I intend to do a comprehensive roundup of why Ted Cruz won the Senate race, and why David Dewhurst lost, but it’s such a big subject I’m having trouble getting started. There’s entirely too much to talk about, and I’m still digesting all the ramifications.
So instead, here are a few other random observations from last night’s runoff:
Republicans now have two Hispanic candidates running for statewide office: Ted Cruz at the top of the ballot (just below President) for United States Senate, and Elsa Alcala for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8. Number of Democrats nominated for statewide office in Texas in 2012: Zero. (Even the Libertarians have more statewide Hispanic candidates than the Democrats this year, which is to say they have one.)
Actually, the Libertarians more candidates running statewide than the Democratic Party does. And the Greens (five) have just as many.
Donna Campbell stomped Jeff Wentworth, taking two-thirds of the vote against a long-time incumbent which (absent a serious scandal) is almost unheard of. However, the result isn’t the “upset” some newspapers are proclaiming it, since Elizabeth Ames Jones split the anti-Wentworth vote in the primary, indicating deep dissatisfaction with the very establishment incumbent.
As expected, Paul Sadler beat Grady Yarbrough for the Democratic Senate nomination. Sadler is about to find out that when members of the national Democratic Party promised him adequate funding if he won the primary, they were engaged in what is commonly known as “lying.”
Republican U.S. Congressional Race runoffs: Ron Paul-endorsed Randy Weber beat Felicia Harris in CD14, Roger Williams beats Wes Riddle in CD25 (Last Williams Standing, and I think the only Senate race dropout to win their new race), once and future congressman Steve Stockman (part of the Gingrich wave in 1994) beat Stephen Takach in CD36. Plus longshots in two heavily Democratic districts: Dale A. Brueggemann over Eddie Zamora in CD15 to face incumbent Ruben Hinojosa, and Jessica Puente Bradshaw over Adela Garza to take on Filemon Vela in new “minority opportunity” CD34.
Pete Gallego beat former congressman Ciro B. Rodriguez for the chance to take on Republican incumbent Francisco “Quico” Canseco in CD23. Canseco took the seat away from Rodriguez in 2010, and CD23 is essentially the only realistic opportunity Democrats have to flip a Texas U.S. congressional seat this election.
The Tea Party is alive and well not only in Texas, but also in Georgia, where voters rejected a consultant pocket-lining mass transportation tax hike supported by the Republican governor.
Ted Cruz staffer Joshua Perry recently tweeted that he had hit a deer. (Both his car and the deer were fine.) I quipped that he should hope it was a Dewhurst-voting deer. He replied he thought it was for Sadler. But there are so many other possibilities:
It was a Grady Yarbrough deer, disoriented from suddenly being thrust from the safety of obscurity, out into the bright onrushing headlights.
It was a Sean Hubbard deer, which had spent the last two months wandering around despondently without purpose, before finally deciding to put itself out of its misery.
It was a Craig James deer, sure it could make it across the road, but only made in 3% of the way before it got hit.
It was a Ricardo Sanchez deer, which just stepped out into the road before realizing that it didn’t have the energy to get to the other side.
It was a Joe Agris deer, who felt its mission was accomplished simply by stepping out onto the road.
It was a Michael Williams deer, which suddenly decided it wanted to be on another road.
It was a Roger Williams deer, which was just following the Michael Williams deer.
In summary: I’ve been following the Texas Senate race too damn long!
I’ve made my feelings about district-shopping and carpetbagger bids clear before. Roger Williams’ home of Weatherford is smack dab in District 12, currently represented by Republican incumbent Kay Granger. I can certainly understand not wanting to take on an entrenched Republican incumbent, but that still doesn’t justify district shopping.
That said, I think either Williams would make a solid Republican Representative.
Not sure how I feel about the switch. Certainly both Williamses struck me as conservative enough to represent Texas, and there would be lots of benefits to having another bright, articulate black conservative in the House. But I’m not wild about carpetbagger bids; no one should move to a new district just to get elected (legislators specifically gerrymandered out of their old districts just to get rid of them excepted).
Last week it was Michael Williams. This week it’s Roger Williams switching from running for the Senate to running for House District 33. I don’t know if Joe Barton’s decision to stick to the sixth had any effect on his decision or not, but it sets up a Williams vs. Williams showdown for District 33. (Although unlike Michael Williams, Roger Williams has already managed to update his website the day the switch was announced.)
The favorite for District 33? Michael Williams is the one with the heaviest conservative movement credentials, and having an outspoken, articulate black conservative in congress would be a big benefit at the national level. But Roger Williams has some significant endorsement firepower, including George H. W. and Barbara Bush, sitting Congresswoman Kay Granger, and Nolan and Ruth Ryan.
In the Senate race, I suspect Roger Williams decision will probably benefit Cruz and Leppert about equally, with Cruz picking up more of Williams voters, but potentially freeing up more donors in Leppert’s natural Metroplex base to donate to his campaign.
