Should local Democrats give Republican candidates time to speak?

[Shipwack]

This has been bugging me for a week. I've finally written the county chair of the local Democratic Party organization, but I wanted to get some other feedback.

Due to my work schedule, I can't attend my local meetings for the county Democratic Party. I still try to keep up with local issues, though. Last week I got my monthly party email, and saw this:

To accommodate Sen. Gutierrez schedule, we have moved the meeting to 6:30pm instead of the normal 7pm start time! Light refreshments will be served. You can learn how to plug into your local county party. Our speakers will be Senator Roland Gutierrez, Eric Hanke and Jeff "Gogo" Gogolewski.

Jeff is running in the Republican Primary to be the next sheriff of the Bastrop County Sheriff's Department. He will relate the changes he would like to make in the department.

WTF? A Republican is being platformed at the Democratic Party County meeting? Even if we aren't running anyone to oppose the Republicans (and it appears we aren't, if I'm reading our primary ballot correctly) I see no reason to give him eyeballs.

Am I just ignorant on how things are run at the local level, or does anyone else find it odd? This is Bastrop County, by the way.

[TwilightZone]

1. There aren't any Democrats running for Sheriff in Bastrop County.

It's good to know where the various candidates stand to make an informed decision. I don't know if they'll be hosting all three at some point or if he's just he most moderate of the three, and, therefore, the least objectionable.

Texas also has open primaries so it may be in our interest to help determine the candidate in that race, since that candidate will be unopposed in November.

[Shipwack]

2. Good points. Thank you. nt

[willamette]

3. They decide amongst themselves, well before the "election."

I was both astonished and then rapidly said to myself, "Of course they do." It took several elections with no opponent on the ballot for Sheriff (Oregon counties), and then finally a couple of newspaper (we used to have those) articles that explained that the old sheriff would resign early, which would open up the spot for an appointee, who would become the incumbent. The deadlines for registering for the election were futzed around with ... if you didn't do something, something, before somewhen, you couldn't be on the ballot ...
I'm not sure how they manage to keep any opposition off the ballot completely, but they do. The same with elected judges. You have a choice in the election, of the one person on the ballot.

[carpetbagger]

4. My county is 80 percent Republican.

I vote in the GOP primary. Most of the partisan local races are decided there, and there's a big difference between Republican crusaders and administrators. I vote straight D in the general elections, and trust the rest of the party to choose nominees. So this makes sense to me.

[summer_in_TX]

5. I'm in a purple county where we at one time had a conservative Dem for State Rep.

Some of the liberals he'd offended mounted a campaign to crossover in the primary, to help choose his opponent. Needless to say, he lost that election. But the effect for 10-12 years was to discourage Dems from running, because the numbers showed the Rs far outnumbered the Ds. We paid by not being able to get Dems to run for maybe 10 years. Luckily that has finally turned around. In the meantime a Tea Party Republican defeated the conservative Democrat and was re-elected 3-4 terms. Now his even worse wife holds that seat. The Dem voted agains liberal and moderately liberal positions a fair amount. Both Tea Party State Reps voted against them 100% of the time.

[LeftInTX]

6. Although people discourage Dems from crossing over to GOP primary, it can have a decent impact on local elections.