Some primary thoughts
1. My thoughts on the race haven't really changed much since I wrote a long analysis on January 3rd.
2. Texas has still never had a high-profile Republican primary since Republicans took over this state. This is amazing. It was almost guaranteed that we'd get one this cycle...but we didn't.
3. It's all about early voting -- 40% of the total votes statewide in both the Republican and Democratic primaries were early votes. In Fort Bend County, more people voted early than voted on election day. This is going to change the way people run campaigns; it's already been changing, of course, but it appears that early voting will continue to become increasingly prevalent.
4. GOP turnout wasn't much higher than Dem turnout. 618k to 500k. This is actually a little surprising.
5. I'm glad I'm not involved in any Democratic statewide primary campaigns. It sucks when a non-campaigning perennial candidate can force a relatively serious candidate into a runoff. Maybe it's a good thing for Barbara Ann Radnofsky, because the press will feel obligated to cover the runoff a few times. On the other hand, recent statewide Democratic history should also make Radnofsky scared of losing.
7. [I may elevate this to its own post and expand on it more]. I think Bob Gammage was the best thing that could have happened to Chris Bell. Bell needed name ID (and probably still does, though I assume the primary helped) and this was probably the cheapest way for Bell to get it. Without name ID, Bell can't poll well, which means he can't raise money, which means he won't have a chance and the coverage will reflect that.
I missed something here ... how does Gene *Kelly* and Barbara Ann *Radnofsky* being in a runoff make Royal Massett's theory that Valley folk would have blindly voted for an Hispanic surname believable?
Just my own two cents, but I think the bulk of precedent indicates that whenever identity politics is at issue, the first time is usually the only/best time for it to take effect. Just ask Orlando Sanchez where all those Hispanic Dem votes were for him in 2003 ... or Victor Morales in 2002.
Three rules I tend to apply with regard to this:
1. Voters aren't as dumb as political consultants tend to think they are.
2. Voters wise up over time.
3. Consultants rarely do.
I think it's pretty clear that you don't want it to be true, Greg. But if Democratic primary voters are so smart, then how come Gene Kelly is in a runoff?
Everyone is leaving out one of the most important rules: Build the grassroots with free nachos and hot dogs!
Posted by THRILLHOUSE @ 03/09/06 07:57 PM
You've been hanging with Chris & Kevin too much. It's a simple question that you seem to lack an answer for based on your answer.
You're the one making the argument that two NON-Hispanics in a runoff somehow proves the point that Valley voters would blindly vote for an Hispanic candidate. If you've got nothing to support the theory, then fine. I, at least, offered something to refute the theory.
'Nuff said, I guess.
Greg -- I don't see much refuting, just some denying.
Hey Evan, we need to spend more time together. I've got that microwave for you still... I think that it will look great on your desk.
>>>You've been hanging with Chris & Kevin too much.<<<
Up to the usual tricks, eh?
Instead of managing to stick to a substantive discussion about politics, you have to get personal and rude.
Okay, I'll play for a change, although I usually don't like to reward such buffoonery.
YES, Evan's been hanging out LOTS with Kevin! All of.... ZERO times in 2006!
Yep, zero. Zilch. Not once this year.
Unfortunate, to be sure, but true.
Not that any of our social lives are really any of your business, or anyone else's. But since you know better now, perhaps you can move on to more interesting topics. Healthy young Christian men don't sit around fantasizing over imagined conservative male blogger troikas; creepy men do.
No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.