i don't think they will deal with campaign finance reform. i don't think they will deal with climate change. i don't think they will give us policy that is going to create millions of additional ngugi decent jobs that we need for this country. the question becomes if that's true then what's the alternative and what do we do about that? i have tossed that question out there to you and i say sit down and talk to your families and talk to your neighbors and talk to your colleagues and the folks that you know at work and say, what is it that we are going to do about some of these issues and by that i don't mean the television or try and pick and choose between candidates where there is maybe not a little more than a dime's worth of difference between the two of them. it means what can you do? don't make the mistake of the missed opportunity that we made with the occupy wall street movement.

we waited for them to do something but we didn't do anything. you have to do it yourselves. >> i think that's a good note to close on. thank you everybody for coming tonight. [applause] >> bob will be signing his books in the lobby so please join us there. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. i'm michelle easton present at the clare boothe luce policy institute and i want to welcome you all to this special lunch featuring wayne thorburn and his great new book called "red state" and insider story of how the gop came to dominate texas. you may be wondering why is the president of the clare boothe luce policy center introducing

him? it was 42 years ago when i came to washington d.c. from new york after graduating from college and my first job was a young americans for freedom and my first boss there was wayne thorburn. ron robinson who asked me to do this introduction, ron and i have known wayne and his wife judith for decades and waned by the way was a very good first boss. wayne joined general americans for freedom as a college student in 1951 and eventually rose to become executive director when i worked for him. after running young americans for freedom for an number of years and getting his ph.d. in political science at the university of maryland dr. wayne thorburn was a history professor at arkansas state university before he moved to texas. from texas he will worked as an

appointee the department of education and housing and urban development for presidents ronald reagan and george h.w. bush. he also served as a long-term board member of young america's foundation. in 1978 when texas elected governor bill clements as the first republican governor in 104 years wayne had been the executive executive director of the republican party for two years. i give you full credit wayne and wayne oversaw the coordinated elections of all statewide republican candidates the first time in texas has not voted for a democrat president now since 1976. think about it. how did that happen? in november 1960 the democratic party dominated texas. we have the new u.s. vice president lyndon johnson. he was from texas and democrats held all 30 statewide elected positions. the texas state legislature had 181 democrats and no republica

republicans. and now everyone calls texas the red state. the book is really so interesting. i read it this weekend. i was on the road traveling and i have had the book explain that for many years beginning in 1940 texas election were between 10 conservatives and liberals and to gain the party the liberals needed to drive the conservatives are the democratic primaries primaries. the texas liberals succeeded in gaining control of the democratic party so it was the liberals in the texas democratic party who actually helps the strengthening of the republican party by deliberately driving the conservatives from their own party. as wayne says be careful what you wish for, liberals. let's hope wayne also talks about the texas governor's race just last month when texas attorney general greg abbott beta democrat liberal feminist wendy davis by 20 plus% of the

vote. watching that race from virginia i thought it had to be about the time when she ran that astounding ad on tv of her opponent greg abbott's empty wheelchair at the race turned around for good. so now to talk about this transformation of texas, how it took place in the future please join me in welcoming dr. wayne thorburn. [applause] >> thanks very much. i think my microphone is on, is it not? i want to thank not only michelle for that great introduction and ron for allowing us to have this opportunity to get together to talk a little bit about "red state" a book that came out the first of september and i think you are going to get a copy of those, those who wish to have one as you leave and i will be glad to sign it after the

presentation for folks who would like a signed copy. the one thing i do regret though michelle is the mention of all those years. it makes me feel older than x. the m. or it makes me realize my actual age but guess it has been a lifetime of involvement in conservative republican politics beginning in college those many many years ago and working with ron and young americans for freedom and ron pierson who is on the board and i'm also honored to have my dissertation adviser here dr. fein who was at that time associate professor at the university of maryland where did my graduate work. what i would like to talk to you about today is texas and that is basically the crux of what this book is about as michelle indicated that i tried to do in the first couple of chapters for those of you who either are not

