Beto O'Rourke's voting record is more conservative than the average Democrat's

[Lazy Daisy]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record



But the facts are the facts.

O’Rourke (and Klobuchar) have voting records that are more conservative than the average Democrat’s, while Harris and Booker and Gillibrand and Warren and Sanders are more progressive than the average Democrat. So if you’re looking for someone with a progressive voting record, you have a bunch of choices. And if you’re looking for someone with a less progressive voting record, you also have a couple of choices. And if you think voting records aren’t very important or informative, then you’re welcome to ignore all this.

But the reality is that O’Rourke has a record that’s somewhat more conservative than that of most of his colleagues on Capitol Hill, and pointing that out isn’t a nefarious conspiracy.




Posting this as a response to another thread that has devolved into "look who wrote it, a Sanders fan". Just because you don't like who wrote a piece, it doesn't change the facts. Fact is Beto O'Rourke isn't as progressive as some may think.

[elleng]

1. More 'conservative,' or more 'moderate?'

IMO 'conservative' is a highly misused term.

[TwilightZone]

32. More conservative would be accurate.

More conservative doesn't necessarily mean conservative. In this case, it just means more conservative than the average Democrat.

The subheading also puts it in perspective: "It’s about what you’d expect from someone running a statewide campaign in Texas."

Of course, that doesn't stop people from equating the two. Down thread, someone is claiming Joe Biden is a conservative, which is nonsense.

[elleng]

35. Thanks.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I. Don't. Care. I've said this before and I'll say it again:

I care only about whether he, or any other candidate, can beat Trump. Trump is an existential threat and he has to be gotten rid of or we're screwed. Quibbling over whether a candidate checks all the proper progressive boxes is nothing but narcissistic ideological navel-gazing right now, and it will be useless if not downright destructive. I will support the candidate who can pants Trump, steal his lunch money and stuff him in his locker. If that's Beto, great. If it's Harris or Warren or Biden or Sanders or Booker or... or... that's great, too. Fuck ideology. We can worry about that after we reclaim the White House.

[dalton99a]

7. +1. America can't afford another four years of the abomination

Neither can our planet

[Lazy Daisy]

10. Understood

Beto did very well when going up against Ted Cruz, but he still lost. Ted Cruz, one of the most hated Republicans (even by his peers) still won the election. Do you think he'll fair well against Trump? I don't think so.

So, this information is important. Seeing his record and knowing he's conservative (or moderate if you prefer) will not fire up a huge block of Dem voters. Those of us who will GOTV crawling over broken glass won't be enough to get him to the Oval Office. He needs to inspire those who still feel "both parties are the same" and show them the HUGE difference.

All of us here will gladly vote for whomever is the nominee. The point is to choose the person who will win the general.
Beto isn't the one.

[Garrett78]

11. Winning a statewide race in Texas is not the same as winning 270+ electoral votes.

We aren't counting on Texas. I think Harris is our best option, but O'Rourke is certainly capable of winning.

[Bradshaw3]

15. Winning a statewide race in California is definitely not the same as winning the electoral college

Of the main candidates Harris is the least likely to do that. A Californian with the most liberal voting record in the senate who is basically running a campaign appealing to POC will be the easiest for the repubs to beat.

[Garrett78]

20. Harris would bring out the Obama coalition that got that liberal from Chicago 365 electoral votes.

Harris puts NC, GA, FL and AZ in play. Harris is incredibly charismatic and will have broad appeal. But turning out the base is key; not flipping Trump voters.

A recent report on favorability ratings showed that Harris is about the only candidate whose favorability rating is actually on the rise.

As for PA, MI and WI, we dominated those states from 1992 to 2012 and made gains in those states in 2018. 2016 was highly unusual with factors at play that won't be at play in 2020 (such as the fact that we had 2 historically unpopular candidates, Comey's last minute announcement, the newness of Trump, etc.). Harris can win all 3 of those states.

Anyway, my point was that Beto losing to Cruz in Texas doesn't mean he would lose a race for president, because we obviously don't need Texas to win the White House.