Now, with the Special Session adjourning, all eyes on the Senate race turn to see whether David Dewhurst jumps in or not…
The Ted Cruz winning streak continues, with two more key endorsements, namely Peggy Venable, Texas State Director for Americans for Prosperity, and Ernie Angelo, former RNC Committeeman.
Cruz has easily lapped his opponents in the endorsement race. Other than Roger Williams’ endorsement by former President George H. W. Bush, and the departed Michael Williams’ endorsement by Jim DeMint, I can’t think of a single high-profile endorsement for any other candidate. I don’t think Tom Leppert’s handful of pastors really counts (though getting a max donation from Roger Staubach certainly didn’t hurt).
Key endorsements aren’t worth as much winning the fundraising race, but they’re not chopped liver either. The fact that the Cruz campaign has rolled these out at a regular rate of a couple every week suggests to me that he has a fair number in his pocket, and wants to pace them out.
A little bird passed me the flyer for a Michael Williams fundraising event for his Congressional campaign today at noon at The Coronado Club in Houston. Word is that he’s waiting until the District 33 lines are finalized by the legislature before officially dropping his Senatorial bid.
Roger Williams will address a Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans this weekend. As will Michael Williams (assuming he doesn’t drop out as part of refocusing on that Congressional campaign). As will Rick Perry. Hmmm, seems like quite the event. I may need to go next year, since it’s closer and cheaper than CPAC. Plus New Orleans beats the hell out of DC any day…
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram‘s J. R. Labbe is shocked, shocked that all the contenders for the Republican Senate nomination at the forum sounded like Republicans rather than those “courageous” tax-hikers the liberal media is always carrying water for.
You have to admire the pithy concision of this line: “State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, would be hard to beat in a bid for U.S. Senate, according to a poll released today by state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston.” Iconoclast is unimpressed. “Pretty much everyone I talk to scoffed at the numbers regardless of who they work for or whether they like Patrick.”
Democratic longshot Sean Hubbard makes his pitch to the Daily Kossacks on why they should support him over Ricardo Sanchez. Honestly, it’s pretty weak sauce, full of generic “I’ll be a good Senator and listen to my constituents” stuff. He also put up this missive to the Kossacks, which has more liberal talking points of the sort that will please that crowd. But it’s woefully short of what he has to do to even get on the radar. As an underfunded longshot, he pretty much has to be attacking Sanchez every single day from the left if he wants to gain even the tiniest bit of traction in the race. No one beyond hardcore political junkies have even heard of him or realize he’s running at this point. If he can’t change that he’s going to continue being Mr. Irrelevant, despite the fact that Sanchez could very well be vulnerable to a serious challenger on his left flank.
I’m linking to this piece mainly to mock it, as it looks like the text in the link above has been automatically translated into another language, and then back into English, and then posted without any editing. “Hе accepted thе credentials οf thе forums wіƖƖ contrariety depending οn thе hosting organization, bυt generally any claimant wіƖƖ margin qυеѕtіοnѕ frοm a regressive row acted bу attendees аnԁ thе panelists themselves. Each forum іѕ approaching tο final аbουt dual hours.” Even by the standards of content-scrapping linkbait zombie sites this is peculiar…
Elizabeth Ames Jones interviewed in The Jarrell Star Ledger. I’m just happy Jarrell has a newspaper, given the tragic affinity tornadoes have for the place…
Finally, one bit of non-news: We’ve been hearing for over a week that Michael Williams was getting out of the Senate race to run for the newly created Texas 33rd Congressional District, an idea buoyed by his absence from the candidate forum on Wednesday. However, Williams has not publicly confirmed or denied the information on either his website, his Facebook account, or his Twitter feed. I can understand weighing your options, but this complete silence on the issue after you’ve already sent out a fundraising solicitation for the congressional race seems a bit odd…
Three of the four candidates came across as prepared, articulate, polished and effective speakers, and all four tried to portray themselves as tea party conservatives:
Ted Cruz was the most polished of the four, as you would expect of the former Texas Solicitor General. He was very good not only at making his points, but also expertly tying highlights of his career and life-story (like his work on 10th Amendment issues for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and his father fleeing Castro’s Cuba [see here for correction]) into answers without it seeming forced. His only drawbacks were that every now and then he would seem just a little bit too polished, his pitch modulations a little too calculated, and he needs to add a few touches of humor liven things up. (His one recycled Reagan anecdote isn’t going to cut it.) With Michael Williams out, I think Cruz cemented his status as both tea party favorite and frontrunner.
