Talk Elections

Dewhurst, because he's more electable, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if Cruz won since I think he could win too (though not by as large a margin).

Dewhurst has a 98% chance of victory in November and Cruz has...what..."only" a 97% chance? Please. I'm with Cruz.

Dewhurst lies closer to my politics, but Cruz is tempting as a younger rising star. Probably Dewhurst, but I won't cry a river when Cruz wins.

The conservative star, not the slimy moderate toad.

From the little I've seen of this race (haven't really paid attention to the Texas Senate elections), Dewhurst doesn't even seem all that moderate, and is really slimy. And no Democrat is going to win here, so I guess I'm rooting for Cruz.

David Dewhurst, of course.

Air Force Captain vs. conservative "fighter"... I'll go with the one who actually stood up to fight

Cruz, but because I am out of state and just had last minute wisdom teet hsurgery schedualed I won't be back in time to vote :'(

Ted Cruz.

None. Two idiots

The one who isn't leeching off Rick Perry for power.

Yep. Dewhurst has basically tried to claim Perry's record as his own.

In all fairness, that makes more sense than in Texas than in probably any other state considering the strength of the Lieutenant Governor there. Then again everything I've heard has indicated that Dewhurst is a weak Lieutenant Governor and Perry a strong Governor by Texas standards.

Cruz

Write-in: Kinky Friedman.

Cruz. Tmth I'm surprised you'd take Dewhurst.

Cruz definitely.

Of course, that's of Cruz does win.  Otherwise, you summarized my feelings exactly.  I worry that Cruz is too far-right even for Texas.

Half a loaf is better than no bread, my friend.  I'd rather have a slimy moderate toad who can win for the Republicans than a conservative who can't.  Dewhurst seems to be pretty conservative based on some of what I've heard.  Cruz and the Tea Partiers ate just trying to smear him as a RINO.

Okay, he didn't "stand up to fight." He basically got deposited in the USAF after he screwed up his first assignment as a CIA agent (the story goes that he was supposed to be monitoring Soviet operatives in Bolivia and blew his cover in the car on the way from the airport).

Dewhurst isn't a RINO, he's a KBH-style squish- especially on immigration.* There is plenty for conservatives to call out in Dewhurst's record. Calling someone out on squishiness is fine. Calling your opponent a Communist stooge is not IMO.


*And yes, I'm well aware that Perry's stance, sanctuary cities aside, is identical.

Leppert endorses Dewhurst. Somehow I'm not surprised.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/leppert-162811666.html

LOL

You don't know Tm then.

He definitely isn't, but why would that really matter? Given the polarization in Congress, I doubt Senator Cruz and Senator Dewhurst would have vastly different voting records. I guess we could see Cruz vote with Rand in some 98-2 vote occasionally (though I don't believe the two are all that similar), but that's an essentially meaningless distinction.

Most of the people who will vote against Cruz will certainly not be doing so because he's too far-right.

On exactly what is this notion being based on that Cruz is in any danger of losing the seat to the Democrats?


I would think this is one case where the TP challenger has a better chance then the establishment guy by virtue of being younger, a great debater, and is able to motivate a large following.

I thought the Lt. Gov's office in Texas was pretty weak.  Perry is pretty unpopular now based on what I've heard, and Huckabee endorsed Dewhurst.  BTW: Newt Gingrich was a great debater too, but during the primaries, he was the candidate who polled the worst against Pres. Obama.  I don't want someone who can debate the Democrats; I want someone who can defeat them.  Dewhurst and Cruz are both leading in the general election polls that I've seen, but Dewhurst polls better.  Dewhurst is just more mainstream and can get more votes from outside the base, even in a state like Texas.  I'm not saying that Cruz would jeopardize the GOP's chances of holding the seat, just that a Dem pickup is more likely with him than with Dewhurst.

Is the difference that great between the two's performances in the polls as to be more than just name recognition?


Applying a uniform standard across all these states is big mistake and I have said the same when the TP was going on about killing all the rinos. In some states, the establishment candidate is the best, but all my criteria are saying this isn't one of them.

In Texas we have a Dual Executive type of Government so both the Governor and Lt. Governor have roughly equal power.

About that debate.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/07/commentary-ted-cruz-is-big-winner-of-final-gop-senate-debate/

I could not agree more!!!!

