Hi.

Welcome to Party Politics, where we prepare you for your next political conversation.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina.

And I'm Brandon Rottinghaus.

We are professors of political science at the University of Houston, bringing you a jam packed show.

We are entering the final phase of the election.

My friend, if you can believe it, it's finally here.

I think that we should just vote now.

Like, honestly.

Like, what more is there to say and do?

We've already hashed all this stuff out, but it turns out that there is more.

And it's interesting to me because we're seeing this evolution for both parties, right?

All of a sudden, Texas is competitive.

That means Republicans have to come here to defend the ground.

And you're seeing Democrats really kind of change how they talk about issues in a way that pushes them to the center.

So we're seeing some interesting dynamics here the last couple of weeks.

We'll talk about what it all means and how it affects the race.

But let's get into the first topic, and that is that we are seeing a convergence of the Republican leadership here in Texas.

Donald Trump is coming to Denton to talk about manufacturing and is an economic agenda.

JD Vance is going to be in Harlingen, and he's going to be trying to rally Latinos down there.

But the main issue here is that when we're thinking about the election and these visits, first of all, is the timing.

Is it too late?

By now, most voters have made up their minds, and most of them are already debating whether support one side or the other or simply not vote.

And the other question here is whether the context and the economy really help to make a case so they can come.

They can say, they can argue, but the reality is that voters confront reality every single day at the gas pump, every single day at the grocery store.

So yeah, it's very unclear.

Like does messaging move people here in the sense that they're living this reality that may not always match up with what the ads are telling them, right?

So there's a limit to persuasion on this, but I think that we are seeing the Republicans running scared.

They're definitely worried about losing Texas.

That's why they're coming here.

We typically don't see them coming quite this late.

But the Republicans recognize that not only number one do they have to save Ken Paxton, which is still an ongoing effort, this sort of remodeling of the kind of, you know, Paxton House.

But the other is that they can no longer take Texas for granted.

That is a unique change in the way that we're seeing the politics of this unfold.

So it is really about the fact that they can't afford to take Texas for granted anymore.

And that by itself is a tremendous kind of change.

So we're seeing essentially, you know, Republicans treat Texas not as an insurance policy anymore, but as a real Republican priority.

They also, I think, are trying to nationalize the race.

So the Republicans theory of this election is that they can rally Republicans in red states.

So the president is going to be basically visiting red states.

And the goal is to be able to boost Republican turnout, because their thinking is that if they increase Republican turnout, then that's going to be enough to be able to carry them over in states like Iowa, Alaska, Maine, Texas.

But obviously that depends on whether or not people are going to buy it.

And Republicans are going to have to vote for a lot of different kinds of candidates, including candidates that maybe have got some ethical baggage like a Ken Paxton or have got some liability issues like a Greg Abbott.

So we'll see if it plays out here.

But the fact that the president is coming here and the vice president is coming here in the same week is pretty telling.

They both have different objectives, right?

I mean, Trump is trying to define his legacy and make sure his party doesn't suffer terrible losses.

JD Vance is playing for the future, right?

Like what's the Republican Party look like post-Trump.

And so JD Vance has a need to be able to develop these deep ties in Texas, but.

Well, but once again, the main issue here is are you selling something that people are not interested in buying?

And the problem is that the 2024 coalition, right, was built around very easy things to verify.

Eventually better jobs, more money, health care basically, you know, cheaper than a Big Mac then.

And the border.

Right.

The border.

That was an issue that's like secure.

And the border.

And this and that.

Et cetera, Et cetera.

Very clear things.

Right.

The metrics are just there.

So then nothing has happened.

And then they come and say like we're doing great.

And it's like wait a minute.

How?

There's a perception that the Republicans and Donald Trump have made it worse.

Right.

And I think that the White House hasn't done a good enough job selling this effort.

I think that was true for Biden, too.

They didn't do a good enough job selling.

It's the same thing as the last year, the Biden administration.

Yeah, exactly.

Same scenario.

Which is odd because we think of the presidency is this sort of tremendous engine of communication.

But we're seeing a lot of these kind of failures in terms of leadership from the White House.

So it's definitely something that has to be remedied.

And the question is, yeah, I think you're asking is correct.

And that's like, is it going to remedy this in time?

But I want to ask you about the Latino vote, because there's been a tremendous delta in terms of the swing from the support from the 2024 coalition.