[BlueWI]

53. We're determined to turn WI blue again in 2020.

Although I do think that candidates should take seriously the cultural and regional differences in our party. These differences have implications for the kind of advertising and issue positions that are most prominent in the campaign.

Inslee, Beto, Biden, Kloubuchar, and probably Sanders and Booker would be very solid in Wisconsin. Harris would need to target the state more with her campaign efforts to win here, IMO, but I think she'd be strong in MI and PA.

The rural/urban differences in the states needs to be accounted for by campaigns. There are votes to win, but it would help to focus on the blue islands in the majority rural areas, using your surrogates or a well designed strategy.

Or vote for an Inslee-Harris or Inslee-Kloubuchar ticket and proceed to dominate the election map AND be on point for the biggest issue of our era - climate change.

[Bradshaw3]

64. Unfortunately Harris is not Obama

And it's wrong to compare the two's election prospects. Obama ran as a uniter who could appeal to the WWC, and did so. That is not how Harris is running in the primary and a shift in the general would be dubious. Millions who voted for Obama later voted for tRump - the data all shows that.

The turnout the base mantra is popular with Harris supporters but there is nothing in the numbers to suggest that would be enough to win back the upper midwest. What won in 2018 for the Dems was white college educated women. Harris has appeal with segments of the Democratic party; that does not necessarily translate to the general election. The broad appeal you claim is wishful thinking for the general at this point. A Democrat needs to not just win but win by enough to counteract the same dirty tricks the repubs used in 2016. I don't see Harris having that ability, or putting those states you mentioned in play; maybe NC but definitely not AZ. I live here, know its politics and can tell you that a Californian with the most liberal voting record in the senate will NOT win this state. She could even cost Kelly the senate seat held by McSally

[Garrett78]

65. About those Obama voters who voted for Trump:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/why-did-some-white-obama-voters-for-trump.amp

Harris will appeal to plenty of white folks. No Democrat is going to win a majority of the white vote but Harris would win enough. And we'd see greater turnout among POC and young people than we saw in 2016, which is what's most crucial. We aren't flipping any Trump voters who haven't already abandoned him, and any attempt to do so would alienate the base. This will be a base election.

[Bradshaw3]

69. Nothing posted here disputes what I wrote

The article doesn't back up your claims. The rest is just statements like Harris "will win enough" white voters without any previous voting data whatsoever to prove that claim. As I wrote earlier, a Harris candidacy run with an emphasis on being a female POC would be trump's greatest wish and gin up his base. We simply won't win if the election plays out as a black vs. white dynamic. Obama made sure he didn't run that way. Harris running as that candidate in the primary will be believably painted that way in the general. Again in AZ, there was an unabashed liberal POC running for governor and he got creamed.

No, the election isn't about the base. It is - and will be about winning WI, MI and PA. The turnout argument doesn't work there because there was a huge emphasis on turnout in PA with the Obamas making repeated trips to urban areas and it wasn't enough. There was a huge GOTV in GA and FL in 2018 for black candidates - and they lost. People can talk about voter suppression, meddling, etc. but it doesn't change the fact there will be those factors again in 2020.

We've heard for years about young people votign or POC voting in increased numbers will usher in a new era but there is nothing to indicate that will be true in 2020. In fact, white college educated women made the difference in 2018. We can't base our choice for nominee on wishes that don't confront electoral realities in 2020. It's just too important to get him out of office and save our democracy.

[Garrett78]

70. You're not backing up your assertions with facts.

POC and young people turned out in larger numbers for Democrats in 2008 than in 2016, and 3rd party voting was greater in 2016 (for reasons already mentioned). Harris, again, is incredibly charismatic and the more people get to know her the more her favorability score goes up (unlike pretty much every other person running). Those are all facts. Facts that give reason to believe Harris will produce greater turnout among key constituencies than Clinton did.

Way too much analysis is being based on 2016, which was nothing like any other election we've ever had.