I would rather support Ted Cruz, who is on the growing Rand Paul sect of the republican party, than David Dewhurst and his band of lobbyists.

But the rest of the nation isn't ready for libertarian conservatives like Rand Paul.

I wouldn't say Cruz is a Paul type. After all, Santorum endorsed him. ;)

Cruz is closer to Rand than he is to Santorum and a ton of libertarians* and actual conservatives support him.

*Some, such as my self, unenthusiastically.

Being the "establishment candidate" does not make one a moderate. I voted for Cruz because Dewhurst is an establishment brat with an entitlement complex; not because the latter lacks right-wing cred. Dewhurst is a party line Republican, no more or less.

Ted Cruz is a proponent of the "Obama is anti-American" dumbassery, but is less likely to be the special-interest stooge that Dewhurst would be. There's virtually no difference between the two ideologically.

I'm pulling for Dewhurst.

im going with Dewhurst

David Dewhurst.  The Lone Star State has to secure its pork somehow...

There is no way a republican can lose in Texas, and the people are tired of guys who hang around lobbyists all the time.

I would agree with that, at least at this time, but Dewhurst would do much better in a general election nonetheless.  Cruz is a good candidate, maybe even better overall than Dewhurst, but his nomination would set a dangerous precedent for the GOP in other states (much like candidates like Bill Brady, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Ken Buck did two years ago) that aren't as conservative/Republican of nominating far-right, unelectable candidates and losing more and more elections because of it.  Bill Buckley always said to support the most conservative candidate who can win, and while Cruz may be that candidate, nominating him will encourage Republicans in other states to do the same with candidates who are too fat-right for the general electorate.  If we had heeded Buckley's advice in 2010, Harry Reid would not be a Senator today, and neither would Chris Coons or Michael Bennet.  Pat Quinn would also not be Governor of Illinois today.  I'll just say this once to my fellow Republicans, but it's your party, and you'll lose if you want to.

A point which makes no sense because we have already had Indiana and Nebraska this year plus all the primaries in the previous cycle. The precedent for throwing off establishment candidates is well set going all the way back to 2008 when Jason Chaffetz defeated Chris Cannon in the UT-03 GOP primary.

You also stated previously that you agreed with my point about not applying a uniform standard to all these states yet you essentially doing that here now saying that unless you support the establishment candidate everywhere, he will lose everywhere.

Plus losing 5 points on the general election margin (something which I doubt considering that Cruz has every potential to outperform Dewhurst as underperform him. I should note that in atleast one poll the Democrats poll the same against them, furthering the case for the difference to be a familiarity gap), is well worth it considering a choice between a corrupted insider and energetic challanger. Even more so when you consider there is little daylight ideologically between them, either.

The Buckley Rule clearly applies to Cruz here. Don't worry, Dewhurst will still be around... he's running for a fourth term in 2014.

I don't mean to sound rude, but how do you know?  And besides, Gov. Perry will probably not run again, so he might decide to run for governor in 2014 instead.

Cruz isn't extreme enough to lose in Texas. Have you gotten a load of our guys in this election? They're pretty pathetic, although I guess it might help the most minuscule bit that one of them is named Yarborough.

Lieutenant Governor or Governor, Dewhurst gonna Dew for some time to come.

Huh? Been widely rumoured that Perry is running again. Also heard the same about Dewhurst, though resident Texans can correct me if I'm wrong.

Back OT... more shark-jumping from Dewhurst.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/24/dewhurst-super-pac-ad-cruz-responsible-for-mans-suicide-video/

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of Rick Perry becoming the longest continuously serving US governor in history.

The runoff is next Tuesday, correct?

Si

As did Mike Lee and both Pauls themselves.

My dad voted for Dewhurst with some prodding from me. I thought voting in the GOP primary would be more productive right now.

Toomey endorsed Cruz. :)

DeMint, Palin and Rand Paul are stumping for Cruz today. Santorum's headlining a Dallas rally tomorrow.

My early prediction: Cruz by 10-12.