Oh fancy term Right, which was really about kind of really based on the kind of Latino vote and the redistricting that took place in Texas centered around the Latino vote.

So if Republicans hope to pick up votes and they hope to pick up seats, it's really the Latino coalition that's part of it.

So so JD Vance going to Harlingen, going to the Valley and trying to convince Latinos that, like the Republican Party is doing something on their behalf.

Really is, I think, a kind of cornerstone of that, that that kind of approach.

So is it going to work or not?

I mean, I don't think it's going to work.

Because once again.

Latinos supported the the Trump campaign in 2024 because the Trump campaign had the issues.

Right.

Number one.

Number two is I'm not going to let you down.

Yeah, right.

And Democrats have let you down.

Yeah.

And when Vance comes to Harlington it's going to be well there's a great taco place over there.

I forgot the name.

But anyways, the main issue.

In the comments we'll put it.

Yeah, right.

The main issue, right, is like, you promised me this.

You told me that you were going to date me.

You haven't taken me out to a date.

You haven't made or bought dinner.

You haven't brought me flowers or anything, right?

What are you talking about?

And now I think that Latinos in the RGV region are more in tune in terms of their power and how they're going to sell it to the best person that comes to it.

Then, on the other hand, you have a significant presence of of very recognizable candidates, Gina Hinojosa, on the one hand.

And then you have Bobby Pulido.

And they have been focusing on the issues about the affordability on the issues about the future of your family.

If you can pay rent, mortgage, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

And that has put in, I think the Biden administration, the the Trump administration, in a bind in the sense of now what?

So can they sell something that has not been done in the first two years?

Why should I believe you that you're going to do it in the next two?

Yeah.

Where's the credibility?

And this is actually a good point.

And we're going to talk about this on a future After Party.

But the idea is that there are Democrats are moving to the center.

Right.

They basically forego the idea of the sort of social war issues that have been a cornerstone of the Democrats kind of approach to politics the last couple of years, Gina Hinojosa, expressly saying, I have no plans to change the policies on abortion.

This is kind of like an apostrophe for Democrats, but they're moving to the center in a way that they hope will win the election.

So we'll see if it works.

But that's really the kind of question about what the party looks like going forward.

So.

I mean, and it's very clear, right, because you had all these issues at the forefront in the past elections, and Democrats have not been able to move the needle.

Now they have been focusing on issues regarding what voters want.

So we have said it here is you can talk about these principles, you know, a 300 zero feet off the ground.

But the reality is voters are going to buy that.

But the reality is voters are going to buy that.

It's it's about basic needs, right?

And the question if those basic needs are being taken.

Care of.

Yeah.

And like, who's credible to, like, get that on the, on the right, on the right stand.

And that's the that's the issue.

I think we're going to find out.

Well, the president thinks that he's the right messenger, and partly it's because they're spending taxpayer money to run ads that effectively or recycled campaign ads.

This is drawn the ire of some in Washington who have said, basically, this is an impeachable approach, like the fact that the president is spending public money through Homeland Security to pay for these ads.

Is a problem.

$20 million.

It's a lot of money, right?

It is.

So you're watching football.

All of a sudden this ad comes on that looks a lot like a campaign ad.

But the White House says it's not a campaign ad.

It doesn't call for any kind of advocacy.

It only kind of expresses the president's opinions about things, including about how this is the final battle.

And there's this we're going to defeat the deep state, and the Marxist are running government.

And.

ET cetera.

ET cetera.

So this has become a kind of flashpoint because there's a concern that basically the government is now spending money to run these ads.

that's using taxpayer dollars.

You see, in this case, the musical artist whose song is featured in it has asked them to take it out.

So it's not going great.

There's a concern, obviously, this violates the Hatch Act and other federal laws that you can't have this mixing of politics and government.

But what do you make of this and whether or not it's going to actually play out positively for the White House?

I don't know what the main issue right.

Is.

It's too late in the game?

Yeah.

And is the messaging landing or not?

No.

Absolutly not.

But again.

I think what's happening here is the issue is that the Republicans are looking for turnout, right.

This is a mobilization strategy.

They're not trying to persuade people the deep state exists.

Right.

Like there are people either believe it or don't.

And so they're trying to get to the people who do believe it.

And those people are trying to get, you know.

They're going to go out and vote regardless, right?

Like, regardless.

But I think their concern is that they won't right?

in Republican unity, especially in the races like the Paxton race.

