Texas Congressional Candidates

[jimrtex]

Filing has closed for the May 29 primaries.

Two incumbents, Ron Paul and Charlie Gonzalez did not file for re-election and there are 4 new seats.   Based on overlap, I'll treat TX-25 as a new district, and TX-35 as a continuation of TX-25.

TX-14 (Ron Paul's seat)

There are 11 Republican candidates, and 2 Democrats, including Nick Lampson.  Only two of the Republicans have any sort of prominent connection to Paul on their campaign website.  The most prominent Republican is Randy Weber, a Texas representative.

TX-15 (Ruben Hinojosa)

For some reason, he has drawn 4 Republican and 4 Democratic challengers.

TX-16 (Silvestre Reyes)

Two Republican and 3 Democratic challengers.

TX-20 (Charlie Gonzalez's seat)

Joaquin Castro is the only Democrat.  The interim court map drew him into TX-20 (by one block), and Gonzalez announced that he was retiring to make some money.  Meanwhile it switched TX-35 to make it a district for Ciro Rodriguez, and get him out of TX-23.   The legislative map would have put Castro into TX-20, but he didn't know that Gonzalez would be retiring, so he was running in TX-35 against Lloyd Doggett (Doggett claims that when Castro first approached him about running for Congress, he though Castro was thinking about TX-23 where he actually lived).  This will be the first time since 1960 that Charlie or his father, Henry B. have not represented the district.

TX-23 (Quico Canseco)

Democrat candidates are Ciro Rodiguez, who lost to Canseco in 2010; John Bustamante, son of Albert Bustamante, who lost to Henry Bonilla in 1992; and Pete Gallego, Texas representative from the Trans-Pecos.

TX-25 (open, Travis to Tarrant)

Essentially a new district with only 30% of voters from the current TX-25.  12 Republicans have filed, including the Williams brothers, Michael and Roger.  Michael, formerly chairman of the Railroad Commission and Roger, formerly Secretary of State, first were running for the US Senate, and then switched TX-33 before that district was moved eastward.

TX-27 (Blake Farenthold)

This district retains a larger share of the current district that TX-34 as it flips northward.  There are 3 Republican challengers to Farenthold and 4 Democrats.

TX-30 (Eddie Bernice Johnson)

Barbara Mallory Caraway, a Texas representative is challenging Johnson.

TX-33 (new Hispanic plurality district in Tarrant and Dallas counties)

11 Democratic candidates, with the most prominent Marc Veasey, a black Texas representative from Fort Worth.

TX-34 (new district, the southern part of TX-27)

8 Democratic candidates, with the most prominent Filemon Vela.  The federal courthouse in Brownsville is named after his father, Filemon Vela, Sr.  His wife, Rose Vela, ran for the Republican nomination for a Texas Supreme Court position in 2010.

TX-35 (Lloyd Doggett)

The largest share of this district is from TX-25, and it has the largest share of TX-25, though more of the district is in Bexar County.  Doggett faces Sylvia Romo, Bexar County Tax Collector-Assessor, Maria Luisa Alvarado, who was the Democratic Lt. Governor candidate in 2006.

TX-36 (new district, looks like East Texas, but is actually SE Harris County district)

12 Republicans running, with the most prominent Mike Jackson, Texas senator from SE Harris County and Steve Stockman, former US Representative.

[Lief 🗽]

Glad that Doggett is no longer up against Joaquin Castro, I think his position is a lot more winnable now.

[krazen1211]

Is this guy seriously going to be the Texas Democratic nominee for Senate? Have they fallen that far?

http://www.hubbardforsenate.com/

[Miles]

Is this guy seriously going to be the Texas Democratic nominee for Senate? Have they fallen that far?

http://www.hubbardforsenate.com/

I imagine that they haven't fallen any further than your party has in states like NV and DE with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

[redcommander]

Is this guy seriously going to be the Texas Democratic nominee for Senate? Have they fallen that far?

http://www.hubbardforsenate.com/

I imagine that they haven't fallen any further than your party has in states like NV and DE with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

Those were flukes. Plus Texas actually has a bench of Democrats that they could choose a sacrificial lamb from.

[Sam Spade]

Is this guy seriously going to be the Texas Democratic nominee for Senate? Have they fallen that far?

http://www.hubbardforsenate.com/

Isn't Gene Kelly running again?

[redcommander]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

[Joe Republic]

TX-34 (new district, the southern part of TX-27)

8 Democratic candidates, with the most prominent Filemon Vela.  The federal courthouse in Brownsville is named after his father, Filemon Vela, Sr.  His wife, Rose Vela, ran for the Republican nomination for a Texas Supreme Court position in 2010.

