Democrat Mayor of Dallas switches party

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you happen to know his address? Because that's the only way you could know what district he'd be running in, given how convoluted the lines are.

I assume being that he's the mayor of Dallas, he lives somewhere in Dallas correct?

That would mean these are the options:

The 30th district

The 32nd district

The 33rd district

I'm not assuming that - I'm just struggling to see what he achieves with this move otherwise. There's nothing about being a Democrat that prevents him from working to further the causes that he's interested in solving or pushing the priorities that he feels are important, and changing his party isn't going to magically change the composition of the City Council. If anything, it's just going to make them more hostile to his agenda. So, as I see it, this is either a complete own goal in the name of virtue signaling or a play for higher statewide office. The first option would make him a total idiot, and I don't think that he is one, so that leaves political aspirations as the most likely candidate.

Actually, there is... if you choose a central focal point and that happens to clash with progressive orthodoxy... some of the people on the more progressive wing of the party (some who have big influence on donor dollars) can turn on a person and "run them out of town" to speak.

Ask Lori Lightfoot. She went from a person who got 70% of the vote in for landslide victory in her prior election. Committed a "cardinal sin" of clashing with the teacher's union (causing them to back Brandon Johnson), and went to not even finishing in the top 2 of the runoff (only getting 16%).

For Eric Johnson, the path of least resistance (politically) would be to keep his mouth shut and not question the DNC initiatives, and cruise to one of the aforementioned house seats, or snag one of the 12 seats in the Upper House of the state legislature.


He's actually making a riskier roll of the dice by going with this approach. Hoping that the GOP will get behind a pro law & order candidate (even if that candidate is for expanding public school funding, ditching confederate monuments, and pro-LGBT) is a bigger political risk.

Given that their governor immediately reached out to "welcome him to the party"... it seems to embody a recent phrase I've heard coined.

"When a more moderate person sees pitchforks to the left and a welcome mat to the right, some will opt for the latter"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He ran unopposed. All the other votes were write-in. Why no republican on the ticket in a city of 33% republicans? I am willing to bet this was planned before the election, and he may have even tipped off the republican party in the city. And it still doesn't matter in red Texas.

That was only for the 2nd election.

In his first election he had an opponent, and still won by 11 percentage points.

Running unopposed is not uncommon if there's a very popular incumbent who put up a strong victory the first time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/14/dallas-mayor-eric-johnson-crime/

DALLAS — The tribulations that have swept America’s big cities over the past few years have been nearly biblical in scale: a pandemic, racial strife, rising homelessness, a surge in violent crime. Which is why municipal elections across the map — in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, among others — have been especially contentious and ideological.


Dallas, however, stands as an exception. Last month, Democratic Mayor Eric Johnson, 47, cruised unopposed to a second term, marking the first time that had happened here since 1967. (The last mayor to be reelected without an opponent was a towering figure in city history whose name, by weird coincidence, was ... Erik Jonsson.)
In a recent poll by the Garin Hart Yang Research Group, Johnson’s approval rating stood at a gravity-defying 77 percent, with 54 percent saying their city is headed in the right direction.


He won handily the first time, and had a 77% approval rating heading into the re-election...that's why he was unopposed. With those kinds of numbers, anyone running against him would been wasting their time.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you happen to know his address? Because that's the only way you could know what district he'd be running in, given how convoluted the lines are.

I'm not assuming that - I'm just struggling to see what he achieves with this move otherwise. There's nothing about being a Democrat that prevents him from working to further the causes that he's interested in solving or pushing the priorities that he feels are important, and changing his party isn't going to magically change the composition of the City Council. If anything, it's just going to make them more hostile to his agenda. So, as I see it, this is either a complete own goal in the name of virtue signaling or a play for higher statewide office. The first option would make him a total idiot, and I don't think that he is one, so that leaves political aspirations as the most likely candidate.

The problem with continuing to be a black, male Demcratic politician is having to continue to sign on to far-left Democratic platform. show up at all the functions, and grin for the cameras.