Right.

Is potential that republicans will skip races.

No, I understand that.

But I think hardcore voters.

Right.

The ones are targeting these, type of public service announcements or patriotic public service announcement.

Are going to go out and vote regardless.

They are believers, period.

The big question is your fragmentation is among independents.

And those that lean Republican right there are iffy.

So if you show these type of political announcements or whatever they call and say, we're going to have the final battle against the socialist and communist.

Wait, what?

You have been in power controlling every single branch of government for the past two years.

Why haven't you delivered?

Right.

You have your DOGE, you purge the government, you did this, you cut money, you cut funding, you cut U.S.

aid, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

So these people are might be a little bit better informed on the fence.

They're going to say, I do not believe a single thing, and they're going to see it as what it is.

Yeah.

Does this messaging persuade?

It's hard to see that.

Right.

I think this is definitely about mobilization.

And maybe it's not mobilizing in the right way.

And there's a backlash effect to where people see this and say, oh yeah, this is not correct.

It doesn't match my reality.

And or I think you should be focusing on stuff that I care about, like bringing down gas prices or you know, making sure that I can afford bacon.

So basic stuff like that.

But look, there are kind of kind of problems, right, for Republicans.

And they're sounding these alarms, right.

We're seeing lots of money flow into the state like we talked about last week.

And then you've got Ken Paxton this week saying that he thought that the midterm convention in Dallas was really a net negative for him.

Right.

Caught sort of, you know, an audio on leaked audio that was like the kind of the Republican donor discussion.

He said that it didn't go well for him.

And I guess I'm not surprised because the president basically spent two full days calling Ken Paxton, like, unattractive and a bad campaigner.

But you should vote for him anyway.

Right.

Hard to imagine that it wouldn't turn out right for him, but I think they're not sure what their strategy should be.

So basically they're kind of going to the kind of core of things, right?

The things they know they can kind of bring up that are going to make sure that the Republicans will side with them.

But it's not clear that that's going to happen.

But what actually could move the needle is a discussion about the suspension of the federal gas tax.

So what's happening there and what is the dispute about in general?

Well, this is tax and gas prices have been brought strange bedfellows and and Talarico and Paxton basically agreeing on the principle that tax the federal tax gas should be suspended.

That's Talarico's plan just to suspend it.

And it's a temporary pause.

And Talarico has made this war connection, right?

Yeah.

To Iran.

And we have these gas prices because of the war in Iran.

Then Paxton response is, yeah, we should basically get rid of the federal, just like, you know, evaporated and without like, okay, sure.

And that's it.

And he has not he did not directly address Talarico's demand to condemn the war in Iran.

Paxton has said that he has supported the war in Iran because he does not think that Iran with a nuclear weapon is a good idea as anybody else.

And once again, saying that, that in order to make up of federal loss revenue, we should cut waste at the federal government and not taxing Texas in the pump.

But the question is again, but didn't we have DOGE.

Did that?

Yeah.

Like cutting waste and draining this swamp.

So it's the the kind of messaging I think it's very confusing.

It's a little clunky.

Yeah.

Especially for voters that are undecided.

Yeah.

And I think obviously, you know affordability has become the common ground.

That's not surprising.

But there needs to be some way to kind of plan this offsetting revenue.

I think that Paxton's messaging on affordability has gone totally lost on all of this, right.

The fact that Paxton was talking about this after Talarico brought it up just looks like you're kind of Johnny come lately.

And the fact that Paxton has been in interviews saying that he thinks data centers are an okay idea, as long as there are qualifications on that and limitations on that just kind of reinforces this idea that they don't have a great strategy.

And even if they did, it doesn't seem to connect with what voters, care about it, and they're real worries about what this might look like.

You also had Ken Paxton this week talking about how he basically is happy that superPACs exist.

The Supreme Court allowed this to happen in Citizens United, and as a result, like this money is kind of just pouring into Texas like Scrooge McDuck, just like flowing like on unprecedented amount of money.

And we're going to have basically about a, you know, record setting $400 million in advertising.

It's insane.

I mean, and anyone who turns the TV knows this is true because it's just happening.

TV text messages.

Internet?

Yeah.

Oh, the world wide web.

Yeah, as it is called.

But.

But I've heard of it.

Yeah.

Crazy.

It is.

And, you know, Paxton's also kind of pivoting that message.

So trying to get back to the affordable issue.

Right.