The mother of a friend of mine is also one of those candidates.  She was Solomon Ortiz's chief of staff for twenty years.  That should count for something.

Plus, she bought me a bag of skittles one time.  That should count for something too.

[krazen1211]

Is this guy seriously going to be the Texas Democratic nominee for Senate? Have they fallen that far?

http://www.hubbardforsenate.com/

I imagine that they haven't fallen any further than your party has in states like NV and DE with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

That logic really doesn't work. Sharron Angle got ~45% and Nevada has a GOP governor. Texas Democrats don't win any statewide races.

[smoltchanov]

That logic really doesn't work. Sharron Angle got ~45% and Nevada has a GOP governor. Texas Democrats don't win any statewide races.

You carefully omitted Delaware))) Ant, BTW, Angle managed to lose a seat Republicans would win with any other candidate.

[krazen1211]

That logic really doesn't work. Sharron Angle got ~45% and Nevada has a GOP governor. Texas Democrats don't win any statewide races.

You carefully omitted Delaware))) Ant, BTW, Angle managed to lose a seat Republicans would win with any other candidate.

Well, if that's true, Republicans in Nevada at least have candidates that are present and willing to run, even if they don't win a primary. Republicans in Delaware were I think shut out in 2010 but have had some past success.

Texas Democrats seem to have given up at winning anything. Hence, Hubbard.

[Niemeyerite]

That logic really doesn't work. Sharron Angle got ~45% and Nevada has a GOP governor. Texas Democrats don't win any statewide races.

You carefully omitted Delaware))) Ant, BTW, Angle managed to lose a seat Republicans would win with any other candidate.

Well, if that's true, Republicans in Nevada at least have candidates that are present and willing to run, even if they don't win a primary. Republicans in Delaware were I think shut out in 2010 but have had some past success.

Texas Democrats seem to have given up at winning anything. Hence, Hubbard.

Let's talk about Michigan and Hoekstra, Minnesota and, and who?, Washington, California. All these states have senate races in 2012, too.

[krazen1211]

That logic really doesn't work. Sharron Angle got ~45% and Nevada has a GOP governor. Texas Democrats don't win any statewide races.

You carefully omitted Delaware))) Ant, BTW, Angle managed to lose a seat Republicans would win with any other candidate.

Well, if that's true, Republicans in Nevada at least have candidates that are present and willing to run, even if they don't win a primary. Republicans in Delaware were I think shut out in 2010 but have had some past success.

Texas Democrats seem to have given up at winning anything. Hence, Hubbard.

Let's talk about Michigan and Hoekstra, Minnesota and, and who?, Washington, California. All these states have senate races in 2012, too.

Yes...against entrenched incumbents. Those aren't open seats!

Last time Texas had an open seat in 2002, the Democrats at least tried to win it.

[Miles]

That logic really doesn't work. Sharron Angle got ~45% and Nevada has a GOP governor. Texas Democrats don't win any statewide races.

You carefully omitted Delaware))) Ant, BTW, Angle managed to lose a seat Republicans would win with any other candidate.

Well, if that's true, Republicans in Nevada at least have candidates that are present and willing to run, even if they don't win a primary. Republicans in Delaware were I think shut out in 2010 but have had some past success.

Texas Democrats seem to have given up at winning anything. Hence, Hubbard.

Let's talk about Michigan and Hoekstra, Minnesota and, and who?, Washington, California. All these states have senate races in 2012, too.

Yes...against entrenched incumbents. Those aren't open seats!

Last time Texas had an open seat in 2002, the Democrats at least tried to win it.

Well, there is the possibly that the DSCC has its hands full defending seats in friendlier states. I can understand why they'd punt on Texas.

[perdedor]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

Of the two, Hubbard is decidedly more progressive and would make a much stronger candidate in the long run. Sadler is vague and uninspiring.

[redcommander]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

Of the two, Hubbard is decidedly more progressive and would make a much stronger candidate in the long run. Sadler is vague and uninspiring.

When was the last time a progressive won in Texas?

[smoltchanov]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

Of the two, Hubbard is decidedly more progressive and would make a much stronger candidate in the long run. Sadler is vague and uninspiring.

When was the last time a progressive won in Texas?

Statewide - probably never (at least - by present day standards of what's "a progressive"). For House only)) I can remember even some white progressives like Bob Eckhardt)))

[smoltchanov]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

Of the two, Hubbard is decidedly more progressive and would make a much stronger candidate in the long run. Sadler is vague and uninspiring.