Black Americans have some quite socially conservative streaks...race and economics are the only issues in which, as a whole, we're reliably liberal. Gender issues, immigration issues, even crime...not so much. Black women are still wedded to feminism, so they're still wedded to the Democratic Party. Black men, though, have never liked what feminism has done to the black family and the role of black men in the community, and are being more and more alienated by the stranglehold feminism has on the Democratic Party. It has become an issue among black people.

 

[public hermit]

Black women are still wedded to feminism, so they're still wedded to the Democratic Party. Black men, though, have never liked what feminism has done to the black family and the role of black men in the community, and are being more and more alienated by the stranglehold feminism has on the Democratic Party. It has become an issue among black people

I don't understand that. I live in a predominantly black city and county; most of the families are mothers raising children with no present father. Why should they be blamed for embracing womanism? If I were a woman with no help and a large family, I wouldn't have much for men either.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't understand that. I live in a predominantly black city and county; most of the families are mothers raising children with no present father. Why should they be blamed for embracing womanism? If I were a woman with no help and a large family, I wouldn't have much for men either.

I'm not sure whether you're asking a genuine question.

 

[JustOneWay]

"When a more moderate person sees pitchforks to the left and a welcome mat to the right, some will opt for the latter"

Pitchforks.

That is certainly a new twist on a classic comparison for the Democratic party.

The man received 93% of the vote as a democrat, yet the left still have them pointy pitchforks. Yes, running into the 'arms' of the gentle, caring and welcoming republican party was a necessity for this man. The republican's new welcoming mat....for his kindred followers to also enter the republican party.

Because of pitchforks.

 

[public hermit]

I'm not sure whether you're asking a genuine question.

Well, not really. But I don't think womanism should be a shock. Just as I don't think feminism should be a shock. Men are too self-consumed, ego-centric to be of much benefit to a well-functioning society. "Oh please, tell me about your favorite team, cowboy, it will certainly change my sorrow."
We are decadent Rome with technology. Winning!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Pitchforks.

That is certainly a new twist on a classic comparison for the Democratic party.

The man received 93% of the vote as a democrat, yet the left still have them pointy pitchforks. Yes, running into the 'arms' of the gentle, caring and welcoming republican party was a necessity for this man. The republican's new welcoming mat....for his kindred followers to also enter the republican party.

Because of pitchforks.

So you opted to snip out the one line of my post (out of multiple paragraphs) that you felt you could "dunk on"...that's okay, I'll play along.

Yes, on certain issues, the democrats have pitchforks (much like the right has some pitchforks for certain issues)

The example I cited was Lori Lightfoot. She won her first mayoral race in commanding fashion with over 70% of the vote. She dared to cross the Chicago Teachers' Union, and within a matter of six months, many of her former allies and advocates hung her out to dry and she didn't even finish in the top 2.

 

[public hermit]

he certainly wouldn't look like Barry Gibb like some of the pictures depict...I

Poor Berry Gibb. It breaks my heart he's all alone. Gosh, soundtrack of my childhood

If God looks like Barry Gibb, God is hot. Lol

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Poor Berry Gibb. It breaks my heart he's all alone. Gosh, soundtrack of my childhood

If God looks like Barry Gibb, God is hot. Lol

I did enjoy the real Barry Gibb showing up for the SNL "Barry Gibb Talk Show" on that occasion.

 

[JustOneWay]

So you opted to snip out the one line of my post (out of multiple paragraphs) that you felt you could "dunk on"...that's okay, I'll play along.

Creating a long post with multiple paragraphs does not mean the entire post had any value, at least to me. Your options for the man's future in politics is moot considering he is now a republican in a democratic stronghold. Your examples were two positions in the US government, and one for the Texas government. Why would a democrat in a strong democratic area want to serve in the Texas congress when the entire state is run by republicans? If he wanted to join the US government, then there would have been no need to switch parties. I fail to see how there is any comparison to somebody in Chicago.

