mansion, and her handpicked successor Florence Shapiro goes down fighting radio host Dan Patrick. Some moderate Republican (Jeff Wentworth? Carole Keeton Strayhorn's eyes were pretty clearly fixed on Perry, but otherwise she'd be good) runs against him as an independent. Cobb runs a moderate campaign and turns Patrick's charges of "extremism" against him. He wins by something like 40-39-21, with the moderate picking up the rear.

...Yeah, I still don't really buy it.

Kinky Friedman runs an independent campaign. A disgruntled, well funded tea party type mounts a third party bid against Cornyn and bashes him nonstop for being a RINO.. The D candidate doesn't know there's a hot mic nearby and makes very ugly, disparaging remarks about Catholics. The Hispanic vote goes to Cobb as a result, with the hipster/SJW vote staying with the Democrat. Friedman siphons off the libertarian and middle finger to the establishment vote.

Cobb 28, Cornyn 26, Tea Party 24, Democrat 14, Friedman 9 (adds up to 101 due to rounding). That works out to 42% for the two candidates on the left which is about right. Republicans are a combined 50%, slightly worse than Cornyn's 55% in OTL. Plausible with the ad wars between the two conservatives, plus assuming about half of Kinky's vote came at their expense and half from people who would have abstained.
 
Top