The Real Wendy Davis

[Jason K]

Thanks for the Star-Telegram article. That's a dependable source on most issues.

[rotor]

The risk for Abbott is that people will think that he is a shoe in for governor and not even bother to vote. He needs to make sure that there is a machine that gets people to the polls. The liberal establishment will be strong on getting everyone to the booth to hit the "all democrat" button. They would love to retake Texas. The single women don't care too much about the 2nd ammendment. The latest abortion bill is not going to help Abbott get their votes and they are crucial.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The risk for Abbott is that people will think that he is a shoe in for governor and not even bother to vote. He needs to make sure that there is a machine that gets people to the polls. The liberal establishment will be strong on getting everyone to the booth to hit the "all democrat" button. They would love to retake Texas.

[Beiruty]

Wendy who came from nowhere (politically) is now contender for a Texas Governor. A single digit lead for Abbott is scary. So not rest on our pre-assumptions that everything is Okay. Let is do our part and get Abbott in Texas's white mansion.

[bmwrdr]

Agreed, Greg Abbott is the choice in any means. Wendy Davis is already corrupted by the current people in D. C. and the state of Texas including the people of Texas are not on her priority list, never have been.

[Purplehood]

PLEASE take this into account. Kathy Glass, the libertarian candidate, may be a worthy person, but she has no chance of winning. None at all. The only thing she will do is take votes away from Abbot. Right now, she's not really registering in the polls, although she was showing 5% back in late October. Any points she gains will likely detract from Abbott rather than Davis.

What I hear you saying is, "don't vote for the candidate you think will do the best job, vote for the one who has the best chance of winning"

Are we any better off because we have consistently voted for R's or D's? Then why would we keep doing it?

The Democrats have successfully milked this tactic of supporting the "candidate who will do the best job" (short for the Independent/Libertarian/Insert your candidates party here) with the consistently successful hope of drawing off votes from the "candidate who has the best chance of winning" (insert Republican or Tea Party candidate name here).
It is how the Virigina election was won the other day.
Votes that may have gone to the Republican candidate were siphoned off to a third-party candidate who appears to have been financed in part by the DNC or a flunky. The Democrat Governor-elect pretty much won by the margin of votes that the third-party candidate pulled from voters who otherwise may have voted for the Republican.
I lean heavily Libertarian, but I NEVER throw my vote away on a third-party candidate. I try to vote for the candidate closest to my political leanings that is a mainstream candidate.

[SewTexas]

I read Paulken's Facebook page....the man seems to have no opinions of his own...it's all about how bad Abbott is, "Greg Abbott did this wrong" and "Greg Abbott did that wrong" and I just can't stand that. Occasionally, he'll post about how great he was when he did something in the Reagan administration, I think? (dude, that was a long time ago, what would you do now?) He has a Jr High girl mentality....no, he's not ready to be governor.

[psijac]

PLEASE take this into account. Kathy Glass, the libertarian candidate, may be a worthy person, but she has no chance of winning. None at all. The only thing she will do is take votes away from Abbot. Right now, she's not really registering in the polls, although she was showing 5% back in late October. Any points she gains will likely detract from Abbott rather than Davis.

What I hear you saying is, "don't vote for the candidate you think will do the best job, vote for the one who has the best chance of winning"

Are we any better off because we have consistently voted for R's or D's? Then why would we keep doing it?

The Democrats have successfully milked this tactic of supporting the "candidate who will do the best job" (short for the Independent/Libertarian/Insert your candidates party here) with the consistently successful hope of drawing off votes from the "candidate who has the best chance of winning" (insert Republican or Tea Party candidate name here).
It is how the Virigina election was won the other day.
Votes that may have gone to the Republican candidate were siphoned off to a third-party candidate who appears to have been financed in part by the DNC or a flunky. The Democrat Governor-elect pretty much won by the margin of votes that the third-party candidate pulled from voters who otherwise may have voted for the Republican.
I lean heavily Libertarian, but I NEVER throw my vote away on a third-party candidate. I try[googlevideo][/googlevideo] to vote for the candidate closest to my political leanings that is a mainstream candidate.