As for the article I posted, the point is that those people did not vote for Trump due to economic anxiety...and those people who voted for Trump are not coming back no matter who our nominee is. Anyone who hasn't abandoned him by now is not going to abandon him because of who we choose as our nominee.

I don't know why you think white college educated women wouldn't support Harris in large numbers. What basis do you have for believing that?

And Harris isn't running nor will she run "with an emphasis on being a female POC." That statement is absurd and offensive.

[Bradshaw3]

71. Actually you are the one not backing up your claims

Again, just making statements with no links to prove what you claim shows a lack of credibility to them. There are no links here and the article you cited does not back up your claims. Just because people were not voting on econimic anxiety doesn't dispute that there were millions of Obama-tRump voters. In elections where it comes down to a few votes we need everyone and your blanket statement about all tRump voters is not just wrong it's dangerous. As one commentator put it, to follow your logic is electoral malpractice.

Your statement that Harris is incredibly charasmatic is just your opinion, even though you state it as a fact. Just because you really like someone does not mean that swing voters in critical states do and also it is dangerously naive. Harris is popular with POC and that is who she is making a push for in the primary, which is a smart and obvious strategy. That seems to be ok except when it is pointed out by someone else who is questioning her electability based on that strategy. Then of course you resort to being offended because you haven't been able to refute the flaws pointed out here.

[Lazy Daisy]

17. I agree

Kamala is a strong candidate, Beto not so much.

[Garrett78]

21. I think Beto is a strong candidate, too.

Him losing a race in Texas doesn't mean he isn't a strong candidate for president.

[George II]

54. Exactly, and winning a statewide election in Vermont, with a 95% Caucasian electorate....

....is not like winning a statewide election in 40+ states or winning the electoral college.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. If Dem voters care about defeating Trump they won't care about

self-defeating demands for ideological purity. Regardless of whether a particular candidate is alleged by somebody, for their own purposes, to be centrist or conservative or moderate or progressive or socialist or anything the fuck else, what really matters is that they can defeat Trump. Nothing else. Though I supported Bernie in the 2016 primaries it will almost certainly be someone else this time. Maybe Harris, maybe Beto, maybe Biden, maybe Booker, I don't know yet. But it will be somebody who can get past the ideological bullshit that makes Dems fight among themselves and provokes the ratf*cking of other Democrats.

[Lazy Daisy]

14. You're failing to acknowledge

It's not just DEM VOTERS, it's also voters who would vote for Democrats. And those who only vote because they got fired up won't get fired up for Beto.

You can yell from the rooftops that if Democrats want to get rid of Trump they'll do this or that. But Presidential elections don't come down to D's or R's it comes down to those who don't pay attention for 3 1/2 yrs at a time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Obviously you think Bernie can do that.

We can agree to disagree.

[Lazy Daisy]

18. Fair enough

[scheming daemons]

57. Beto is much more likely to beat Trump than most of our candidates

And especially Sanders.

[peggysue2]

22. x1000!

The only thing that matters in 2020 is . . . winning, ridding ourselves of the Trumpster. I don't give a damn where any of our candidates register on the Democratic political scale. If at the end of this preprimary/primary season, a single candidate stands head and shoulders in the winning department, then that's the candidate for me. Because Trump and his odious enablers are an existential threat. And every single Democratic candidate is better than The Donald or the continuation of a destructive, corrupt Administration. Today, the Trumpster sent a chilling warning to the American people: if he's voted out or impeached, his people will wreak havoc, violence on those responsible.

Constitutional crisis, anyone? WTF.

This. Has. To. Stop.

This is not the time for purity politics because if Trump is reelected? You can kiss everything good-bye. Including the planet we live on.

[RandySF]

3. I think someone in the primary field feels threatened.

[redstateblues]

4. Ahh- the whiff of fear from Bernie world

[Blue_true]

12. No, just the regular take down their opponent through insinuation. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. It would seem that way,

and I don't like it. I'm undecided about whom I'm supporting, but after some of the stuff I've seen the last couple of days I've decided that Bernie will not be one of them.

