Yesterdays Republican primary revealed a party in which the tea party remains ascendant.
Yesterdays Democratic primary revealed a party in disarray, and raised questions about whether the Wendy Davis campaign is, in the end, more hype than hope.
That sounds harsh, and it may be, but for all the ink spilled about Wendy Davis and Battleground Texas, how is it possible that Democratic turnout plummeted from 680,000 in 2010 to 546,000 this year; that Bill White, who won the gubernatorial nomination that year, outpolled Wendy Davis 517,487 to 432,025; that Wendy Davis, whose campaign bragged about how much money they had raised, finished with less than 80 percent of the primary vote - the other 20 percent going to Ray Madrigal of Corpus Christi, who didnt raise or spend a cent on the campaign, except perhaps to gas up his car to drive to Dallas for an editorial board meeting with the Morning News, and who actually beat Davis in some South Texas counties that are crucial to Democratic success, all seemingly on the strength of his Hispanic surname.
- In Hidalgo County - where the turnout of 11.67 percent was nearly three times the rate statewide - Madrigal outpolled Davis, 18,907 to 16,944.
- In Starr County - where turnout was 14.33 percent - Madrigal trounced Davis, two-to-one - 2,785 to 1,489.
- In Willacy County - where turnout was 21.68 percent - Madrigal defeated Davis, 1,511 to 967
- And in Webb county - where turnout was also an astonishing 21 percent - Madrigal outpolled Davis, 12,100 to 10,466. (Note to the Davis campaign. The Streets of Laredo is best thought of as a dirge and not a campaign anthem - Then beat the drum slowly, play the fife lowly/Play the dead march as you carry me along.)
I asked Rice University political scientist Mark Jones last night what he made of these results. His reply:
Davis especially weak performance in the border counties stretching from Cameron County to Webb County should be setting off the fire alarms in Fort Worth tonight. To be competitive in November she needs Hispanic Democrats in those counties to turn out in record numbers, and to vote for her, not Abbott. These results suggest she has some real work to do down in south Texas. Bill White did better than this, and he faced six other candidates, including two Hispanics as well as Farouk Shami, who dropped $11 million on his primary bid.
In the end, Madrigal has done Democrats a great favor by exposing Davis failure to connect effectively - at least so far - with Latino voters. Either Davis has to do something to change that - and apparently simply attacking Abbott for likening corruption in South Texas to the third world didnt do the trick - or Democrats may have to make a decision, either subtly or not so subtly, to retrain their eyes from Wendy Davis and the race for governor to Sen. Leticia Van de Putte and the race for lieutenant governor, where if, as seems increasingly likely, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, is the Republican candidate, Van de Putte could make the case that she is the safer, more centrist and less polarizing choice.
What makes this moment so perilous for Democrats is that it is one thing for Wendy Davis, in concert with Battleground Texas, to win and lose for governor but move the ball foward. It would be quite another thing if she lost ground, and in the process, undermined the premise that, over the long haul, Democrats cant help but become more competitive in Texas because of the growing Latino population.
In the October University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, in which Davis was trailing Abbott by six percentage points - 40 to 34 percent - she was ahead among Hispanics - 39 to 31 percent. But in the most recent February UT/TT poll, in which Abbott had expanded his lead over Davis to 47 to 36 percent, Abbott was ahead of Davis among Hipsanic voters, 40 to 36 percent.
This bears repeating. Between the October and February polls, Davis lost ground to Abbott even as she increased her share of Anglo voters from 28 to 32 percent, and black voters, from 53 to 57, as her share of the Hispanic vote - the population who, long term, Democrats are pinning their hopes on - went from 39 to 36 percent, while Abbotts went from 31 percent to 40 percent.
Abbott, who won 1.2 million votes - 92 percent of Republian primary voters - is obviously onto Davis weakness with Latino voters. Latino voters were the focus of his comments after he voted midday yesterday in Austin with his wife Cecilia, who he likes to note, would be the first Latina first lady in Texas history. He held his election night victory party at a Mexican restaurant in San Antonio. Democrats may mock this all as empty symbolism, but yesterdays results suggest they mock at their peril.
Davis losses in South Texas werent the only embarassment for the party last night.