that familiar with texas or have never lived there were really want to get a better background on the state, the first couple of chapters really go into a discussion of the population, religion, recreational and ethnic makeup of the state the political culture of the state the different geographical areas and the economy so i think if you are not that familiar with a the background in the first couple of chapters goes into what makes texas unique and what is distinctive about this state of texas. from our point on i really stress the changes that have happened since 1960 in texas. politics in texas and political culture to some extent in the whole political environment in the state of texas. michelle kind of gave you a clue

to what the situation was so i will just restate very briefly what she said that in 1960 the democrats were as we say in high cotton. they had once again recovered the electoral college votes from texas and aaron burr eisenhower was able to carry texas with the support of the conservative democrat establishment in 1952 and 1956. so by 1960 democrats were able with jack kennedy to recover the electoral college votes from texas. they had both senators and they have the vice president of texas lyndon johnson and as michelle quickly pointed out that the 181 members of the state senate and statehouse there is not a single republican. the only republican in any significant office in the whole state of texas other than two or three justices of the peace, i

don't even think there was a county commissioner or certainly not a county judge who was a republican in any of the 254 counties. the only republican at any office was a congressman by the name of bruce alger from the dallas area and he was the lone single republican. now flash forward to 2014 and what is the situation in texas. so totally different. this year a fall 29 statewide officials when they were elected were elected as republicans at every election since 1996 there has not been a democrat elected to statewide office since 1994. that's 20 years of 29 because we elected a whole slew of judges statewide in texas. there were 29 elected positions statewide. every single one of them over the last 20 years was elected as a republican.

among the congressional delegation not only were the senators republican but 25 of the 36 congressman. the largest contentions of republicans from any one state at the 25 from texas. in the state legislature the state senate is tony-11 republican and the houses 98-62 almost 2:1 and in this house we picked up seats in all three of the congress and senate and the statehouse. most interesting is what was happening over the last year and what the media was portraying a supposedly happening in texas. those of you who follow politics will know that there was a lot of discussion in the early 2013 of the formation of a group called battleground texas.

battleground texas was an organized effort by some of obama organizers who had been heading up organizing for america the obama kind of fringe group and they had organized a few in ohio also for obama in the 20 -- 2012 election. they were able to get a few million dollars from contributors and organize to change texas and to turn texas blue. there group is called battleground texas than they were designed specifically to increase turnout by registering more voters who are currently not registered and turning them out in the election. their particular emphasis was on hispanics because in our state the voting participation rate of hispanics is much lower than it is for anglos or for

african-american voters. so they went about this effort and got an awful lot of media attention on how they were going to do what they had been successful in doing what the obama campaign nationally and turn texas no longer into a republican state but into one that at least gleaned and had possibilities for the democrats to win. they went about doing this and so lo and behold state senator wendy davis and wendy davis in the closing days of the state legislature undertook a filibuster of a bill that was putting restrictions on abortion services in the state of texas and threw that one effort she became kind of a bicoastal hero of the liberal elements and so

wendy davis got elevated into a major personality in texas and subsequently announced she was going to run for governor so lo and behold it was the great hope of the liberal democratic elements in the state to start making texas blue. they were going to elect wendy davis. battleground texas quickly changed its emphasis. it originally been as i indicated a long-term effort to register more voters, to turn them out to get them part of the overall electorate in the state and therefore change the electorate and make it more democratic. along comes wendy davis and they decide they are going to latch onto the davis campaign from about july 2013 on on.

they become almost an affiliate of the davis campaign. they moved their headquarters from the state capitol of boston to fort worth which was her home base and became the field operation for the wendy davis campaign. one of their big mistakes as a matter fact was latching onto one candidate rather than taking a long-term approach. so given that background davis runs for governor and there were certain early signs that may be battleground texas wasn't doing quite as well as everybody was hyping them up in the media. the first one was when filing deadlines for candidates for 2014 november election law and the hold there were a whole slew of offices in texas were neither battleground nor anyone else from the democratic party could find anyone to run for office.