In other news, The Texas Conservatives Fund (Pro-Dewhurst SuperPAC) just dropped another 500,000$ into anti-Cruz advertising. This is why Dewhurst is going to lose the run-off. There is no grassroots presence for Dewhurst, no buzz, and certainly no conservative celebrity support of this magnitude. He's hoping he can spend and slander his way to the nod, but that's not how run off elections. I believe it's evidence that Dewhurst has never faced a serious opponent, he looks politically inexperienced next to the polished Cruz.

I stand by my prediction, Cruz breaks 60%.

Hopefully you're right. A Hoosier margin would be awesome. :D

On the money: Mostly his or lobbyists'. Doesn't surprise me. Romney in 2008 was mostly self-funded. Ditto the CEO triplets in 2010. All lost.

Another question: effect on 2014 for both Dewhurst and Perry, if any?

Palin's speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0CPFyYHRV_o#!

I'm normally not one to criticize ones fashion, but what is she wearing? Those sunglasses and booth and booths stitched onto dress makes here look like some rich suburban Californian lady failing hard at pretending to be a Texan

more interested in the D runoff in TX-23 than the senate race tbh

She looks absurd.

PPP: Cruz ahead decently but not safely. Leads with early and youth voters, Dewhurst w/seniors. Final poll out late tomorrow.

Cruzin'.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79092.html?hp=t1

Let's not get too cocky. A friend of mine (eh...some of you would know him) is in Cruz's inner circle and thinks they're up by about five. That's not insurmountable. Cruz has the grassroots momentum but let's hope it doesn't die down and the establishment army doesn't show up with their A game.

Cruz said in that article that they're on the two yard line. Don't spike the football when we didn't get into the endzone yet.

PPP topline: Cruz 52, Dewhurst 42. "Very clear trend" per Jensen. Full results by 11 or so. :D

Cruz up 55% to 40% with those that already voted. :)

*sigh*

It's not impossible, but its not looking good for Team Dewhurst. :(

I agree. Its a shame the TX GOP is on track to replace KBH with Ted Cruz, in my view.

31% of Texans are more likely to vote for a Palin-backed candidate to 16% for a Perry-backed one. Ouch. Another Oops moment with the grassroots. KBH read the mood better than Perry did.

Here's the full poll.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_TX_729.pdf

I actually don't mind Cruz too much. I'm sure he'll make a fine US Senator. I just know Governor Perry, and I have met Dewhurst, which is why I'd like for him to win. At least if he loses, he'll still be Leut. Governor.

Cruz leads by 30 pts (63-33) with those 'very excited' to vote. Those voters win run off elections; stick a fork in Dewhurst.

:)

Hopefully this is a sign of things to come for the 2014 Texas races. Perry barely avoided a run-off in 2010 I doubt he'll be so lucky in 2 years

Perry's already badly damaged. By a 2-1 margin Texas Republicans see his endorsement as a negative and even in April he only led Abbott 50-34. But that doesn't matter because Teepers are fairly happy with Perry's governance as opposed to his endorsements.

Today's the day. :D

Time for Dewhurst to go down in flames. For those paying attention to the race I cannot see how any of them are still Dewhurst supporters after his tasteless ads.

He gets the 30-something moderate vote that KBH did in 2010. Being somewhat (i.e. what Collins is to Snowe) more conservative than her, there's some growth room. I'd be surprised if he hit 45.

Ish. Dewhurst is in the same faction/ideological-zone as Perry. And KBH got some "change" voters in '10, and they'd be for Cruz.

I'm disappointed in this race... Dewhurst is far more qualified and I would have loved to support him- but those ads were vile. I've watched some of Cruz's statements and he is a smart, qualified individual and I saw him begin a debate answer on qualifications by recognizing Dewhurt's service... I hope he will be a fine US Senator if elected and remember why he ran in the first place

I guess it's about time I posted in the thread - enthousiastic supporter of Cruz! Glad to see I'm in good company with JBrase and Keystone Phil!

I'm in pretty much the same boat - I think Dewhurst was more qualified and would have served well in the US Senate. I think this is one of those races though, that even though it was a bloody primary, neither candidate is really that bad, and both will easily win this November and be a reliable Republican vote in the Senate.

My sad prediction: Cruz 57, Dewhurst 43

Just why is there so much fuss about this race again?

You got that backwards. This is indeed a lesser of two evils situation. Cruz is a decent step up from the current TX establishment GOP, and for that reason I'll support him over Dewhurst, but the only really good candidate in the race was Glen Addison.