In fact, the result most likely to make Texas Democrats a laughingstock in what was to be the year they got serious, was the partys contest for which candidate would have the honor of losing to Sen. John Cornyn in the fall. Last week, after a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll found that Kesha Rogers, a LaRouchie who supports the impeachment of President Obama, was running ahead in the field of five of candfiidates, Democratic Party leaders and activists sounded the alarm: WHATEVER YOU DO, DONT VOTE FOR KESHA ROGERS!
Until late into the night yesterday, it appeared likely that David Alameel of Dallas, who made his fortune with a chain of dental clinics, might spare the party the embarrassment of a runoff election including Rogers, as his vote total hovered around the 50 percent mark. But in the end, Alameel fell just short, winning 47 percent, which means that for the next three months - which will include an April visit by President Obama to Rogers hometown of Houston to raise money for Democratic House and Senate candidates - Texas Democrats will have to continue to explain how their Senate race came down to a contest betweeen a super-rich dentist and a women who likes to draw Hitler mustaches on pictures of Obama. Alameel will undoubtedly prevail (right?) with the approriate application of money. But how much is that? Two years ago he invested $4.5 milion of his own money in a losing bid for the Democratic nomination for a U.S. House seat from Dallas, which nettted him 2,064 votes. Thats $2,180 a vote. If he attempts to spend at that rate at the statewide level, Alameel may prove a bigger boon to the Texas economy than fracking.
The Texas Democratic Partys s failure to recruit a high quality US Senate candidate is now coming back to haunt them. Alameel will win in the end, but not until after 12 weeks of distraction and people scratching their heads attempting to reconcile the vision presented by Democrats of a Texas on the cusp of turning blue and the reality that the TDP couldnt avoid the indignity of having a LaRouche acolyte in its runoff
And what is really going on here?
Rogers came in second with 21 percent of the vote - nearly 60,000 votes. Is there really a significant subset of Democratic voters who feel that Obama is a modern-day Hitler who needs to be removed from office? Or is Rogers just a really broadly appealing name? And if thats all it takes, why not dispense with all the position papers, attack ads, block-walking and fundraising and just throw everything you got at coming up with a pleasing name and assigning it to your chosen candidate? And if that is the case, how is it possible that someone named Barack Hussein Obama ever got elected president of the United States?
Democratic voters yesterday gave further weight to the pleasing-name theory by making Jim Hogan, a dairy farmer and insurance agent from Cleburne, their first choice for agriculture commissioner, narrowly ahead of Richard Kinky Friedman (his ballot name), who will face Hogan in the May runoff. Democrats from Van de Putte to Jim Hightower, the last Democrat to serve as agriculture commissioner, threw their weight behind Hugh Asa Fitzimsons III, a bison rancher from San Antonio, for the job, hoping, along the way to preempt Kinky.
Well, Kinky, in his third run for statewide office, is well known and has, in addition to his detractors, an evident fan base and, this year, a cause - legalizing marijuana and hemp.
But Fitzsimons, who ran a very serious campaign, may simply have had too many names.
Heres Mark Jones (great name) on Hogan v. Fitzsimons:
Given that Hogan spent less than $500 on his campaign after his filing fee, I can only imagine that many low-information Democratic voters who knew virtually nothing about the candidates felt a stronger bond with the more down to earth name of Jim Hogan than the more elitist sounding name of Hugh Asa Fitzsimons III. For the Democrats sake, they should hope that there are no skeletons in Hogans unvetted closet, or they may find themselves stuck with Kinky in November.
Here from the Texas Tribune report on the agriculature commissioner race:
Among the nights more surprising results were those in the Democratic primary for agriculture commissioner. Despite having support from the state party, Hugh Fitzsimons, a South Texas rancher, came in last in the three-way race. Jim Hogan, a dairy farmer and insurance agent, will face Kinky Friedman, a musician and novelist, in a runoff.
Hogan led the vote totals, despite spending less than $5,000 on his campaign. Hogan said he did not spend money during the campaign because itd be silly to raise money. He added that there was no need for a campaign website, which he doesnt have, because somebodys going to Google you anyway.
And, here from Reeve Hamilton on last nights Texas Tribune liveblog:
In December, I spoke with Hogan about the competition. He predicted that he would win in large part because his name had a nice ring to it. Heres what he said at the time:
Most people dont know who anyone is. When they go in there, they look at three names. They either dont vote at all now, this is the primary or they say eenie, meenie, miney, mo, or they look at a name. They see Kinky Friedman and think, That looks familiarNaw. Asa? Naw. Jim Hogan? Ive heard of Hogan! Yeah, I think Ill vote for him! He sounds like a nice guy!