if you can believe it, of the 254 counties in texas and we have a slew of counties. some of them are very small and some of them have 5 million people like eric's county and some have less than 100 but of those 254 counties no democrats could be found who was willing to put their name on the ballot to run for county judge which is the chief elected official in the county government of texas. no democrat could be found in 165 of the 254 counties. the end result come november is basically roughly 200 of the 254 counties now have a republican county judge. total shift over from what we saw back in the 60s and 70's. then came the primary and two things that happen for democrats

in their primary. we have an open primary registered by party in texas so anyone had the opportunity if they were so inclined to vote for the democratic part -- primary. the first problem was in the 22 small counties they couldn't find anyone to hold a primary so voters in those 22 seats in texas it's the responsibility of the political party to put on the primary. it's not a function of the government so it's not available everywhere like the election is in november. in the 22 counties they couldn't find anyone to hold the democratic primary so voters had no opportunity to participate in choosing a the democratic nominee because there was no primary. that was the most it's ever been in as michelle pointed out historically what had been the case is the democratic primary had been the big enchilada. that's where people decided

between the liberals and the conservatives and shows who is going to be the officeholders. in these counties they couldn't find anyone to hold the primary. then comes the primary and media star wendy davis loses 29 counties to someone who was a local, not even a county of a local municipal judge who had no money, had no name recognition and yet he beats wendy davis and 29 counties mainly along the mexican border. he had an hispanic name and i'm sure that was an appeal but it also sent warning sides -- signs today that maybe they would have a little more problem than they thought they would have been turning the supposedly new hispanic voters to the democratic side. the other amazing characteristic of that 2014 democratic primary is the turnout.

there were roughly a little under 500,000, 40 to 55,000 people to vote in the democratic primary today said gee let me look back and see the significance. let's go back and see how far one has to go to find out smaller turnout in the democratic primary. unbelievably the answer was 19 1920. 1920 was the last year that fewer people voted in the texas democratic primary. now keep that in perspective. the population of the state of texas in 1920 according to the census was 4.7 million. the population of texas estimated today is north of 26 million. so the last time they had so few voting there was less than 5 million people in the state

and now there are 26 million. that gives you an indication of the failure of battleground texas in terms of registering voters, motivating them and turning them out as democrats when they have a primary with the fewest number since 1920. so what happened then on election day? well you all know that greg abbott defeated wendy davis for governor. you probably also recall that john cornyn was reelected united states senator. the interesting fact about how seriously difficult the democrats find themselves in is that wendy davis was able to obtain only 38.9% of the vote. much lower than previous democratic candidates who hadn't had all the hoopla surrounding their efforts and so davis got

38.9% and lost by over 950,000 votes. that was the difference between her and attorney general abbott. even more significant of the 12 statewide democratic candidates on the ballot wendy davis had the highest percentage and lost by the smallest margin. so in other words as bad as she was, she was the best that they could do and that is the change from some of the past elections where lowell -- lower-level democrats trying upon the traditional support of the democratic party head done better than perhaps the top-level candidate. so the best they could do was 38.9%. the best they could do was lose by 950,000 votes. even more significant perhaps for the long-term is that in 110

counties of the 254 greg abbott got 80% plus of the vote. 80% plus. eight out of every 10 voters in those counties voted for abbott. even more impressive was cornyn who had a weaker opponent in the head over 80% and 134 of the counties. i have already told you what the breakdown was after the election in congress and the legislature and the county judges overwhelmingly republican. why did this happen and how did this come about and is there any lesson that can be learned from this applicable in other parts of the country? there were certain unique factors to texas and we have to recognize that. first of all the population of texas is conservative and has been conservative.

at least the predominant view of most texans would classify themselves as conservative. if you asked people generally speaking d. consider yourself a conservative, moderate or liberal, it anywhere from 45 to 50% of people in texas over time would say conservative. only about 20% was a liberal. 30% roughly will say yeah somewhere in between or i don't know what i am or i'm a modera moderate. one of the real problems as you can see the battleground and wendy davis was coming across as a national liberal hero appealing to the electorate were roughly 20% of people voted for liberals. one author called cowboy conservatism and i think that's probably an accurate expression of two trades, two strains of political opinion that is

present in the state of texas. one is the frontier of the more individualistic attitude that is present with much of the people in texas that was there from the early days of settlement particularly west texas where everyone was on their own and had to solve their own problems because really there was no organized society much of the areas of west texas and west central texas. so to find out the indians to build their home to solve their disputes with other people and neighbors they had to do it on their own. it was the attitude, the frontier attitude of self-reliance and the ability to solve one's own problems and not rely on government or some other institution. the second strain of political belief that is present in much of the state comes over from the culture of the old south and