[melman]

24. Talking about a candidate's record isn't a take down

[Blue_true]

29. When the "talk" are lies then it is a takedown.

We are back to the 2016 posting of inaccurate that was purposely or unknowingly posted. We should expect better. The goal should be to beat Trump, not attack democrats with lies.

[Lazy Daisy]

33. What "lies" are in my OP?

I posted this in response to another thread that claimed Sanders supporters were spreading lies about Beto being more conservative/moderate/centrist (which ever adjective you prefer) than people believe him to be.

It's not lies. He's more in line with Joe Biden than Sanders, Harris, Warren, etc.

For those of us who are to the left in policy, this is important.

[Blue_true]

36. The claim that Beto didn't support a living wage.

The claim that he voted against a universal healthcare bill when in fact he was a cospobdor. Those things were untrue. I am not saying that you made the post because frankly I have not read many of your posts, not that I won't, it is just that I haven't at this time.

[Lazy Daisy]

38. Did you read this OP?

Did you read my comment? Again, this OP is in response to other threads saying it's Bernie supporters saying Beto is conservative so it's not true. It is true, he's not as progressive as many of our top candidates. It's not a "purity" thing, it's a what POLICIES do you support and what candidates support those same POLICIES.

All across the country progressive policies are catching fire, even in red states people are tuning in to healthcare, wages, education. Look at all the teacher strikes in red states that are being supported BY Republican voters. People have had enough. Republican lies are being held to the light.

Having a candidate who doesn't excite people with policy that will improve their lives won't get us a win. People who don't know if tomorrow is going to just suck or will it REALLY suck don't want to hear "I'm a person who can reach across the aisle". They want to know what is going to be done to make tomorrow not suck.

[Blue_true]

67. Beto's ACTUAL record is Congress was MORE progressive that Bernie's record when both were in the

House. Look up the comparison, it is on line. Vote by vote of key issues for democrats, Beto voted more progressive AND he voted with the democratic caucus more. I truly don't know what your definition of more progressive is, maybe it is those who talk a good game.

[Lazy Daisy]

68. your innuendo about me aside

DID YOU READ THIS OP? Are you saying the writer has false information?
Are you saying the site the writer uses to get their info is false?

NO, you're making a statement that I'm easily gotten by a good talking game.

[melman]

37. But that's not what's happening

What's happening is a concerted effort to make any discussion of substance about certain candidates into an "attack"


It's very transparent.

[George II]

55. What's your take on posts like this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=22101

"Beto voted against Medicare for all and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage"

Then to support that we see that the graphics represent Democrats who "CO-SPONSORED" the bills and those that didn't co-sponsor are described as "NOT SUPPORTING"!

The fact is that O'Rourke never voted against either nor was he a "non-supporter". As we all know, many legislators support and vote for bills that they don't co-sponsor.

Do you find this a dishonest representation of O'Rourke's "voting record"? Is it not truly an attack rather than a substantive discussion of his voting record?

[melman]

60. Does Beto support Medicare-for-all?

No one seems to know. Why is that?

[George II]

61. That's not the point, you said:

"But that's not what's happening....What's happening is a concerted effort to make any discussion of substance about certain candidates into an "attack".....It's very transparent."

Is not the post that I provided an "attack" rather than "discussion of substance about certain candidates"? Why not address that and then we can move on to O'Rourke's position on Medicare for All. Fair?

[melman]

62. Yeah it actually is the point

Issues matter. At least they do to some people.


And btw, endlessly parsing message board posts is just another way of avoiding "discussion of substance about certain candidates"

[George II]

63. Well if you're not going to address the problem that you originally responded to....

....there's no sense going on.

I can only conclude that you're perfectly fine with the blatant misrepresentations of O'Rourke's voting record as presented by others.

Thankfully many others here have been able to see through those misrepresentations for what they really are.

[Lazy Daisy]

31. Thank you

Beto has just announced. Information is going to be coming out. If we're going to choose who to support, information is needed.

