Democrat Mayor of Dallas switches party

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

If Higher offices were really his pure aspiration here, given his current positions on a variety of other issues (I still think had he just gone with the DNC flow, he could've gotten their backing if "the easy road" is really what he was looking for...though we appear to disagree on that)

But let's pretend for a moment you're right, and Texas has "no more available Democratic rooms at the Inn"... any reason he'd have had to stay in Texas? He has a seven figure net worth, he could establish a residence in other area and run for office there could he not?

I seem to remember a former presidential candidate who was from Arkansas, and opted to establish are residence in NY in order to run for Senator there. Being a top 10 major city mayor has name recognition associated to it.

I think folks are trying to avoid talking about the fact that there are reasons why one may no longer want to be associated with Democrats, and instead making it about some hypothetical super sneaky ploy for political advancement.

A former successful Mayor of Dallas (with sky high approval ratings) has options. This notion that "he had to party switch out of career necessity" is a stretch.

Pete Buttigieg was a democratic mayor from a much smaller city (that was also buried in a red state), and the dude ended up with a cabinet position. Eric Johnson could've easily followed a similar path. Him making the choice to party switch was actually a bigger political risk than just keeping his dissenting opinions to himself, and waiting for a phone call from the Democratic president.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think folks are trying to avoid talking about the fact that there are reasons why one may no longer want to be associated with Democrats, and instead making it about some hypothetical super sneaky ploy for political advancement.

I acknowledge that there are plenty of reasons why an individual may no longer want to be associated with Democrats. I just don't see any reason to switch parties mid-term on your final term in office unless you're gunning for a higher office (and feel like you can't get there in your current party). And it's not "super sneaky" - he's been quite public about it.

Again, what does he gain from switching parties now? If he's not interested in higher office, then why would he care if Democrats freeze him out of fundraising? He's termed out as mayor, so he doesn't need money for another mayoral campaign. And switching parties won't magically allow him to enact the policy changes that he disagrees with Democrats on. Literally all it does is anger his constituents and set him up for future political runs as a Republican by getting his name out.

If he was just disgruntled with the course of the Democratic Party, he could work to change it from within and, if that was unsuccessful, drop out of politics and change his party affiliation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I acknowledge that there are plenty of reasons why an individual may no longer want to be associated with Democrats. I just don't see any reason to switch parties mid-term on your final term in office unless you're gunning for a higher office (and feel like you can't get there in your current party). And it's not "super sneaky" - he's been quite public about it.

For the super sneaky comment, That was more in reference to the post the other poster made where they trotted out this theory:
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.

I still stand by my assertion that if he was really looking to take the "easy road" to a higher office, the move he's doing now is the least easy of all of them.

Let's be frank, what are the odds that the Texas GOP are going to earnestly get behind a guy who:
- pushed for a special legislative session to promote gun control and said "I have just about heard enough of Gov. Greg Abbott’s talk when it comes to guns, families are asking us how many more shootings must happen before we act"
- Declared an LGBTQ business month for Dallas.
- Regularly criticized republicans for their lack of willingness to increase public school funding
- Took flak from the GOP both on his stance on universal healthcare, as well as him signing the provision that allowed paid mental health leave for Dallas city employees.
- Sponsored a pro-Trans bathroom bill
- Led a successful effort to remove a confederate monument
- Took a very hard stance on covid (and not the stance that republicans like)

In order to successfully run as a republican, he's going to have to do a complete 180 on 90% of policy positions, and hope & pray that republicans aren't googling the things he's done and said for the last 8 years during his time in the statehouse and as mayor.

The path of lesser resistance (if he sought higher offices within Texas) would've been to keep his objections to the the progressive position on police & property taxes to himself, and primary one of the Democratic house reps. (he's gotten big wins in democratic primaries before), or like I noted earlier, he could do the "Mayor Pete" approach, and angle for a non-elected position in the federal government under a democrat if he truly felt "trapped" by being a democratic mayor in a red state. Or he could do what Hillary did, establish a residence in a more progressive state, and run for a higher office there. (he's got enough money to do so)

All of those are "easier" options than someone with his policy track record trying to run as a republican.

Make no mistake about it, he's taking the "harder road" on this one. The GOP novelty of "haha, look, one of your guys came over here" will wear off rather quickly (and he knows that).

Moreso than political aspirations, this seems like more of a "middle finger to party leaders who trash talked me because I disagreed with them on two things" move.

If he was just disgruntled with the course of the Democratic Party, he could work to change it from within and, if that was unsuccessful, drop out of politics and change his party affiliation.