that's because much of the settlement in east texas was people in tennessee and mississippi and the southern southern states and they brought within that tradition of family values, of doing things the way one has always done them, of not fixing things unless they are broken. why fi fix it unless it's broke? that's not the way we do it around here. those kinds of attitudes that were more traditionalist big attitude center a combination of into villages take an individualistic political cultures come to is this cowboy conservatism that is really the dominant political culture in texas and not just in rural areas but in cities as well. texas in terms of religious

values is not only strongly catholic but it's the largest representation of southern baptist. again that's an indication of this traditionalist southern culture because here you have a religious denomination that is present in all 50 states now but still has his first name in the word southern indicating again the importance of that tradition that is important to them. another factor that is influenced texas is population growth. texas as indicated from those figures from 1922 the present has grown phenomenally. much of the growth took place during the 1960s and 1970s but has continued both in-state population growth, and natural birth growth but also migration

and the net migration figures for texas amount to about 2 million new residents every decade. probably the most significant. makkah net migration was in the 1971 to 1980 period, period when the republican party was starting to make real growth in the state. migration into the state has been an important factor and continues to be. there was an interesting comment by a political observer in texas recently. he indicated in the last two years the republican party of texas was able to get a new -- a list of new registrants. adam ah-hah they do it. maybe it's from utility hookups or whatever and from that they did a survey of people moving into the state of texas newly registered as voters. they found that when they asked him what was their inclination

in terms of voting 56% said they were most likely going to vote republican. much different than what this whole battleground in texas was supposed to be that new registrants were going to be democrat and turn the state blue. his observation is and i have noticed it in some other comments by liberals after the election is that texas has become a magnet for people who believe in free enterprise, for opportunity, for job growth, for private enterprise or entrepreneurship and for low taxes, limited government services so we have been attracting over the last several years those kind of people who share a conservative philosophy and a conservative view of government to the state. meanwhile there are some indications is what is happening

those that don't agree with that i want more government services and want more spending are moving away from the state. so this migration pattern that continues today is working to solidify their red nature of the state of texas rather than changing it in a direction towards democrats. now population growth is certainly a factor even in the 1970s and the 1980s. there was a survey done in the 1970s. 90% of the democratic county chairman have been born in texas and nearly half of the republican chairman for new residents of texas, had moved there in the last 25 years. migration a big factor in terms of building the base of support for the party.

there were certain individuals who played a big key role and those are ones that you would probably know. the first one was john tower because right after the 1960 democratic victory that we talk about here lyndon johnson had been elected to two offices. he had been reelected in the united states senator and he had been elected vice president of united states and he couldn't hold both offices so he had to resign his position as united states senator. that cost a special election that in may of 1961 elected john tower as the first republican senator since reconstruction in any of the southern states, not just texas. and tower was elected in a kind of a quirky and interesting way because he was running against the conservative democrats. a man by the name of bill blakely who was appointed to the senate vacancy until the election who ran for the

election and lost in a runoff to tower. since the democrats had nominated a conservative as their candidate and tower was a conservative come the liberal element in the democratic party started in that election of 1961 doing something that made a major -- played a major factor in the growth of the republican party. they decided that in order to control, to get liberal control of the democratic primary and the democratic organization they had to drive conservatives away from the democratic primary. in other words the fewer conservatives voting in the democratic primary the more liberals could win and gain control of the party organization. how do you do that when there is no alternative for these conservatives to go to? so they decided one of their objectives was to build up a

viable alternative party. in other words to try to drive the conservatives -- you have have to make the republicans a viable parties to what they did in the 1961 election who started a pattern. they came out and endorsed john tower and worked for john tower at the republican and a very close election. their support probably made a significant difference. they then continued to do that in the subsequent elections for governor and other offices nonof which the republicans were able to win. but what they ended up doing is tower who they thought they could knock off and the next time he was up for election tower went on and won the next three elections in that seat has been republican a republican ever since 1961. so what michelle indicates is be