I find it disgustingly offensive that there can be post after post of negative garbage about Bernie, but post ANYTHING about ANYBODY else and woowee, you're labeled as a problem.

I have no problem with actually vetting Bernie but most posts aren't vetting they're vitriolic garbage.

[George II]

51. Misrepresenting it is.

[Freethinker65]

5. Amazing! Beto represented his constituents? He did the job he was elected to do.

[workinclasszero]

6. If Joe jumps in

that will be another conservative choice.

I assume anyway because I have no idea if he backs any progressive issues like Medicare for all, 15 dollar living wage, the green new deal etc.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. And I also don't care about that. I care about whether he can beat Trump.

[peggysue2]

25. Yes!

Because none, absolutely none of those policies will see the light of day under another Trumpster Administration.

Stop with the BS purity police. The country is fighting for its survival. We have a chance to turn things around by WINNING in 2020. Not whining but WINNING.

That's the only thing that matters.

[workinclasszero]

30. Yeah I realize lots of comfortable people

don’t give a damn about people who are struggling to survive in this country.

Bernie does and that’s why I’m backing him.

He can beat Trump and will. My opinion is just as valid as yours.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. So only clueless, insensitive, wealthy folks fail to support Bernie?

[George II]

47. What's that supposed to mean? I'm not...

... clueless, insensitive, or wealthy and I support a different candidate.

[TexasTowelie]

46. ,

;

[handmade34]

50. I am not wealthy (nor comfortable)

and I have had interactions with Bernie and his people... Bernie will not win if he is the candidate and it is a mistake to allow him to run as a Democrat... my opinion but it is based on good information and good intuition

[TwilightZone]

28. "conservative" lol

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Calling Joe Biden conservative is laughable.



http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

[George II]

48. Joe Biden is a conservative?

[MrsCoffee]

52. You know what happens when you assume...

[David__77]

9. I'd like to hear what he proposes in terms of policy.

Voting record is one thing, specific proposals are another.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. Beto is my first choice and Klobuchar second

I didn't look at voting records. I have lived in swing states Nevada and Florida and understand what people prioritize and how they vote. We can be wonderfully pure and throw away one winnable race after another, like Andrew Gillum instead of Gwen Graham last year in Florida. I'm not going to let that go because it is perfectly representative of what we might be stupid enough to accomplish in 2020.

The Ted Cruz reference is like a litmus test of flunking basic politics. Every time I see that loss mentioned I'm wondering...do they really want to depict themselves that way? Ted Cruz had a 50-48 positive approval rating in that 2018 Texas exit poll. He's running in a midterm in a state with not only 43-44% self-identified conservatives, but 35% who list themselves as extreme conservatives.

Only a dolt thinks Beto should have won that race, or it is a stain against him. I would bet over 7% margin of defeat if any of our other presidential candidates had faced Cruz in 2018. I might lose one or two narrowly, but that is hardly a certainty. The majority would be double digit defeats.

[Florida Bull]

58. To be fair,

I don’t think Gwen Graham would have beat Ron DeSantis either. Bill Nelson was an incumbent and at least a Moderate, if not Centrist. And, he lost by a very similar number of votes. I like Bill Nelson and Gwen Graham, by the way.

I also do not think many Republican-leaning “swing” voters really care how moderate the Democrat is, they will still vote for their party. Adam Putnam could have run as the Democrat with his same platform, and I am not sure many Republican-leaning voters would have voted for the Democratic nominee. But, fewer Democrats probably would have voted. There would have been less enthusiastism.

The problems for Democrats are voter suppression and low turnout. Katherine Harris purged more Black voters than the official count George W. Bush won by in 2000.

The Republicans in Florida are well-organized and consistently turnout. Political operatives probably make sure to get every vote they can in the nursing homes. There is even a significantly sized city in Florida for retired voters, the Villages. And, there are many retirement communities. And, they will probably always vote Conservative Republican in the general elections, anyway.

Democrats need to become better organized, and vote more consistently.