They're trying to do that.

So this is one way they can do that.

The other is that they're trying to bring up the fact that, you know, he's spent you know, he's done a lot of work on trying to kind of protect Texans.

Everyday Texans.

Correct.

Right.

The TikTok ban and the sort of suing social media companies become the kind of common.

Yeah, exactly.

And the eggs talk about last week.

So there are ways that they're trying to pivot that message, which could ultimately work.

But it's really scattered in a way.

And I think our discussion, it's kind of all over the place kind of highlights that, that there's just not a kind of central theme.

Right?

For Democrats, it's easier to say, look, you messed this up and people are hurting.

You should vote them out.

Like that's an easy message, but it's harder to be able to create a plan in the context of you having to defend what the Donald Trump administration has done and to try to plan for what's to come after that.

So just a lot of sort of lack of clarity there.

But let's talk about the governor's race for a minute, because there's lots going on there that does, I think, exploit and highlight some of the ability for both the candidates to be able to perform well.

Gina Hinojosa who initially had very little money, almost no money in the bank compared to Greg Abbott's huge war chest, has raised about $20 million.

That's a pretty good sum.

And she's using that to blast the governor on education.

And I think this is an issue where he's vulnerable.

In particular, she's saying that HISD use of AI and the plans in the future to use more of this in Texas is risky.

This highlights the problems, and I think the real worry that people have parents and administrators and teachers have that this is going to be kind of problem for public ed.

So the governor is vulnerable on this issue.

Right.

He basically manufactured the loss of almost every significant proponent of public ed in Texas.

They all lost because the governor put money against them.

And the voucher issue, I think, highlights the fact that Hinojosa has been talking about this kind of corruption moment, and it's become a problem for the governor to try to rearrange that.

So on affordability issues at the kind of core, you can branch out from there and look at how the education issue affects all of these voters, teachers, you know, you've got parents, you've got administrators who are all really stressed about this.

So I guess the question is, do you think that that affordability issue lands effectively?

And is that enough?

We've seen governors in the past who've taken public ed for granted, and they've lost because of it.

So you can't mess with this.

And I guess the issue is question is really do you think that Abbott has kind of gone the wrong direction on this?

Well, I mean, first of all, I think that the campaign that, you know, Hinojosa is trying to about already heard about, I think that is supporting voters economic anxieties.

On the one hand, concerns about, public school funding.

And I think that overall frustration in terms of state policies mandating local are especially about independent school districts decision making processes.

So that is something that is on voters minds.

And I think that, in terms of the strategy, it cut across urban areas and rural areas.

And then on the other hand, the fact that.

It's..And suburban areas.

Exactly.

Where the Republicans have run strong, but they've been losing ground.

Right.

And you have these, I guess public public school advocates that were pushed out of office.

That doesn't mean that they are, you know, sitting on their hands and not doing anything.

So that could also be problematic for the governor, at least complicate a little bit things rather than just cruising around election.

So once again, we go to this issue of the overreach in terms of the state of Austin controlling local decisions, because you have seen it also in terms of county governments, city governments, and now independent school districts.

And the fact, as you said, kicking down, public schools is not the right alternative, and especially with the voucher program that could not accommodate every single person and obviously doesn't pay for private school 100%.

Yeah, it's not going to fix public ed in any case.

That's what people are really worried about.

But the governor is not totally ignoring these kinds of affordability issues.

He did this week issue a disaster declaration over high diesel prices.

This, of course, is connected to transport of agricultural products, which is a huge factor for Texas.

Basically, the governor is going to suspend certain kinds of regulations on diesel and allow for diesel to be used in different ways and effectively kind of making a claim that affordability is important, but at the same time, making that claim, issuing this disaster declaration means that.

Disaster.

yeah, it's a disaster, right?

Like by definition.

And so I guess I wonder if, like, bring it up in this way by sort of telling people, yeah, it's really bad, we're going to try to help you here is a good thing or a bad thing for the governor.

I think it's a bad thing because, eventually they have supported the war on with Iran.

Yeah.

It's like admitting tacitly that this is a problem.

Exactly that.

That is the admission.

Right?

And, I mean, I get it.

The big question is, if it's too little, too late.

Diesel prices are around, what, six bucks a gallon?

That's insane.

That's high.

Gas prices are almost here in Texas.

About $4 a gallon or $3.80 something or whatnot.