careful what you wish for. what the liberals were able to do during the 60s and 70's by giving support to republican candidates even though those candidates lost they helped gain control but the real factor that gave them control in 1976 was not someone in texas that someone from california and that was ronald reagan trade when ronald reagan ran against gerald ford for the republican nomination in 1976 but he was able to attract in a positive way millions of these conservative democrats who otherwise would have been voting in the democratic primary to the republican primary and so in 1976 roughly half a million people voted in a republican primary between ford and reagan. that allowed the liberals to gain control of their party. the result then in 1978 is they

were able to defeat a conservative democratic governor by the name of dolph brisco and nominate a liberal democratic candidate for governor but by then the republicans have become a viable alternative and so what happened was their liberal democratic candidate lost to a man by the name of bill clements who became the first republican governor in 104 years to serve in texas. so you can see sometimes you try to purify the party and you try to kick out all those with whom you don't agree 100% the end result may be that all you do is benefit your opposition and that is certainly what happened to liberals who were able to gain control of their party but really since 90 -- 1996 were able to do nothing in the state and go they control the party organization.

now what are some of the lessons that i think could be applied in other places? first of all you have to build a farm team. and you have to mentor new people who are possible candidates often government officials. one of the great things that john tower did in this time of office is he attracted a number of younger people to his staff, number of younger people as volunteers and campaign operatives who then went on and became candidates for public office themselves as republicans having been mentored by tower and develop their political skills with a united states senator and his operation. so subsequently often his staff, younger individuals in their 30s eventually were elected as the county judge in harris county which is houston and dallas county, the city of

dallas and their county which is the city of san antonio. others were elected to congress, guys like tom leffler and others who had served on its staff who had been mentored by tower. so what power did was to build a cadre of younger workers and younger supporters who then became candidates and public officials. and i think that's one thing we have to keep in mind. you can't just win by putting up an attractive candidate at the top of the ticket. you have to build from the ground up and you have to attract new people and train them and recruit them to be candidates. a second thing that is present in texas and unfortunately from my perspective only those 12 states have it and that is that our state allows straight ticket voting. by that i mean when you go in

and you look your ballot the first thing on the ballot is you want to build this great ticket. you either market for you press a button or whatever method of voting machine you might have him make an indication that we were going to do. what that automatically does this for every candidate of that party on the ballot to cast a vote for them. now you can go and then you can override an individual vote and decide well i want to vote for all republicans but for county commissioner want to vote for the democrat and when he gets down to the county commissioner you can override it and in vote for the democrats by what it does is it automatically puts a vote in the republican column and therefore you understand the mechanics of elections there's almost a big drop-off. more people voted the top of the ticket. they don't know the candidates and they don't vote at the bottom but when you vote straight ticket every one of those candidates down to the

bottom of that party is voting. over the last sense about 2000, roughly 60% of all the votes in texas are cast as straight ticket so it has become the dominant method of voting for people in the state and each of those years the republican parties have the majority of the straight ticket votes. and as one observer indicated in no voting a straight ticket in the old days meant that you are buying a pig in a poke. remember the example i gave you as democrats. they were conservatives and liberals and they worked as a mirror that everybody was a democrat so everybody was that democrats have devoted a democratic straight ticket he did know what you are getting a very liberal guy from one office and maybe even a segregationist for another office because they were running as democrats but in today's world is there a clear distinction between a republican

and the democratic party? i certainly think there is and i think that in almost every race and every election the difference between the two parties is such that the republican candidate is going to be at least more conservative than the democratic candidate. it may not be your pure conservative buddies more conservative or she is that it's the democratic candidate. so there is the certainty of voting a straight ticket you are voting in a position that's more consistent with your philosophy whatever it might be. and so the republican party of texas has really pushed for straight ticket and it's been a great benefit. in the last election among straight ticket voters in the last presidential romney beats obama by 500,000 votes among straight ticket voters.