Other factors in the 2018 losses were the format of the ballot in Broward County, and ballots in the Broward County post office remaining uncounted due to the pro-Trump bomb-maker.

I am not saying Moderate Democrat is a bad strategy. I think it is acceptable, and can win, including in Florida. I just do not believe a solid but not Far-Left Liberal like Andrew Gillum is any worse as a nominee. And, I think he endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016.

I do not see conclusive evidence a solid Liberal is any less likely to win a general election in Florida, than somebody more moderate.

[forklift]

26. Beto is making us have a meltdown thread #18

[Amimnoch]

34. ROFL really!

Responding to a failing thread by creating a second referencing the first.



Almost as funny as the ones trying to claim that BS isn’t scared as hell entry.

[TwilightZone]

27. As the article notes, it's about what you'd expect from someone running a statewide campaign in TX.

No one is claiming that he's a diehard progressive. Similarly, his record is not the right-wing minefield that some are describing.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

39. Some people say

Beto is into books and reading stuff...

[Lazy Daisy]

40. Yep

I've heard he's got a HUGE library.
Wonder if he has any of my fav authors

[jcgoldie]

41. More BS about Beto

Seems almost all of the BS comes from a common source... what a surprise.

[Sugarcoated]

42. Love Beto

I am thrilled!

[Hortensis]

44. "O'Rourke is quite a bit more liberal than the most conservative Democrats.

All that said, O’Rourke basically has the voting record of someone capable of threading the needle between grassroots enthusiasm and swing voter acceptability that you would need to mount a credible statewide campaign in Texas."

Let's face it. Senators, and those running for the senate, must appeal to majorities of entire states and virtually always have to vote more conservative. IF they want to be elected and able to do some good. If he were from MA, his record would be more liberal.

[George II]

49. Here we go!!

[SWBTATTReg]

56. IMHO, it's still way too early to decide who the democratic presidential candidate will ...

be/should be at this time.

However, from seeing multiple trends on DU, etc., the gloves are coming off and facts and so forth about each candidate are being provided (voting record, likes and dislikes, conservative or not, etc.). This is healthy and part of the election process. You just have to decide what's important to you, for example, some candidates may not have a voting record that you can compare with others, so one must obtain other qualifying factors to guide them. Most candidates I think have websites or blogs that describe themselves and their feelings on issues.

Facts and one's past may be good guides, but I think that one of the overall requirements is how these (VP too) people/nominees respond to issues and events (such as rump running off his mouth again). Do they have the street smarts to handle rump's bullying? Can they turn rump's pathetic and childish efforts to belittle others totally around to effectively, quickly, and intelligently shut down this piece of garbage?

As we have all clearly seen, running government requires a whole set of skills and talents that our so called president is sorely lacking (unless it comes to scamming others). What really encourages me now is the sheer number of qualified candidates that have appeared on stage. The number of qualified people amazes me and has given me tons of feeling good about the future. Think of the energy in the room if all of these people are let loose against rump and his ilk/cronies? And I don't think all of the candidates have declared yet...we probably have more in the wings that haven't come forth yet, perhaps waiting to see how the 'market' handles the available goods out there now (the existing democratic presidential candidates)...exciting!

[Florida Bull]

59. One thing I want to emphasize,

At least for now, any and every Democratic candidate can beat Trump. And, any and every Democratic candidate can lose to Trump, with bad campaigning and unfavorable media coverage. The media really hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances starting in 2015, with the “Liberal media” New York Times article criticizing her for using a private email. Of course, it is OK when Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Ivanka Trump do it.

There are many things that can change before October 2020, and it is still early in the primary process. I think the evaluation of electability is largely speculative, although the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) is obviously better than Trump and should win with the right strategy and enough effort.

I also think the Democratic nominee needs to fight against racist voter suppression. I think past nominees were too forgiving of voter suppression, which may have caused them to lose. It needs to be challenged in the courts. And, if the courts rule in favor of voter suppression, then use that to motivate voters.

[leftofcool]

66. I don't care one fuck if he is a bit more conservative. He's a Democrat, not a socialist.