And the big question is, if these rules like, for example, exempting the loads of 95,000 pounds using red diesel, is it going to make a dent or not?

Yeah, because we have had this issue with gas and diesel etcetera, etcetera.

Not yesterday.

Right.

We have been having this thing since the start of the conflict with Iran.

Yeah, right.

So people are tired.

Yes.

And they're going to say, well, now you're going to save, you know, this much.

Like okay.

Yeah, yeah.

It's maybe not enough.

Right?

Exactly.

To make a dent.

And now it does show he's doing something which I think.

No no no and that like right is a plus.

But yeah, I may not eventually matter that much because again, they've kind of missed their mark on this.

And it's perhaps the case that they didn't manage as properly from the start.

So those divides are problematic.

But there's also divides inside the Democratic Party that are indeed we see Jasmine Crockett obviously still not totally making up with James Talarico, but not totally at war with him.

So she released.

It, which is the worst?

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

It's like this middle ground that for politics.

It's terrible.

Grey zone and friend zone.

Yeah, yeah.

You got friend zoned, right?

Yeah.

Right.

Which is.

Yeah.

The most kind of terrible place to be because they need perfect unity if they're going to be successful.

And Jasmine Crockett has endorsed a bunch of different local candidates.

Her kind of comment is to say that this is really where the battle is, is where the action is.

And she's not wrong.

Remember 2018?

So much of the ability for Democrats to be successful started at the bottom and worked its way up.

You had Beto O'Rourke at the top obviously working the kind of top down, but it was really successful statewide because you had so many competitive races from the bottom, kind of juicing up turnout at the top.

So they need that for sure.

But her lack of endorsement here of Talarico on this list, which she says maybe coming later for statewide endorsements, is still a highlight of the fact that there's this rift between the Democratic Party.

This goes all the way back to the early 2000, right?

The Dream Team in 2001, and concerns about kind of what made for a best, the best kind of Democratic candidates.

So these wounds have not healed since then.

And this isn't going to kind of solve those issues.

I don't think that James Talarico has a Black turnout problem, but this speaks to an enthusiasm issue that could be complicated if it's the case.

There are a significant number of Black voters.

They are huge part of the Democratic coalition, right?

This basically Texas has the most Black voters of any state, almost 3 million.

And if just a fraction of them doesn't show up, it's curtains for the efforts for Democrats to be successful, not just statewide, but also in some key urban districts and in key urban counties like Harris County to be successful?

No, absolutely.

And these also, in light of the lack of debates between Paxton and Talarico.

Right.

Yeah.

And the big question here is, Democrats party unity has not been very well, I would say, policed.

Right.

You see the Republican Party being disciplined from top to bottom, whether you agree or not, you take a, you swallow the.

Drink, that big jug of Kool-Aid.

Exactly.

And.

All right, I'll do it for the good of the party.

So right now it's a reckoning moment.

And there has been significant problems between uh.

For example, Representative Ro Khanna from California just basically critiqued the move of Jasmine Crockett, saying like, well, it's, control of the House or the US Senate, and the.

stakes are really high.

Yeah.

Maybe you should like.

invite people to vote.

And then I don't know.

Yeah, like, we need to repair this for the common good.

And this is not going to help if you can't find this unity, she says.

Well, we already kind of shook hands and made it up.

Of course it did.

But that's not the point.

The point is you need that enthusiasm and everyone needs to be rolling in the same direction.

And if that's not the case, then it's going to be a problem.

Last thing let's talk about is a a court ruling which has implications for voter fraud and legal voting issues.

Crystal Mason prevails in a fight over the kind of government that's prosecuting her.

She basically was convicted of a five year sentence for casting a provisional vote, which he was not legally allowed to do.

She was on supervised release.

The conviction of basically overturns that.

This, to me, raises the bar for future prosecutions of voter fraud.

Basically, by putting it into the category of they had to know, she had to know, and they said she didn't.

So it does complicate the ability to be able to police voter fraud in the future, which Republicans say is a big issue.

It is not a big issue because the case is, according to the attorney General's office statistics that they publish is very, very small issue.

There is voter fraud, absolutely but is nothing to change or sway an election outcome.

I think it's good.

I think that due process has to be there, and I think that all the evidence has to be, especially when you're thinking about a very important right to vote.

But we're going to keep an eye on this and many other issues for next week.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina.

And I'm Brandon Rottinghaus.

The conversation keeps up next week.