That's been tried by various people, it doesn't work. They get either get intentionally boxed out, or they get the pitchfork treatment.

Examples of people getting boxed out? Andrew Yang.

On paper, Yang was one of the few guys who held policy positions that seemed to be in-line with most everything progressives wanted (UBI, universal healthcare, gun control, higher taxes on the rich, automation taxes to protect blue collar workers, paid family leave, etc...). The only people who would actually let him speak for more than a 30-second soundbite and do a wide-reaching long form interview? Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro. During the Democratic primaries, they barely gave the guy a chance to talk.

Examples of the pitchfork treatment?, Sinema.

Much like Johnson, she had a few points of disagreement with her party (despite being in-line with Democrats on most things), yet they talk about her like she's a "complete sellout"...and why? Because she didn't support all parts of the "build back better" plan? Think about it, a pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-universal healthcare, proponent of redirecting military spending toward education spending, member of the LGBT community (and former member of the LGBT equality caucus in the House), is now all of the sudden a "sellout" or "saboteur" because she didn't want to toe the party line on one or two things.

The hopes of "changing the party from within" are something of a pipe dream if recent history is any indicator. So like I said, Eric Johnson's move seems more like a "middle finger" than any sort of sincere political aspiration thing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Donors are demanding their money back and he'll likely face a recall.

Have his actual policy positions changed yet? Or just the letter after his name?

If he's still pro-gun control, pro healthcare, pro education, pro-LGBT, etc... and the "letter change" is a protest move, then I don't see what grounds they have to ask for a refund. In fact, if the letter switch is an attempt to make the point I suspect he's trying to make, donors demanding refunds would be helping him prove his point.

The positions that he holds that are odds with mainstream progressives, were the positions he already had going into it. His positions on wanting stronger police forces and lower property taxes pre-date both of his mayoral election wins. (the first of which he won by 11 points, the second of which, nobody even bothered to challenge him because challenging an incumbent with a 77% approval rating is basically throwing your money way)

 

[RDKirk]

It seems apparent that nobody here has figured out exactly why Johnson switched parties, and yet doesn't believe the reason he gives.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It seems apparent that nobody here has figured out exactly why Johnson switched parties, and yet doesn't believe the reason he gives.

I believe the reason he gave...he thinks the Democrats (by in large) are too weak on law & order, and demand adherence to the "echo chamber".... and doesn't like being slandered as "truant" and "ineffective" by party leaders because he had "the nerve" to go "against the grain" on 2 things.

A 77% approval rating, combined with the fact that you can tout that your policies led to you being the only top 10 major city who saw a crime decrease from 2020-2022 instead of an increase is well earned "bragging rights". To have your own party figuratively "crap all over you" because you recognize that stronger policing works and that there are benefits to lowering property taxes (despite championing all of their other causes) has to feel like a slap in the face.

I've been shooting down the various (bordering on conspiracy) theories that have been presented that suggest otherwise.

The suggestions from the left have been "he's doing it for political gain" or "it's an inside 'work' between him and TX republicans"...I've outlined several reasons why that's unlikely & implausible, and why his move has actually created a harder political road for himself (if political aspiration were his central focal point)

"Democrats being especially weak on law & order" isn't just a fringe theory at this point...from centrists to farther left people, that's become a recognized fact. Ana Kasparian from "The Young Turks" (if you're not familiar, a very progressive outlet...bordering on socialist) had sort of a revelation after she was sexually assaulted by a homeless person in her neighborhood and when telling her story, was criticized for "stigmatizing the unhoused", and then verbally assaulted by supposed "comrades" after she said she said she didn't want to be called a "birthing person". In a matter of 3 hours, she went from being considered "progressive champion" to the pejorative "TERF" simply over miniscule points of disagreement.

People like to think "eat your own" only exists on the conservative side...nothing could be further from the truth.

(starting at the 30 minute mark, which is where it's discussed)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Make no mistake about it, he's taking the "harder road" on this one. The GOP novelty of "haha, look, one of your guys came over here" will wear off rather quickly (and he knows that).

Not really arguing that - toeing the party line is always going to be easier than switching. But as you point out, he wasn't toeing the line. If he was already getting boxed out when angling for a higher office, then maybe he figured he'd have a better chance as an R?

Moreso than political aspirations, this seems like more of a "middle finger to party leaders who trash talked me because I disagreed with them on two things" move.