I am still undecided for the general election, if the TX Libertarians run a decent candidate he/she'll likely have my vote.

Well in Texas this is shaping up to be a large victory for the conservative and libertarian activists over the establishment and on the national level it shifts the Senate GOP a hair bit more to the right. Somewhere in America, Jim DeMint is a happy man.

Polls close in 5 minutes.

Can resident Texans explain why the Dem results are faster than the GOP ones? Also, Cruz up 55-45 with less than 1% in.

Per Twitter: Cruz is sweeping the 3 northern counties that Dewhurst needed to win or at least remain competitive. :)

Ace of Spades has called it for Cruz. Would like to see more votes tallied and a much bigger margin than 7 points before jumping for joy.

Harris County has Cruz up 15,000 which aren't included in the SOS totals.

I'm at Politico, not SOS. Usually Politico's the quickest but if there's a faster source here I'll gladly switch.

Politico's a bit farther ahead now apparently, but here's the link for the SOS anyway: http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/july31_162.htm (http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/july31_162.htm)

It's early obviously, but I'll be interested to see if Cruz can keep these leads in the larger counties. Only Travis has Dewhurst up at the moment, and it's not by much. It's unsurprisingly close in Dallas as well.

Where is Politico's results?

Jim: here. http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/Senate/2012/Primary/TX

Reg: The urban vote hasn't come in yet, so maybe it'll get wider once that starts getting tallied.

AP's called it for Cruz.

Congratulations, RogueBeaver! :D

AP just called it for Cruz.

Yep. Not just me: Phil, Jbrase and others here are also Cruz fans. I've been following this race since KBH announced her retirement 18 months ago and am ecstatic right now! :D Just want to see a bigger margin.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEXAS_SENATE_RACE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Glad you gone my way, I love it when were "cruzin" together! :D

Congratulations Senator Cruz. :P

Lets face it, it's highly unlikely he loses the general.

Rick Perry and Joe Strauss hardest hit. :P

:)

To be fair, I've been a Cruz fan but I was originally on board with Michael Williams.

They and the SOS are real close.

Cruz is extending his lead steadily as the election day votes come in.   He had 53% of early voting and 59% of the election day voting reported so far.

Same here. I was undecided between the Williamses or Cruz but when they dropped out I immediately switched to Cruz.

NYT and Politico already have articles up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/us/politics/cruz-defeats-dewhurst-for-gop-nomination-in-texas-senate-race.html?gwh=E62990C3EB94BDD49A75E135B7E52650

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79244.html?hp=f2

Horrible audio, but here's a stream of Cruz's victory party.

http://www.tedcruz.org/stream

'Major props to PPP if Cruz's 55-45 margin holds.

Well, now Ted Cruz will get to become a "creature of the establishment." 

I suppose I was supporting Dewhurst because he came across as more pragmatic and able to compromise than Cruz.  I guess the plus for Cruz is that he is very young so perhaps he can serve four terms and just be in his 60s (Dewhurst is already 65).  Another plus is that he is sure to win anyway. 

I keep thinking of the tea party losers who have cost the GOP a Senate majority or jeopardized otherwise sure wins:  Miller (AK), O'Donnell (DE), Murdock (IN), and Fischer (NE).  Cruz isn't in this category, so it is less daunting.

O'Donnell is the only one who fits that category. The GOP still held Alaska, Indiana and Nebraska are still likely GOP

How "Tea Party" is Cruz?  Is he a true believer like DeMint?  Or someone who'll probably try to calibrate his message to serve ambitions for higher office, a la Rubio?  Is Cruz the type of candidate who could be the "diversity" pick on the VP shortlist for the 2016 GOP presidential nominee, a la Rubio in 2012?  Or is it too early to tell?

The Fix put it best: he's a hybrid of Rubio, DeMint and Lee. Most likely he follows the Rubio path IMO.

Indiana is not likely GOP. Mourdock will probably hang on, but its a pure tossup.

Expected. During runoffs usually only "faithful of the faithful" vote, so, this is the best situation for extreme candidates in both parties))))

Tmth, you were right. 57/43 with 95% in. ;)

Right now, and thats because I am sure there are still a few butt hurt Lugar supporters, but I think eventually enough of them will come home. I heard earlier that Lugar is getting behind Mourdock so I don't see why this race should remain a toss up much longer.