But those pitchforks.... yep, certainly a classic devilish comparison.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I assume being that he's the mayor of Dallas, he lives somewhere in Dallas correct?

That would mean these are the options:

Also 24, 6, and 4 - all currently held by Republicans. Like I said, it's messy. A quick and dirty visualization - the darker shaded area is Dallas, the colored regions with dark borders are congressional districts:

Actually, there is... if you choose a central focal point and that happens to clash with progressive orthodoxy... some of the people on the more progressive wing of the party (some who have big influence on donor dollars) can turn on a person and "run them out of town" to speak.

Ask Lori Lightfoot. She went from a person who got 70% of the vote in for landslide victory in her prior election. Committed a "cardinal sin" of clashing with the teacher's union (causing them to back Brandon Johnson), and went to not even finishing in the top 2 of the runoff (only getting 16%).

For Eric Johnson, the path of least resistance (politically) would be to keep his mouth shut and not question the DNC initiatives, and cruise to one of the aforementioned house seats, or snag one of the 12 seats in the Upper House of the state legislature.

He's actually making a riskier roll of the dice by going with this approach. Hoping that the GOP will get behind a pro law & order candidate (even if that candidate is for expanding public school funding, ditching confederate monuments, and pro-LGBT) is a bigger political risk.

Given that their governor immediately reached out to "welcome him to the party"... it seems to embody a recent phrase I've heard coined.

"When a more moderate person sees pitchforks to the left and a welcome mat to the right, some will opt for the latter"

That's...exactly what I just said. He wants to move to a higher office and feels that he can't do so as a Democrat because of his political views.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Creating a long post with multiple paragraphs does not mean the entire post had any value, at least to me. Your options for the man's future in politics is moot considering he is now a republican in a democratic stronghold. Your examples were two positions in the US government, and one for the Texas government. Why would a democrat in a strong democratic area want to serve in the Texas congress when the entire state is run by republicans? If he wanted to join the US government, then there would have been no need to switch parties. I fail to see how there is any comparison to somebody in Chicago.

But those pitchforks.... yep, certainly a classic devilish comparison.

It's actually a Frankenstein reference "town's people chasing with pitchforks", and not a religious reference....

If you're suggesting that my post didn't provide any context...then sorry, but that means you didn't read it.

You're rebuttal is self-contradicting.

A) my point was that he wasn't purely switching parties for political gain (in fact, he has a harder road as a GOP member given his positions on certain issues)
B) the fact that he's intentionally chosen a "harder road" contradicts what you said earlier, which was asserting that "he was doing whatever it takes to keep his job"

Thus far you've suggested
- "he's just doing it to keep his job" -- he's term limited which means he can't even run for mayor again
- "him running unopposed was an inside job courtesy of the GOP" -- he had a 70+% approval rating as a democrat


You have to be willing to acknowledge the fact that the democrats hold certain positions that don't necessarily resonate with everyone (even if people, on paper, check the boxes of "who should be a democrat")

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Also 24, 6, and 4 - all currently held by Republicans. Like I said, it's messy. A quick and dirty visualization - the darker shaded area is Dallas, the colored regions with dark borders are congressional districts:

View attachment 336795

That's...exactly what I just said. He wants to move to a higher office and feels that he can't do so as a Democrat because of his political views.

I'm saying that would've been easier for him to get a Texas State Senate seat or US house seat as a democrat than it would be to be a "pro-Deparement of education", "pro-LGBT" republican.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The problem with continuing to be a black, male Demcratic politician is having to continue to sign on to far-left Democratic platform. show up at all the functions, and grin for the cameras.

No more than a black, male, Republican politician would have to sign on to the far-right Republican platform, show up at all the functions, and grin for the cameras. That's part and parcel of being a politician. Honestly, the Republicans are significantly worse about that - see the current situation in the House. I don't think the far left wing of the Dems ever held the whole system hostage like the far right wing of the Rs is now.