That's more or less the second theory I proposed (i.e. he's an idiot). Throwing up a middle finger feels great and cathartic in the moment, but it accomplishes nothing aside from making people mad at you. In doing this, he makes advancing his agenda even more difficult for the rest of his term. If he got elected on the platform, then it would seem that the people of Dallas were willing to support him in pushing it. Now? Maybe not so much.

That's been tried by various people, it doesn't work. They get either get intentionally boxed out, or they get the pitchfork treatment.

If he's not in a political office, why would he care about that?

Examples of people getting boxed out? Andrew Yang.

Andrew Yang had bad timing. His whole schtick was that he was a billionaire businessman outsider who could shake things up. That didn't work out very well with Trump, so people were understandably skeptical of Yang (that was my main objection to him, personally - I was looking for someone who could offer more stability to the office).

Examples of the pitchfork treatment?, Sinema.

The problem with Sinema is that she and Manchin were holding back large chunks of the Democratic agenda over those "few points of disagreement", and Sinema in particular made a big show of her objection (I also recall some taunting/gloating). Had the Democrats had more of a majority in the Senate, or Republicans not been united in obstructionism, I think people would have been more tolerant.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not really arguing that - toeing the party line is always going to be easier than switching. But as you point out, he wasn't toeing the line. If he was already getting boxed out when angling for a higher office, then maybe he figured he'd have a better chance as an R?

He got elected during a time when there was some allowance for deviation. Things have changed a lot between 2019 and present day.

You brought up Machin, that's a perfect example. To my recollection, Machin wasn't much of a household name in 2019, and Democrats were pretty happy with the fact that they managed to get a Democratic senator elected at all in WV...and saw it as something of a 'bonus' that they could get someone in a very red state in such a high position who was at least willing to agree with them on ~30% of the issues (vs. an R who would likely fight them on absolutely everything)

Fast forward to 2023, he is a household name now (and not in a good way largely due to the media helping to shape public opinion about him)

That's more or less the second theory I proposed (i.e. he's an idiot). Throwing up a middle finger feels great and cathartic in the moment, but it accomplishes nothing aside from making people mad at you. In doing this, he makes advancing his agenda even more difficult for the rest of his term. If he got elected on the platform, then it would seem that the people of Dallas were willing to support him in pushing it. Now? Maybe not so much.

In this case, Democratic party leaders already didn't like him (the people obviously did, a 77% approval rating is nothing to sneeze at)

But there's a lot of things people like, but don't get when the "higher ups" are controlling the platform. For the same reason that while 77% republicans approve of universal background checks, the GOP leaders won't touch it and the RNC will hold back funding and support for anyone who dares to cross them on that.

Andrew Yang had bad timing. His whole schtick was that he was a billionaire businessman outsider who could shake things up. That didn't work out very well with Trump, so people were understandably skeptical of Yang (that was my main objection to him, personally - I was looking for someone who could offer more stability to the office).

I don't think Yang is a billionaire is he? In any case, in reference to 2020, his timing wasn't bad for that reason, his timing was bad because the DNC had their mind made up that only a perceived moderate could beat Trump.

If he's not in a political office, why would he care about that?

For some people "controlling ones own narrative" is important. Maybe he didn't want to become another Lori Lightfoot or Sinema, where the last recollection people have of them will be "sent off in disgrace" and "having to become Independent in order to dodge a primary", respectively.

In Lightfoot's case, choosing to remain with the same party and fight it out ended in her being slammed by media pundits on both sides...and universally perceived as having no backbone.

At least with the Johnson approach, he'll have some respect among some independents and moderates and some right-leaning outlets will have few kinds words about him (at least for the short term before they move onto the next culture war du jour)

...Johnson (if we wanted to take an easy political path to higher office) could've simply kept it mouth shut about the disagreements he had with the party, let it fizzle out (people have short attention spans these days)...and done the Hillary approach, found a more "blue conducive" state, rented a cheap apartment there to establish residence, and ran as a democrat there.

The problem with Sinema is that she and Manchin were holding back large chunks of the Democratic agenda over those "few points of disagreement", and Sinema in particular made a big show of her objection (I also recall some taunting/gloating). Had the Democrats had more of a majority in the Senate, or Republicans not been united in obstructionism, I think people would have been more tolerant.

...but, I mean, think about what you're saying there. "if Democrats had more of a majority in the Senate, then they'd be more tolerant"...that's not real tolerance.

That's like saying "I'm okay with dissenting viewpoints, so long as they don't have the capacity to stop me from doing what I want and have no negative impact on me"...that means they're not really okay with dissenting viewpoints.