he did beat obama even more among those people who didn't vote straight ticket but there is a whole chunk of votes that are automatically, not always at the top of the ticket there for everyone if down ballot candidates that are supporting your party's candidates. and so i would encourage other states even if they don't have the ability to cast a straight vote emphasize voting the party ticket as a means of helping their ballot candidates where they might not know the attributes of individuals when they know one is of one party in one as of the other party. the third thing that i think has been successful in texas is outreach and recruitment. the state has really emphasized under the leadership of our state chairman and a former

member and former director emphasized outreach not just at election time but on a continuing basis to the various ethnic and racial communities in the state presenting themselves as interested in the attitudes, values and interests of individuals of all kinds of background in the state of texas. through candidate recruitment we have been able to greatly increase the number of hispanic candidates and not only candidates but at the present time in the statehouse there are five hispanic republicans, two black republican state representatives. we lost one. we had four about four years we had three black republicans and one asian and in congress we have one hispanic congressman serving his third term and one

new freshman african-american congressman. among hispanic voters abbott received 44% of the vote on his race for governor against wendy davis. doing even better was cornyn anti-god according to the exit polls a bare majority of the hispanic vote. so is their opportunity to reach out to new communities and adam bierman's and new voting groups? gas and are they doing it in texas? i think they are and i think it's important we do that across the country and reach into other areas that we sometimes normally don't campaign in in certain communities. and the fourth is inclusiveness. one of the great things -- has done since he was elected state

chairman in 2010 is he has brought together the various elements of the party altogether in one concerted effort. so his effort has been so successful that when he was up at the 2014th state convention no one even ran against him for the office of the state chairman because all sides of the party recognized that he was keeping everyone together, working together on a single goal which is a victory in november. i think it's that inclusiveness, run and bring ronald reagan that he'd gave rather have somebody voting for him 80% of the time that someone voting against him 100% of the time. when we start looking within the area of inclusiveness in the party gets even broader than including various racial and ethnic groups or geographic groups.

its other elements too and we have to remember what happens when liberal democrats in texas when they try to exclude the -- he as they got control of the party. at that time the liberals were calling themselves the democratic wing of the democratic party, kind of an echo in some circles today on the republican side. they didn't have the term dino but i think that is exactly what they were doing when they were talking about people who they thought were democrats in name only ensure they were able to get control but in so doing given the nature of the population at large they have lost control of the state sponsors. well let me stop there. i hope that will give you some thoughts on why texas has been successful and maybe even a few pointers on what can be applied

in other parts of the country and if you have questions i will be glad to answer some questions. [applause] >> thank you very much for coming. i just had a question. i recently have read and have read over 10 ebo called the blueprint. i don't know if you have read it but it's how colorado turned blue and it's interesting because we hashed out battleground texas and how was extremely unsuccessful and the efforts in colorado when you look back 10 or 15 years ago it used to be read in that swung blue. they talk about how you had outside interest groups that came in pretty much with united effort to turn out the vote for united blue candidates. so when looking at how texas was so successful in keeping the state read how do you think something like that can be applied to a state like colorado

that swung from largely red now to pretty blue? >> i think it's purple. yeah, right. texas has an advantage and back to the original political culture of the state. texas basically was conservative and his conservative so what really happened in our state is the republican party became labeled and identified as the conservative party in the state. as the democrats lost their control and became more liberal they were out of touch with the views of the people. i don't know, i think cory gardner did a tremendous job and his election and what he did was he stuck to the key point. he didn't get diverted off into other areas and he allowed mark udall, it's mark udall, right? there are two udall's.

when mark udall got off on this woman's rights, women's issues thing and overkill his own position and i think that really helped. i go back to some of the points i said. grassroots, improvements, involvement all the various communities they can get involved in not just at election time. i think certainly there's a sizable growth in the hispanic population in colorado and i would be looking for individuals who are possible candidates from that community. outreach to civic organizations and religious organizations in the hispanic community now, not just at election time and finding some of the key people. whether we like it or not we are all ideological people. they think in terms of

conservatism. sometimes we have to remember the average voter looks at elections in a much broader way and it may be racial, ethnic, religious or other factors that cause people to vote for someone and therefore if you can attract some of the mac community to be a candidate you are going to get not only the people who would normally vote republican but those who are voting for him because he is one of us. he is somebody we can relate to and we think that person will reflect our values because he is like us or she is like us. >> i have a couple of questions. first even though the liberal wing of the democratic party may have hurt themselves in texas did you find that they contributed to what you would have to say has been a successful liberal domination of the democratic party nationwide and are the contributors to that? the second question is he seemed