That is one interpretation of events. If everyone one who was eligible to vote but chose to stay home in 2012 voted for For anyone else, then that person would be president. Its possible that the 7% never would have rolled out of bed if there wasn't a candidate with (L) by their name. Admittily this scenario is unlikely.

I want to see compulsory voting. Stiff fines if you don't vote. Jury duty is not a right its an obligation. Why shouldn't voting be the same?

I'll still probably vote for Abott

[paperchunker]

Thanks for the Star-Telegram article. That's a dependable source on most issues.

[baldeagle]

PLEASE take this into account. Kathy Glass, the libertarian candidate, may be a worthy person, but she has no chance of winning. None at all. The only thing she will do is take votes away from Abbot. Right now, she's not really registering in the polls, although she was showing 5% back in late October. Any points she gains will likely detract from Abbott rather than Davis.

What I hear you saying is, "don't vote for the candidate you think will do the best job, vote for the one who has the best chance of winning"

Are we any better off because we have consistently voted for R's or D's? Then why would we keep doing it?

At this moment in our history we are fighting for the soul of America. The future of your children and grandchildren depends on how you vote. This is not the time for principled opposition but the time for defeating Democrats and driving them to despair. As a party, the Democrats want to destroy the Constitution and strip us of our liberties. When you face that kind of foe you pick the strongest horse in the race and you back him to the hilt with everything you have. In THIS race, that is Greg Abbott.

The Democrats have decided that now is their time to take over Texas. They will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. We should stop at nothing to stop them.

[sunny beach]

Let me put it this way. I would have happily voted for Abbot if he ran against Perry.

[Dragonfighter]

I have some personal dealings with Greg Abbott and his office personnel. Whatever he wants to run for, he's got my vote.

[VMI77]

I was getting my car an oil change today and skimmed through an issue of that liberal rag known as the "Texas Monthly." They claimed Wendy had no chance of winning even though she 's so great. But then, I've never accused a liberal of telling the truth. They also had an article on Abbott that wasn't particularly derisive.

Even though I lean heavily libertarian I'm going to make it a point to go out and vote for Abbott. I despise most of the current crop of Republicans on the national scene, but I think the state scene is much better. Furthermore, the libertarian party has been co-opted by several different influences and most of the party establishment are just disenchanted Democrats --LINOs. Even if that wasn't the case, the puerile emphasis and drugs on sexual issues has made them largely irrelevant. The fight now isn't about putting the best candidates in office, it's about taking down the Democratic Party. That has to happen before there is any chance of reforming the Republican Party, and it starts at the local and state levels. If we can't stop illegal immigration and trim back the welfare state, it's all over, no matter who is in power.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I read Paulken's Facebook page....the man seems to have no opinions of his own...it's all about how bad Abbott is, "Greg Abbott did this wrong" and "Greg Abbott did that wrong" and I just can't stand that. Occasionally, he'll post about how great he was when he did something in the Reagan administration, I think? (dude, that was a long time ago, what would you do now?) He has a Jr High girl mentality....no, he's not ready to be governor.

You are dead on target. I saw a Facebook post from him commenting that "If Abbott is too scared to debate [Paulken], how will he do against Wendy Davis?" As I was trying to respond he must have deleted that absurd post.

If he did anything in the Reagan administration, I but it was nothing more than carrying Nancy's Ouija Board.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Wendy who came from nowhere (politically) is now contender for a Texas Governor. A single digit lead for Abbott is scary. So not rest on our pre-assumptions that everything is Okay. Let is do our part and get Abbott in Texas's white mansion.

The DNC is pouring obscene amounts of money into getting her elected, or at least making it a horse race. Even losing in a close race would be a huge boost for the Democrats. Money is dangerous and you are absolutely right; we cannot assume Greg has this race won!

Chas.