Black Americans have some quite socially conservative streaks...race and economics are the only issues in which, as a whole, we're reliably liberal. Gender issues, immigration issues, even crime...not so much. Black women are still wedded to feminism, so they're still wedded to the Democratic Party. Black men, though, have never liked what feminism has done to the black family and the role of black men in the community, and are being more and more alienated by the stranglehold feminism has on the Democratic Party. It has become an issue among black people.

He's entitled to his views. I was just talking about the reasons for his switching parties - there's no explanation that makes sense other than that he wants to move on to a higher office after his mayoral term is up and feels like being a Republican would give him a better chance.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm saying that would've been easier for him to get a Texas State Senate seat or US house seat as a democrat than it would be to be a "pro-Deparement of education", "pro-LGBT" republican.

Unless the local Democratic Party was already aware of his views and was unwilling to support him for higher office. Questions like "who gets the party's endorsement for this seat?" get answered pretty early on in the political process. By now, I can pretty much guarantee that they've decided which candidates will get Party backing in 2024.

Also, Districts 30, 32, and 33 all have relatively recent incumbents. You said that District 30 would be open, but I think you missed an election cycle. The current incumbent was elected in 2022 after the previous representative announced her retirement in 2021. Doubt she's going anywhere - she's only 42. The longest-serving House Democrat in the Texas Dallas area took office in 2013 and has not announced his retirement.

 

[JustOneWay]

It's actually a Frankenstein reference "town's people chasing with pitchforks", and not a religious reference....

Well , since this is a Christian Forum, peeps tend to conjure up images of Satan rather than Frankenstein....but that is the beauty of the phrase that simply depicts an evil hunting down the perceived threat, which in this case, of course, are democrats. Why else would he turn on those who put him in power?

My rebuttal is consistent. What he is doing is angling for a better position in Texas. That was my point. I've got my pitchfork out and ready.

 

[public hermit]

2060, democratic-socialism will take that long to become the “establishment”, beginning around 1964, and then again in about 2033.

Okay, fine. Let's just cater all our cares to oil and whatever other big interests are involved. Why should we even try?

I don't care if the thing that works takes a month of Sundays to take effect . What we're doing ain't working

 

[Say it aint so]

The Mayor ran as a Democrat and campaigned on the policies he has enacted, and he won as a Democrat. His policing policies were actually the some of the same policies that have been enacted in Democratic Mayor cities like, Indianapolis, Chicago, New Orleans, and Seattle. There is no real solution regarding homelessness by Texas Republicans. His switch, in the red state of Texas, IMHO is more about his future than the city of Dallas as he was able to achieve the improvements he points out as a Democrat in a heavily red state. Changing to a party who doesn't have a real homeless policy isn't going to help him solve homelessness.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well , since this is a Christian Forum, peeps tend to conjure up images of Satan rather than Frankenstein....but that is the beauty of the phrase that simply depicts an evil hunting down the perceived threat, which in this case, of course, are democrats. Why else would he turn on those who put him in power?

My rebuttal is consistent. What he is doing is angling for a better position in Texas. That was my point. I've got my pitchfork out and ready.

...but which better position is he going to get on the GOP side while being a pro-LGBT advocate and pushing for increasing public education funding?

As I noted, there are state-level positions where there's ample seats he could go for as a democrat. (he's held one of them before, and won in commanding fashion in those races as well.

And with regards to the pitchforks analogy, it's true. Look at what happened to Lori Lightfoot after she dared to "not go with the flow" and go against the teachers union...

And it didn't take long for Johnson to start getting the same treatment the moment he started voicing some opinions that weren't progressive orthodoxy.

When he made the statement that "[his] views on police and property taxes were more in line with the Republican platform than a Democratic one".
The response? In response, the chair and vice-chair of the Texas Democratic Party rebuked Johnson as "an ineffective and truant mayor".
(despite him having several accomplishments, having a 77% approval rating and well over half of the very blue city agreeing that their city was "moving in the right direction")

"But he doesn't want to defund the police and he wants to lower certain taxes!!!"