PPP once again shows how accurate they are.

PPP poll: Cruz+10

Actual result: Cruz+11

Lugar said right after the election he'd support Mourdock, but he won't be stumping for him.

IIRC, Donnelly raised more than Mourdock in June. If not for the Obamacare vote, I think he'd be running away with this.

In that spirit, congratulations Representatives Williams, Veasey, Vela, and Stockman. Perhaps a tad too early to add congratulations Representative Weber (though if Nick Lampson manages to return to Congress again, I'll laugh about as long and hard as I will if Roscoe Bartlett survives. Ciro Rodriguez' reretread attempt has ended, meanwhile. Quico can't be happy as Gallego is the stronger GE candidate.)

He can't be on the ticket unless we do some tweaking with the Constitution: he was born in Canada.

Interesting vote totals:

Primary: Dewhurst 627,731 Cruz 480,558
Runoff: Cruz 631,114, Dewhurst 480,010

lol interesting indeed a big reversal

But wasn't he born to an American citizen mother? If he becomes popular enough, I suspect that the GOP will go by the birthright citizenship interpretation.

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/july31_162_state.htm?x=0&y=4214&id=955

Cruz         56.79%
Dewhurst   43.20%


Actually Cruz +13.6.

Lol, that's hilarious.

A bit short of my >60% prediction, but a decisive win none-the-less. I'm not a tea partier (I actually support the ACA) and I have strong disagreements with him on a number of issues, but Ted Cruz is an honest, hardworking individual who genuinely wants what (he thinks) is best for Texas and America. All things considered, he'll be the statesman that an entitled brat like Dewhurst could never be and I'm glad people here came around to this.

In other good news; Fmr. Lt. Governor and celebrated moderate Republican Bill Ratliff's son (Bennett Ratliff) narrowly beat out  Steve Nguyen, an optometrist who refers to himself as "Doctor" and who went to Washington to lobby for the bill (ACA) that he now says is "inconsistent with American values". It was narrow (51-49, ~350 votes), but a bullet was dodged for the people of NW Dallas.

Yeah, his mother was a U.S. citizen, so he should be fine as far as birthright citizenship goes.

How will Texas feel having a Canadian senator? ;)

... with a Mexican name?

County map, anyone?

I'm a bit disappointed about Cruz winning, even if their voting records would have been similar. It's not a good situation for the Dems for the far-right to get energized (unless it would result in another Angle, O'Donnell, etc.). Also, another token minority GOPer helps them pretend they aren't anti-minority (though Cruz is Cuban which is the only minority group that has been consistently GOP).

They'll be too dumb to know the difference. (Seabiscut joke)

Nclib: OurCampaigns has a map. Blue is Dewhurst, red Cruz.

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=767592

I had hoped Dewhurst would win, but I can support Cruz.

I also made a map of the early votes. Cruz still won, but Dewhurst did considerably better, losing 53-47. I think that speaks to Cruz's momentum in the closing stretch of the race.

()

In Texas, "early voting" refers to early voting in person and early voting by mail.

Early voting by mail is only allowed for cause: age, disability, confinement in jail, or absence from county for entire election period - one requirement is the ballot request must be mailed from outside the county.

Early voting in person can be done by anyone, and can be done at any early voting location in the county.

The SOS aggregates the two, but the counties can report them separately.

For example in Harris County:

Early voting by mail: 64.1% Dewhurst
Early voting in person: 68.8% Cruz
Early voting, total: 60.0% Cruz

Election day: 68.1% Cruz

Similar patterns occurred in Dallas and Tarrant, though it appears that Dewhurst did a particularly good job at getting mail voting out in Harris County.

There are probably a confluence of effects:

Dewhurst may have more appeal to older people.  He is almost 67, but looks a bit younger, and looks senatorial.  Cruz looks his age (41).

Dewhurst had a lot of money to spend, so could send out applications for mail ballots to identified elderly supporters.  Applications are good for both the primary and runoff (if indicated on the application).

Since voting by mail requires a preliminary step, it is likely to be initiated sooner.  So that aspect may reflect a late shift.

