TX-Sen: Could this man beat John Cornyn?

[MarkWarner08]

We know it'll be a presidential year, we know Democrats rarely win Southern Senate races and  we know almost never beat Southern  Republican incumbents, but could this view be shattered in 2008? I think the one candidate who could win this seat for the Democrats would be Paul Hobby.

Hobby ran for State Comptroller and won 49% of the vote in 1998. This was especially impressive considering Bush was blowing out Garry Mauro in the Governor's race. Hobby comes for an aristocratic family from Houston that has a net worth in thew hundreds of millions. This scion has largely been out of the limelight since 1998 but his personal campaign cash could allow him to compete with John Cornyn's money machine.

Other interesting candidates are Jim Turner, who still has $1 million left in the bank after he was Delaymandered out of his seat.  Houston Mayor Bill White is another attractive potential candidate.

[HardRCafé]

Nope.

Next?

[Boris]

Nope.

Next?

Agreed.

The Texan Democratic Party is about as well off as the Illinois GOP. The Democrats can gain seats in 2008, but it won't be in Texas.

[socaldem]

I dont know. 

Cornyn is not exactly popular.

Governor Perry is quite unpopular.

Without Bush on the top of the ticket, Texas is a very different state, particularly because it has a growing Latino population that was wont to pull the lever for Bush.

Either Bill White or Jim Turner could win.

[GOP = Terrorists]

We should be running Latino and Black candidates in Texas and just waiting for there to be a white minority.

[minionofmidas]

The man to run is clearly Henry Cuellar.

And then recruit a Ciro-style liberal from Laredo for the House seat.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I dont know. 

Cornyn is not exactly popular.

Governor Perry is quite unpopular.

Without Bush on the top of the ticket, Texas is a very different state, particularly because it has a growing Latino population that was wont to pull the lever for Bush.

Either Bill White or Jim Turner could win.

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.  There really isn't anything special about Bush that another Republican can't replicate: hokey Spanish use and a willingness to work with the Mexican Government.

Besides, do Democrats hold <i>any</i> statewide office anymore?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Besides, do Democrats hold <i>any</i> statewide office anymore?

Non

And they haven't won any statewide races for, I think, almost a decade now.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Hobby sounds possibly like a potentially good candidate.  I think John Sharp could be the best person to nominate, having lost two very close races for Lieutenant Governor in 1998 and 2002.  But Bill White, Henry Cuellar and even possibly Ron Kirk are possibilities.  I think both Chris Bell and Barbara Ann Radnofsky are running also.  Cornyn could be held to single-digits with the right candidate.  There is also the possibilty Bush appoints him to the Supreme Court in the mean time. 

[Deano963]

We should be running Latino and Black candidates in Texas and just waiting for there to be a white minority.

Whites are already a minority in Texas.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

There is also the possibilty Bush appoints him to the Supreme Court in the mean time.

I'm sure the other Justices would really like that, after Cornyn threatened to assassinate them.

[Padfoot]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

Granted, Perry wasn't the most popular guy on the planet, but yes, netting 39.0% is just fine...at least compared to the 29.8% that Chris Bell got!

In Texas, no matter how poorly Republicans do, or no matter how unpopular they are, you can always count on the Democrats being one rung lower on the ladder.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

Granted, Perry wasn't the most popular guy on the planet, but yes, netting 39.0% is just fine...at least compared to the 29.8% that Chris Bell got!

In Texas, no matter how poorly Republicans do, or no matter how unpopular they are, you can always count on the Democrats being one rung lower on the ladder.

If John Sharp had run, he conceivably could have won.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No!

[minionofmidas]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine?

Not really (although he would have gotten more if he had ever looked as if he might have lost. Then again, Bell would have gotten more if he had ever looked as if he might have won.) but I think the point was that there wasn't much of a carry-on effect of Perry's unpopularity onto downballot races.

[Sam Spade]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

Granted, Perry wasn't the most popular guy on the planet, but yes, netting 39.0% is just fine...at least compared to the 29.8% that Chris Bell got!

In Texas, no matter how poorly Republicans do, or no matter how unpopular they are, you can always count on the Democrats being one rung lower on the ladder.

If John Sharp had run, he conceivably could have won.

John Sharp was never going to run because he was the chief architect behind Perry's property tax proposal that passed.  Quite frankly, that was one of the top 2-3 issues in the whole campaign and the main reason why Strayhorn entered the race in the first place.

As far as I can tell by the numbers, Republicans in Texas were hit by the national wave in the country at about the same numbers as the national figures.  However, it appears to me that it was especially strong in the Hispanic areas and the moderate Republican suburbs; much less so in the ultra-Republican suburbs.