a bit disdainful of wendy davis's strategy. what about the strategy and what impact has the prosecution or persecution perhaps of tom delay and now governor perry contributed or subtracted from the democratic image in the state of texas? >> good points. let's take the second one first. that is i don't think it has affected it at all. you have to realize where i live and judith and i live in austin which is travis county which is best described as a blue dotted red sea. that is where the prosecution has taken place. most people who are neutral or objective are pretty much dismissive of the charges against particularly the charges against perry and of course as you know the ones against tom

delay were thrown out. i don't think it is affecting anything politically. i don't think it's hurting texas but neither is it hurting the democrats. now nationally, yes. certainly there were some figures in texas who helped move the democratic party nationally to the left and so yes they help the process and certainly the moving of the democratic party nationally to the left was a negative influence among texas voters. >> i have two questions. the first one being what are -- battleground texas of a semantic mistake by putting itself with wendy davis. what are their prospects moving forward? are they getting smarter? are the donor still going to have their wallets open and i guess my second question would be there has been a conservative liberal fight in the republican

party recently. we have groups like empower texas targeting some of the speakers members and stuff like that. i was just wondering first battleground texas but also we are seeing that conservative fight brewing and how do you see them moving forward in the future? >> let's talk about battleground. one epic strategies is to register more voters particularly hispanics. is all this media hype about some unknown point in the future, 10 years, 20 years the state is going to become majority hispanic. colombo holds republicans are going to have any success. for those of you who fund-raiser liberal organizations you can believe all that. you can try to present that to your donors because that's a fear tactic and i'm sure worked but the reality is it's all based on all kinds of assumptions that i think are very questionable. i will give you three reasons why i think those are

questionable assumptions about hispanics in texas and again it may not be applicable everywhere else. a simulation, intermarriage, suburbanization. assimilation, more and more generations have become affiliated with american society the more assimilated they are in the more they are going to share the values of others and attitudes. intermarriage and in this year's elections they work to statewide hispanic candidates on the ballot one democrat or republican. the democrats named, last name van de putte. not in my book a hispanic name. the republican hispanic name, bush. not a hispanic name. now i ask a question, what's going to happen to their children and grandchildren 10 or 20 years from now? are they going to think bush and

van de putte me think of themselves as hispanic but if they mary anne anglo, we don't have whites, we have anglos. so what are they going to be? are they going to think of themselves as hispanics? i don't know. nor did these demographers who are making all these projections about the future. the third thing is suburbanization. the more successful they get what did they do? they move out of the suburbs and what happens in the suburbs? currently there are 29 counties that surround the suburban counties according to the census bureau. part of dallas-fort worth houston san antonio and austin. 29 counties. everyone of those 29 counties have a republican county judge. every one of those 29 have a republican majority and sometimes zero on the county commissioners court and other county officials. if you are hispanic and you are

successful and you go to one of the suburbs in the lempl hold the primary comes around there are no democratic candidates in montgomery county which is the big suburb above houston and all your neighbors have yard signs for republican candidates and all the candidates are republican and everyone is voting republican primary but he going to do? maybe he won't vote at all and may be why there is low voter turnout or gee i would want to dig into my county commissioners going to be something to vote in her bottom primary. once you do that what is that going to lead you to do? probably support the republican statewide in the fall. so i can't say what's going to happen but neither can the dash making all these predictions because the state is going to become majority hispanic. your other point about internal

disputes, yes there are those. we have a speaker by the name of joe strauss who comes from a longtime republican family. his mother was very active in the party for years. i happen to have the pleasure of being a delegate for george h.w. in 1988. she too was a delegate and we sat next to each other for some time. i don't know joe that well but he has been speaker now. he has lined up 70 of the 98 republicans who have come out and pledged to support him for another term so it's close -- you have to get 76 so he is close to lining up that support and i know he will be speaker again. yes there is an element in the party that's always stirring up issues in trying to say so-and-so is not pure enough but so far they haven't been successful.

i think i have probably time for two more questions. >> just a comment and then a question. adding to your vocabulary of pig in a poke on the straight party voting in the texas term yellow dog democrat, the idea that democrats would vote for yellow dog if they were on the ticket and perhaps we are raising some good yellow dog republicans. ..