But because early voters are up over 50% it is too risky to target late deciders, who are likely not only late deciders as to who they are going to vote for, but possibly whether they would vote at all (eg election day is not "election day", but the last chance to vote.).

()

Here's the actual results. Some counties (white) are outstanding. Purple counties tied.

()

Here's with the flips. Green - counties that went from Dewhurst -> Cruz between Early voting and the final results.

Yellow - counties that went from Cruz -> Dewhurst between Early voting and the final results.

Apparently US 77 destroyed Dewhurst. He was crushed in the counties surrounding Victoria, and in Austin and the surrounding counties.

 

LOL, Dewhurst already has a primary challenger for 2014 in the Land Commish Jerry Patterson.

My feelings exactly.  I'm a conservative but believe that half a loaf is better than no bread.  Remember Bill Buckley: support the most conservative candidate that can win.

Looked up the population figures and Cruz won the 16 most populous counties (Lubbock was Dewhurst's most populated county).

Yep. Cruz won the population centers, Dewhurst the rural areas. Texas Tribune also has a good map. IIRC Cruz won the counties 141-104 or something like that.

Republicans aren't anti-minority.  I'm disappointed to because although I'm conservative, I think it sends a bad message to Republicans in other states (to keep nominating unelectable candidates to maintain ideological purity.)

No, it sends the message that we don't want Dewhurst and Perry can expect a tough fight for re-election in the primary. again. On also, how on earth his Dewhurst more electable than Cruz? Or at the very least it sends the message that the establishment GOP needs to recruit candidates who do note have a feeling of entitlement.

These type of races don't bother me as much, since the GOP will win the seat regardless and Cruz isn't too far out there. Where it bother's me is states like Indiana and Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado 2010. Those are 3 2010 that the GOP should have won if they nominated the right candidates.

Party primaries are conducted by county political parties, and so are not conducted in counties without a party chair.  The curiosity for the runoff is that the GOP did not hold a runoff in Oldham and Sterling counties, even though they had primaries.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/two-texas-counties-didnt-hold-runoff-elections/

Cruz carried Lubbock.

The largest counties carried by Dewhurst are Bell, Tom Green, Gregg, and Orange.

What patterns might we discern from this map?

That Dewhurst won the areas of TX-13, TX-19, TX-11 and had pockets of strength in eastern Texas. Thats about all I can say...

What happened in Val Verde County? I would have thought that would be strong Cruz territory, obviously I'm not very familiar with the area.

Maybe voters voting in the congressional primary for Gallego.  It was Dewhurst 302 Cruz 298, but 1700 votes were cast in the congressional race.

Cruz won almost all urban areas, including Lubbock, Potter, Randall, Wichita, Taylor, Smith, Gregg, Angelina, and Nacogdoches, so even the areas that look favorable to Dewhurst may not have been. 

As mentioned, Cruz was strong in the urban and especially the suburban areas, in addition to most of the border counties. The pattern as it pertains to the vast array of the rural, non-border counties is a bit more unclear... perhaps it's related to turnout? The Panhandle and that cluster in the center of the state voted mostly for Dewhurst in the first round, so there could be some significance there. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note that Dewhurst won each of the ten counties with the highest turnout...

()

... and Cruz won each of the ten counties with the lowest turnout (not nearly as noteworthy after taking into account just how low turnout was here; three people voted in Presidio County. But of course, most of these counties were not exactly expected to have many show up to vote in a Republican runoff.):

()

Just to visualize where these particular counties are (green is highest turnout, red is lowest):

()

I'll probably look into this more deeply later, just to see if this was even barely illuminating. :P

There weren't any votes from Foard County in either the primary or runoff. Are there just no registered Republicans there?

Is that legal in Texas, voting in both parties' primaries?Texas has some weird laws where you need somebody from the county to organize the primary, and I think foot some bills as well.

Texas doesn't have party registration, and technically₁ the political parties administer the primaries.  If a political party doesn't have a county chair, then they don't have a primary in that county.

When Texas was a one-party state, all the officeholders were chosen in the Democratic primary, and then many people would vote for the Republican presidential candidate.   It takes quite a bit of organization to run an election.

As Republicans had more success, it was easier to find people to run parties in more populous counties, and they might even have candidates for local offices.  But there was not that much competition for statewide or congressional nominations.  So in a smaller county, all the local offices might be settled in the Democratic primary, and then voters could vote for Republicans for statewide or congressional offices in the general election.   There usually was not that much competition for the Republican nominations.