In short, between them, Ray Madrigal, Kesha Rogers and Jim Hogan have exposed just how hollow the core of the Democratic Party remains in Texas.
It is possible to look at yesterdays results and conclude that the tea party fell short of its potential.
Here, for example, is the top of Manny Fernandezs story in the New York Times, under the headline, Texas G.O.P. Beats Back Challengers From the Right.
McALLEN, Tex. Establishment Republican leaders on Tuesday defeated challenges from the right in a statewide primary election as conservatives inspired by Senator Ted Cruz largely failed to topple mainstream incumbents, and a race for lieutenant governor headed for a runoff.
Two Republican leaders in Congress Senator John Cornyn and Representative Pete Sessions and a number of other Republicans in the House overcame opponents backed by Tea Party activists. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst will face a conservative state senator, Dan Patrick, in a runoff on May 27, a sign that Mr. Dewhursts loss to Mr. Cruz in the 2012 Senate primary runoff continued to hurt his popularity.
Mr. Dewhursts race was a significant contrast to how the battle between establishment and Tea Party conservatives played out elsewhere. Mr. Patrick, a radio talk show host with significant Tea Party support, won more votes than Mr. Dewhurst, who placed second.
Thats right, as far as it goes. But go a little further and it seems to me yesterday was another very good day for the tea party and Ted Cruz.
Cornyn won 59.44 percent of the vote, just 0.06 percent shy of being able to round up to 60 percent. A solid performance, but it is clear that Cruzs failure to endorse him hurt.
Mark Jones on Cornyns showing:
Less than three-fifths of the vote against a weak field is hardly a ringing endorsement of Cornyn by Republican primary voters. Abbotts winning of more than nine out of ten GOP primary votes really puts Cornyns backing by less than six out of ten in perspective, and not in a good way.
Yes, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, chairman of the House Rules Committee, defeated tea party upstart Katrina Pierson, 64 to 36 percent. But Pierson did pretty well considering she was coming out of nowhere, and running on a shoestring on the strength of a shoutout from Cruz and the endorsements of Cruzs father, Rafael, and Sarah Palin.
And whether it was Dan Patrick in the race for lieutenant governor or Ken Paxton in the race for attorney general, tea party candidates were headed into runoffs not coming from behind, but well out in front. In the GOP race for agriculture commisisoner, Sid Miller is headed into the runoff well ahead. That would be the Sid Miller whose campaign treasurer is Ted Nugent; the Sid Miller who, after the recent controversy around Nugent calling President Obama a subhuman mongrel,said he was sticking with Nugent.
As the Houston Chronicle reported:
Hes used words that I wouldnt use, Miller said. He has a very colorful vocabulary. He recanted some remarks that he made about the president, so I think that everythings good.
Here is Paul Burkas what we learned wrap this morning in Texas Monthly:
If there was a clear winner in last nights election, it was the tea party. Texas is a tea party state now, punctuated by Dan Patricks taking control of the lieutenant governors race from David Dewhurst. The entire state has taken a turn to the hard right, and that is the immediate future of Texas politics. How long will it last? What does it mean for the Democrats? Those are the next big questions to ask.
One of the most impressive performances of the evening was Donna Campbells reelection victory in SD 25. In a three-way race, she surged ahead to win with 55 percent of the vote. There were also impressive showings by little-known tea party candidates. In the House, two of Joe Strauss most valued supporters, Linda Harper-Brown and Bennett Ratliff, were defeated, and they werent alone. The House will also have a more conservative tilt in the 2015 session, and that will make it difficult for Straus to lead in the next session as he did in the previous one.
.And the three tea party heroes in the House who were targeted for challenges crushed their opponents. In House Districtd 6, Rep. Matt Scaheffer defeated Skip Ogle, 62 to 38 percent. In House District 92, Rep. Jonathan Stickland defeated Andy Cargile, 64 to 36 percent. And in House District 83, Rep. Charles Perry defeated Stever Massengale, 76 to 24 percent.
A last word from Mark Jones:
Definitely a good night for the teap party and Michael Quinn Sullivan. Even where they lost (Keffer, Seliger), they ran very competitive races and demonstrated their ability to mount extremely credible challenges to powerful centrist incumbents.
See original here:
Primary lessons: Tea party holds sway; Dems and Davis in disarray - Austin American-Statesman