I have not made any secret of my doubts as to Tom Leppert‘s new-found conservative convictions, but he comes across as a very polished and prepared speaker. He says that he cut a lot of unnecessary programs as Dallas Mayor; when I get a chance, I’m going to ask his campaign for a list. If you didn’t know about his previous record, you would think him just as conservative as his compatriots. He did have a couple of weaknesses as a public speaker: shrugging and spreading his hands was his go-to move for almost every question. He also displayed a sort of nervous eye-twitch between questions, maybe because of the bright stage lights. But guess what? There are going to be a lot of bright stage lights between now and March…
Roger Williams had the most varied performance: He has an engaging, natural personality (with just the right touch of rough-hewn “old coot” country charm) and can clearly hold his own against his more polished opponents, but he went back to his “I’m a small businessman” routine two or three times too many, and too transparently. On the other hand, Williams also got the best laugh lines of the night. Referring back to an earlier question about how he’d eliminate the budget deficit in one year (he didn’t think the Ryan plan went far enough), in a question on the the EPA’s attempt to take over Texas air quality, he said “You know that 1.6 trillion I’d cut out of the deficit? The EPA would be among them.” Williams probably improved his standing the most of any candidate attending.
Elizabeth Ames Jones…look, I’m not going to sugarcoat this. Jones should get out of the race. It wasn’t her message (she made effective conservative points), it’s the fact that she was a cringingly bad public speaker tonight. I can’t tell if it’s nervousness or an actual speech impediment, but her voice sounded like it was trapped at the back of her soft palate, almost as if she had all her wisdom teeth yanked a week ago and was still getting use to her own mouth, and late in the debate she seemed to have a slight lisp. She spoke like someone who was so eager to talk that the words all tried to come out in a rush at once, causing her to stumble over herself, stop and start, and generally sound nervous; way too nervous for someone that already holds a major statewide office. She calmed down a little bit after the first couple of questions, and occasionally made good points (“I have to fight the EPA every day”), but she was far and away the weakest candidate on stage by a good measure. And her “I was down in the trenches” refrain (mostly dealing with her time in the legislature) got even tireder than Williams’ small businessman shtick. Between this and her abysmal fundraising numbers, I see no hope for Jones in this race and no reason she should continue in it. She’s doing a good job on the Railroad Commission, and she should probably stay there for the immediate future.
Not a lot of policy differences on display. All agreed not to raise taxes under any circumstances (I wondered why moderator Evan Smith didn’t ask any of them “Not even in the event of a World War with China?”), all were on-board with the Ryan plan or an even more immediate cutback in federal spending, all for greater border control measures and against amnesty, all pro-life (one of Jones’ most effective moments), all more national energy exploration, all against earmarks, all slamming Obama.
Enough for tonight. I’ll post more tomorrow if I have the time.
It being the Friday of a long weekend, I doubt terribly many people are going to be reading this, but there have been some significant Texas Senate race developments:
Houston State Senator (and former sports caster) Dan Patrick is considering running for the Senate seat currently held by Kay Baily Hutchison. He was rumored to be considering a run back when Hutchison announced her retirement in January, but he’s been mum on the issue during most of the current Texas legislative session. He announced that he was forming an exploratory committee on Laura Ingraham’s talk radio show this morning. As anyone who reads this blog knows, he’s joining a crowded field, but he does fill the niche as a full-bore cultural Christian conservative that none of the other declared candidates (save longshot Glenn Addison) really fill. With Ted Cruz and Tom Leppert already off to significant head starts, Patrick will have to do some serious fundraising if he wants to be competitive. Patrick might benefit from some confusion with the other sportscasting Dan Patrick. Many Houston TV viewers remember Patrick as a sportscaster from the “Luv Ya Blu” era Houston Oilers era of the late 1970s and early 1980s. (I have vague memories of Dan Patrick being thrown out a door during a dust-up with then Oilers quarterback Dan Pastorini, but I may be misremembering one or both of the people involved.)
Speaking of Addison, he’s complaining that The Texas Tribune is excluding him from an upcoming debate. Actually, I can see both sides on this issue. Certainly The Texas Tribune, as a private organization, can use any criteria they want to determine who a “serious” candidate is, and the one they chose (someone had to have raised at least $100,000 by March 31) is both objective and defensible. Plus the more crowded any debate, the less time potential voters have to assess any one candidate. On the other hand, the idea that fundraising should be the only gating factor in determining electability is entirely too reductive for a robust democratic process. My suggestion? Have the political equivalent of a “play in” game. Reserve one spot for a declared candidate who does not meet the $100,000 threshold criteria (Addison, Lela Pittinger, Andrew Castanuela, or Sean Hubbard) and then let people vote online for who to include. That would give the longshots a chance to be seen, and add interest to the proceedings…
Elizabeth Ames Jones slams the Obama administration for their energy policy. “The demand for oil is not going away just because some bureaucrats have the ill-conceived or ill-informed idea that all our energy needs can be met by green energy.” I still don’t think Jones has a real chance in the race, but she seems strongest when talking about oil and gas issues. Maybe it’s a good thing that she hasn’t resigned from the Railroad Commission…