Note though, that the lower statewide offices were still dominated by Republicans, similar to the numbers attained in 1998-2006.  The national wave or Perry's popularity or lack thereof, really didn't seem to affect these races at all.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

Granted, Perry wasn't the most popular guy on the planet, but yes, netting 39.0% is just fine...at least compared to the 29.8% that Chris Bell got!

In Texas, no matter how poorly Republicans do, or no matter how unpopular they are, you can always count on the Democrats being one rung lower on the ladder.

If John Sharp had run, he conceivably could have won.

John Sharp was never going to run because he was the chief architect behind Perry's property tax proposal that passed.  Quite frankly, that was one of the top 2-3 issues in the whole campaign and the main reason why Strayhorn entered the race in the first place.

As far as I can tell by the numbers, Republicans in Texas were hit by the national wave in the country at about the same numbers as the national figures.  However, it appears to me that it was especially strong in the Hispanic areas and the moderate Republican suburbs; much less so in the ultra-Republican suburbs.

Note though, that the lower statewide offices were still dominated by Republicans, similar to the numbers attained in 1998-2006.  The national wave or Perry's popularity or lack thereof, really didn't seem to affect these races at all.

Do you think there is any chance Sharp will run for the Senate in 2008?

[Sam Spade]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

Granted, Perry wasn't the most popular guy on the planet, but yes, netting 39.0% is just fine...at least compared to the 29.8% that Chris Bell got!

In Texas, no matter how poorly Republicans do, or no matter how unpopular they are, you can always count on the Democrats being one rung lower on the ladder.

If John Sharp had run, he conceivably could have won.

John Sharp was never going to run because he was the chief architect behind Perry's property tax proposal that passed.  Quite frankly, that was one of the top 2-3 issues in the whole campaign and the main reason why Strayhorn entered the race in the first place.

As far as I can tell by the numbers, Republicans in Texas were hit by the national wave in the country at about the same numbers as the national figures.  However, it appears to me that it was especially strong in the Hispanic areas and the moderate Republican suburbs; much less so in the ultra-Republican suburbs.

Note though, that the lower statewide offices were still dominated by Republicans, similar to the numbers attained in 1998-2006.  The national wave or Perry's popularity or lack thereof, really didn't seem to affect these races at all.

Do you think there is any chance Sharp will run for the Senate in 2008?

Well, other than rumors, I have heard nothing concrete even saying that he's mentioned it.  I suspect, if anything, Sharp may be waiting until 2010 to run for Governor.  He's always been more interested in statewide office than national office in my opinion.

Just FYI, I suspect Cornyn is going to be very hard to beat in 2008, regardless of who Dems run.  I also suspect the Hispanic Texas voter is still misunderstood on this site greatly, but that is not surprising.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

Granted, Perry wasn't the most popular guy on the planet, but yes, netting 39.0% is just fine...at least compared to the 29.8% that Chris Bell got!

In Texas, no matter how poorly Republicans do, or no matter how unpopular they are, you can always count on the Democrats being one rung lower on the ladder.

If John Sharp had run, he conceivably could have won.

John Sharp was never going to run because he was the chief architect behind Perry's property tax proposal that passed.  Quite frankly, that was one of the top 2-3 issues in the whole campaign and the main reason why Strayhorn entered the race in the first place.

As far as I can tell by the numbers, Republicans in Texas were hit by the national wave in the country at about the same numbers as the national figures.  However, it appears to me that it was especially strong in the Hispanic areas and the moderate Republican suburbs; much less so in the ultra-Republican suburbs.

Note though, that the lower statewide offices were still dominated by Republicans, similar to the numbers attained in 1998-2006.  The national wave or Perry's popularity or lack thereof, really didn't seem to affect these races at all.

Do you think there is any chance Sharp will run for the Senate in 2008?

Well, other than rumors, I have heard nothing concrete even saying that he's mentioned it.  I suspect, if anything, Sharp may be waiting until 2010 to run for Governor.  He's always been more interested in statewide office than national office in my opinion.

Just FYI, I suspect Cornyn is going to be very hard to beat in 2008, regardless of who Dems run.  I also suspect the Hispanic Texas voter is still misunderstood on this site greatly, but that is not surprising.

So what are Texas Hispanics like?

[Sam Spade]

Republicans did just fine statewide in 2002 and 2006.

Netting only 39% is just fine? Granted it was a 4-way race but one of the candidates was Kinky Fricking Friedman!  Perry should have been able to at least net 45% if he was really doing fine.  If you compare 2002 to 2006, Perry essentially lost 20% of the vote to the independent candidates while the Democrats lost 10%.