Only in a "very long run". Say - 20 years from now)))

[minionofmidas]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

Of the two, Hubbard is decidedly more progressive and would make a much stronger candidate in the long run. Sadler is vague and uninspiring.

When was the last time a progressive won in Texas?

Statewide - probably never (at least - by present day standards of what's "a progressive"). For House only)) I can remember even some white progressives like Bob Eckhardt)))

Well if we're counting House - Lloyd Doggett 2010?

[perdedor]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

Of the two, Hubbard is decidedly more progressive and would make a much stronger candidate in the long run. Sadler is vague and uninspiring.

When was the last time a progressive won in Texas?

I couldn't tell you. More importantly, when was the last time a Democrat won a statewide race in Texas? Over 20 years ago (1990, I believe). This pattern is unlikely to change anytime soon and I'm not expecting Hubbard to win - that would be absurd. None-the-less, I would much rather lose an election by 15+ points with a candidate that I respect than lose one by 10-15 points with a candidate I didn't much care for.

[smoltchanov]

Well if we're counting House - Lloyd Doggett 2010?

May be. I forgot about him, because this is an extreme rarity now. But he always has somewhat different district then he, probably, would prefer - heavily Hispanic in his case. And thus - a threat of primary

[smoltchanov]

I couldn't tell you. More importantly, when was the last time a Democrat won a statewide race in Texas? Over 20 years ago (1990, I believe). This pattern is unlikely to change anytime soon and I'm not expecting Hubbard to win - that would be absurd. None-the-less, I would much rather lose an election by 15+ points with a candidate that I respect than lose one by 10-15 points with a candidate I didn't much care for.

And i don't care about losing at all. Neither - about parties or - rigid ideologies. I DO care about winning. And if to WIN requires a more conservative candidate - i will gladly support him.

[perdedor]

I couldn't tell you. More importantly, when was the last time a Democrat won a statewide race in Texas? Over 20 years ago (1990, I believe). This pattern is unlikely to change anytime soon and I'm not expecting Hubbard to win - that would be absurd. None-the-less, I would much rather lose an election by 15+ points with a candidate that I respect than lose one by 10-15 points with a candidate I didn't much care for.

And i don't care about losing at all. Neither - about parties or - rigid ideologies. I DO care about winning. And if to WIN requires a more conservative candidate - i will gladly support him.

To each their own; but I could care less about party majorities if the ideology of that said majority is out of tune with what I believe in. Either way, your point is somewhat moot because you're basis is that there is a candidate available with the potential to win. Either Sadler or Hubbard is going to get ran over by either Dewhurst or Cruz. It's just a matter of what issues you want brought to the table, and I prefer Hubbard's message to Sadler's despite the fact that he would likely do 2-3 points worse.

[smoltchanov]

I couldn't tell you. More importantly, when was the last time a Democrat won a statewide race in Texas? Over 20 years ago (1990, I believe). This pattern is unlikely to change anytime soon and I'm not expecting Hubbard to win - that would be absurd. None-the-less, I would much rather lose an election by 15+ points with a candidate that I respect than lose one by 10-15 points with a candidate I didn't much care for.

And i don't care about losing at all. Neither - about parties or - rigid ideologies. I DO care about winning. And if to WIN requires a more conservative candidate - i will gladly support him.

To each their own; but I could care less about party majorities if the ideology of that said majority is out of tune with what I believe in. Either way, your point is somewhat moot because you're basis is that there is a candidate available with the potential to win. Either Sadler or Hubbard is going to get ran over by either Dewhurst or Cruz. It's just a matter of what issues you want brought to the table, and I prefer Hubbard's message to Sadler's despite the fact that he would likely do 2-3 points worse.

As you said himself: "to each their own")))

[Indy Texas]

This guy seems like a more credible candidate for Dems.

http://sadlerforsenate.com/

Of the two, Hubbard is decidedly more progressive and would make a much stronger candidate in the long run. Sadler is vague and uninspiring.

When was the last time a progressive won in Texas?

1964 - incumbent Sen. Ralph Yarborough (liberal Dem) defeats George H. W. Bush by painting him as an effete Yankee elitist (oh the irony) who was also somehow a rabid fire-breathing Goldwaterite racist at the same time; Yarborough got primaried in '70 by conservative Dem Lloyd Bentsen, who went on to defeat George H. W. Bush (who was then made Nixon's Ambassador to China after John Connally told the president he had really earned it after being sent to slaughter twice in a row).