This is in response to the front page story on the Dem advance in TX. The comments in the article where veering off the strategic approach I wanted to take - hence this diary. My opinion is that the supposed Dem initiatives in TX is a head fake - a misdirection. We would do well to consider our relative strength in TX compared to other states.
Here is a list of EVs that were decided by less than 10% margin in the 2012 elections:
North Carolina, 2.04%
New Hampshire, 5.58%
Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, 7.16%
Maine's 2nd Congressional District, 8.56%
Note that of the 17 items in the list, 12 were won by Dems. This means that Dems are vulnerable in the purple states - a moderate rightward swing will shift enough EVs to the red column. They know that they have to defend these purple states that have been the vehicle for Obama's 2008 and 2012 victories. In contrast, TX was won with almost 16% margin - more than 1.2 million votes.
It is expensive to move the needle in a state the size of TX (especially to the extent of 1.2 million votes). Dems know this - and they want republican money tied into defending TX rather than going into offense in 12 vulnerable purple states they won in 2012. This is similar to OFA claiming that AZ is in play in 2012. It was not - but it took energy and money out of our offense in purple states.
TX is not in danger in 2016, 2020 and even in 2024 - it might get closer but will still not be in play. However, states like NC and AZ will not only be in play - but will turn purplish blue before that if we don't push back there. Not to mention, VA, FL, OH and CO.
So, my conclusion - we must fight back. But until we lose at least one statewide race in TX - we will be much better served by putting our money in (my order of preference for top 10 states, first one the biggest priority, declining afrer that): OH, NC, FL, VA, CO, AZ, PA, WI, GA, IA.
Data from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012