Granted, Perry wasn't the most popular guy on the planet, but yes, netting 39.0% is just fine...at least compared to the 29.8% that Chris Bell got!

In Texas, no matter how poorly Republicans do, or no matter how unpopular they are, you can always count on the Democrats being one rung lower on the ladder.

If John Sharp had run, he conceivably could have won.

John Sharp was never going to run because he was the chief architect behind Perry's property tax proposal that passed.  Quite frankly, that was one of the top 2-3 issues in the whole campaign and the main reason why Strayhorn entered the race in the first place.

As far as I can tell by the numbers, Republicans in Texas were hit by the national wave in the country at about the same numbers as the national figures.  However, it appears to me that it was especially strong in the Hispanic areas and the moderate Republican suburbs; much less so in the ultra-Republican suburbs.

Note though, that the lower statewide offices were still dominated by Republicans, similar to the numbers attained in 1998-2006.  The national wave or Perry's popularity or lack thereof, really didn't seem to affect these races at all.

Do you think there is any chance Sharp will run for the Senate in 2008?

Well, other than rumors, I have heard nothing concrete even saying that he's mentioned it.  I suspect, if anything, Sharp may be waiting until 2010 to run for Governor.  He's always been more interested in statewide office than national office in my opinion.

Just FYI, I suspect Cornyn is going to be very hard to beat in 2008, regardless of who Dems run.  I also suspect the Hispanic Texas voter is still misunderstood on this site greatly, but that is not surprising.

So what are Texas Hispanics like?

Nice people in general, unlike what some borders people here may say. 

In the abstract, I think what the last two elections have clearly shown us that Texas Hispanics are socially conservative and very supportive of the military (see 2004), but are generally opposed to anti-immigrant legislation and tend to be suspicious that Republicans are behind it all (which is generally true) (see 2006).

And of course, the difference between urban, suburban and rural Hispanics continues to play out.  Urban Hispanics continue to be steadfastly Democrat, with a little more independence than they used to.  Suburban Hispanics, as I have noted before, tend to vote similar to their white brethren when they are intermixed within the white communities and less so otherwise. 

Rural Hispanics are the oddity.  Steadfastly Democrat on the local level, they can be (and have been) wooed over to voting Republican for certain candidates, at which time they act more like Indys.  So, it's not too odd to see them being 80% Dem in some races and 50-50 in others.  Time will tell how this plays out in the long run, but it has started to make them a very shifty vote in statewide and national races. 

These voters tend to be clustered around the Texas border.  Note that in 2006, the Republican anti-immigrant trend nationally pushed them towards the Democrats sharply, most notably in TX-23.  However, as far as I can tell, there was little change in the downballot statewide races, where Republicans have coddled these voters purposely.  In fact (and this is what doesn't make sense), in certain important rural border counties like Maverick and Val Verde, down-ballot statewide numbers have improved for Republicans noticeably from 1998 (exception being GWB, of course) by the tune of about 5%-10%.  Also note that many rural Hispanics are very strongly attracted to Democrats from the border area and only turn out for them (but not for anyone else).  I call this the Tony Sanchez phenomenon.

So what's my word of advice: 

For Democrats, don't think that you can just count on the Hispanic vote in Texas to save your ass long term.  The % of Hispanics voters is increasing, but as a simple matter of fact, Hispanic voter turnout is abysmal and is only changed in local circumstances.  You must also reach out in order to win this community, because the Texas Republicans have made considerable gains in their share of these voters and continue to work them like there's no tomorrow.

For Republicans, avoid the anti-immigration nutters like the plague.  The Hispanic community in Texas (those who are citizens and vote regularly) is offended by your message because they regularly assume you include them in these diatribes against evil Hispanics running across the border to commit crimes and take public services.  Also, continue to promote educational spending; it has worked in gaining Hispanic votes for nearly 10 years now and is a message that connects.  Don't get complacent on the gains you've made in the past 10 years; those gains can be undone another couple of election like 2006.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

When you mention the Tony Sanchez phenomenon, do you mean hispanics will turn out for Democrats from the border, Democrats representing the border, or both?

[Sam Spade]

When you mention the Tony Sanchez phenomenon, do you mean hispanics will turn out for Democrats from the border, Democrats representing the border, or both?

I mean that Hispanic Democrats who live along the border will turn out for a Hispanic Democratic candidate who lives along the border.  That's it.  Don't take it any further.   

For example, the Webb/Hidalgo County turnout numbers from 1998-2006 are fascinating in this regard.