Instead of analyzing, just blame variance
Most analysts say Dewhurst simply was unlucky in his loss to Cruz, which largely can be attributed to a court ruling on redistricting, which postponed the Republican primary from March until May.
That is shockingly inane. You don't spend 20 million bucks of your fortune and then "simply [be] unlucky" when you start out as an overwhelming favorite in the horserace polls. If your analyst/lobbyist suggests anything of the sort, you should fire him/her and cancel any outstanding payments.
It's worth pointing out that before the campaign began, the smart money thought that a Dewhurst defeat was eminently possible. However, Austin-centric conventional wisdom (mostly lobbyists) thought Dewhurst was guaranteed to win (see here, 90% right before the primary here and even more ridiculously right before the runoff. Or even worse, this bit of hilariously bad analysis from Bob Stein)
Dewhurst never cracked 45% in any horserace poll of Republican primary voters. That's not simply bad luck. As one "analyst" once wrote, "Even though [Republican primary voters] think Dewhurst often makes the right decisions, they often feel like they have to push him to get there."
No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.