It has not been uncommon for all the county commissioners, sheriff, etc. in a county to announce they were Republicans, which simply means that they would run for office in the Republican primary at the next election.  Then everybody could vote in the Republican primary, and choose local officials, as well as legislative, congressional, and statewide candidates.

But there are a few holdouts, such as Foard County.  Foard County voted for Carter (74%, 63%), Mondale 48%, Dukakis 63%, Clinton (55%, 62%), Gore 47%, Kerry 40%, Obama 37%.

Mondale only carried one State, so 48% is pretty good, and Gore and Kerry were running against a popular governor.   37% for Obama is a very good result for a rural county in Texas.

So Foard County continues to have a Democratic Primary.  In May, 138 persons voted in the presidential primary, where Obama failed to get a majority against 3 no-names.   172 voters voted for an unopposed District Attorney, and up to 209 persons voted on ballot propositions (Texas permits non-binding propositions on primary ballots).  There would have been local races as well, for county commissioner in 2 precincts, sheriff, and a few others.

So voters would have shown up to vote for the local office holders.  Around 35% skipped the presidential race, and half of the remainder voted against Obama.    About 30 of those who did not express an opinion in the presidential race, voted for an unopposed district attorney  (whose grandfather had been a state representative for 28 years), and then about 40 more voted on the propositions.

So a bunch of voters showed up to vote in the The Primary, skipped the Democratic presidential race (and barely half voted in the Senate races).  They voted for Staley Heatly, perhaps because they remembered his granddad, and then  voted on the ballot propositions - which were not completely obvious as being Democratic propositions.

Only 13 voters showed up for the Democratic senate runoff in Foard County.  If there are no runoffs in an area, no runoff primary is held, but this year there were statewide runoffs in both parties.

1 The State pays for the primaries, and ordinarily, the parties contract with the county election officials for voting equipment.   In addition, early voting is conducted by the counties.  So from a voter perspective it looks like the county is conducting the election - other than being held in different polling places.   But candidates file with the county or state party chairs and the parties do the actual canvass.  

So Billy Jo Bugtussle would file with the party chair of the RorD Party that she was running for re-election as county clerk.   The county chair would go rent the voting machines from Bugtussle and inform her that Billy Jo Bugtussle was the only candidate for RorD Party nomination for county clerk.  The state chair would inform the county chair of the candidates for statewide and multi-county office, who would also transmit these to clerk Bugtussle so that they could be programmed in.  Bugtussle would administer early voting, and voters who chose the RorD party could vote for her.  Bugtussle would prepare voting rolls for the election day, which would indicate which voters had already voted.   The RorD Party would conduct voting on election day using the county's voting equipment.   At the end of election day, they would take the voting machines and voting rolls back to the county clerk's office, where the votes would be tallied.  A few days later the party would canvass the results (look at the printout prepared by the county clerk, and decide they were OK).   They would then tell the county clerk that Billy Jo Bugtussle was the party's nominee for the general election.   The county party would also transmit the county results to the state party, so they can conduct the statewide canvass, and inform the Secretary of State who the party nominees are.

No.   But voters can choose their primary,  and they can't switch parties between the primary and runoff (note: about 1/6 of early voting Republican runoff voters, had not voted in the May primary).

In May, about 2500 voted in the Democratic congressional primary, overwhelmingly for Gallego, with around 2400 voting for Gallego's replacement in the House.  Only about 1700 voted in the senate race.  Around 1000 voted in the Republican primary.

If you lived in Val Verde County, you could vote in the Democratic primary and still vote for Canseco in November.  So the Republican electorate in Val Verde County was more tilted towards voters who voted in the Republican primary because they preferred the Republican Party, rather than picking the primary with the more interesting race.  Statewide the senate primary was the more interesting race in May, but not in Val Verde County.

Several of the high turnout counties in the central area had runoffs for state representative which may have pushed turnout up a bit - and the runoff would have had more visibility in a local weekly newspaper, or at the local cafe, DQ, or feed store.   The panhandle counties will be around 90% for Romney so they are simply highly Republican areas (since Texas does not have party registration, turnout is based on the entire electorate).