Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

precinct analysis

Precinct analysis: Texas Congressional districts

From Daily Kos:

Texas’s GOP-drawn congressional map was designed to create 24 safely red seats and 11 safely Democratic districts, with only the 23rd District in the western part of the state being truly competitive. In 2012, Mitt Romney carried the state 57-41 and won those 24 red seats by double digits, while Barack Obama easily carried the 11 Democratic districts; the 23rd backed Romney 51-48.

Things were a lot more interesting in 2016, with Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton by a smaller 52.5-43.5 margin, the closest presidential election in Texas in decades. Clinton won all the Obama districts, as well as the 23rd and two solidly Romney seats, the 7th and 32nd. However, the GOP still holds all the districts that Romney won in 2012, while Democrats have all the Obama/Clinton districts. The map at the top of this post, which shows each district as equally sized, illustrates all this, with the three Romney/Clinton districts standing out in pink.

We’ll start with a look at Texas’s 23rd District, which stretches from El Paso to San Antonio and went from 51-48 Romney to 50-46 Clinton. However, the swing wasn’t quite enough for Democrats downballot. Republican Will Hurd narrowly unseated Democrat Pete Gallego in the 2014 GOP wave, and he won their expensive rematch by a similarly tight 48-47 margin.

Surprisingly, two other Texas Republicans have now found themselves sitting in seats Clinton won. Romney easily carried the 7th, located in the Houston area, by a wide 60-39 spread, but the well-educated seat backed Clinton by a narrow 48.5-47.1. Republican Rep. John Culberson still decisively turned back a challenge from a perennial candidate 56-44, and it remains to be seen if Democrats will be able to field a stronger contender next time—or whether the GOP’s weakness at the top of the ticket was a one-time phenomenon due solely to Trump.

The 32nd in the Dallas area also swung wildly from 57-41 Romney to 49-47 Clinton. However, Democrats didn’t even field an opponent against longtime GOP Rep. Pete Sessions, a former head of the NRCC who’s capable of raising as much money as he needs to in order to win. This is another well-educated seat where we’ll need to see if Democrats will be able to take advantage of Trump’s weaknesses, or if The Donald’s 2016 problems don’t hurt the GOP much downballot in future years.

Seven other Republican-held seats also moved to the left by double digits. The closest result came in Rep. Kenny Marchant’s 24th District in the Dallas-Forth Worth suburbs, which Trump won just 51-45 after Romney cruised to a 60-38 win four years earlier. Marchant beat a penniless opponent 56-39, so this district could also wind up on Democratic watch lists.

They mention a few other districts in which Clinton exceeded Obama’s numbers by a significant amount; I’ll get to that in a minute. I’ve discussed CD07 and CD32 before. We know that while Clinton carried CD07, it was largely due to Republican crossovers, as the average judicial race clocked in at a 56.5% to 43.5%b advantage for Trump. I can now make a similar statement about CD32, as I have been working my way through the canvass data in Dallas County. (CD32 reaches into Collin County as well, but I don’t have canvass data for it. The large majority of the district is in Dallas County, however.) Hillary Clinton won the Dallas County portion of CD32 by ten thousand votes, basically 127K to 117K. No other Democrat in Dallas County carried CD32, however. Looking at the judicial races there, Trump generally led by 20K to 25K votes, so the crossover effect was significant. The closest any Dem came to matching Clinton in CD32 was two-term Sheriff Lupe Valdez, who trailed in the Dallas portion of CD32 by a 125K to 116K margin.

I may go back later and look at CD24, about forty percent of which is in Dallas County, and I will definitely look at CD23 when we have full statewide numbers. If you had told me that Clinton would carry CD23, I’d have been sure that Pete Gallego would reclaim the seat, but that didn’t happen. I’ve got to give credit to Rep. Will Hurd for that, though I doubt he will ever have an easy time of it going forward. As for the other districts, I’ll just say this: Back when we were all getting intoxicated by the alluringly tight poll numbers in Texas, I ran the numbers in every district to see what might happen if you adjusted the 2012 returns to reflect a 50-50 Presidential race. The short answer is that while several Congressional districts become a lot more competitive, none of them swing to majority Dem, even under those much more favorable circumstances. This is a testament to how effective that Republican gerrymander is, and a sobering reminder of how much ground there is to recover before we can make any gains. The 2016 Presidential numbers may tantalize, but they are illusory.

One more thing: The full 2016 Congressional numbers, along with the corresponding 2012 numbers, are here. Let me break them down a bit:


Trump up, Clinton down

Dist   Romney   Trump   Obama  Clinton  R Diff  D Diff
======================================================
CD01     71.6    72.2    27.5     25.3    +0.6    -2.2
CD04     74.0    75.4    24.8     21.8    +1.4    -3.0


Trump down, Clinton down

Dist   Romney   Trump   Obama  Clinton  R Diff  D Diff
======================================================
CD05     64.5    62.7    34.4     34.3    -1.8    -0.1
CD11     79.2    77.8    19.6     19.1    -1.4    -0.5
CD13     80.2    79.9    18.5     16.9    -0.3    -2.6
CD14     59.3    58.2    39.5     38.4    -1.1    -1.1
CD15     41.5    40.0    57.4     56.7    -1.5    -0.7
CD19     73.6    72.5    25.0     23.5    -1.1    -1.5
CD27     60.5    60.1    38.2     36.7    -0.4    -1.5
CD28     38.7    38.5    60.3     58.3    -0.2    -2.0
CD30     19.6    18.3    79.6     79.1    -1.3    -0.5
CD34     38.3    37.7    60.8     59.2    -0.6    -1.6
CD36     73.2    72.0    25.7     25.2    -1.2    -0.5

Trump down, Clinton up

Dist   Romney   Trump   Obama  Clinton  R Diff  D Diff
======================================================
CD02     62.9    52.4    35.6     43.1   -10.5    +7.5
CD03     64.3    54.8    34.2     40.6    -9.5    +6.4
CD06     57.9    54.2    40.8     41.9    -3.7    +1.1
CD07     59.9    48.5    38.6     47.1   -11.4    +8.5
CD08     77.0    72.7    21.7     23.9    -4.3    +2.2
CD09     21.1    18.0    78.0     79.3    -2.9    +1.3
CD10     59.1    52.3    38.8     43.2    -6.8    +4.4
CD12     66.8    62.9    31.7     32.7    -3.9    +1.0
CD16     34.5    27.2    64.2     67.9    -7.3    +3.7
CD17     60.4    56.3    37.7     38.8    -4.1    +1.1
CD18     22.8    20.0    76.1     76.5    -2.8    +0.4
CD20     39.7    34.3    58.9     61.0    -5.4    +2.1
CD21     59.8    52.5    37.9     42.5    -7.3    +4.6
CD22     62.1    52.1    36.7     44.2   -10.0    +7.5
CD23     50.7    46.4    48.1     49.7    -4.3    +1.6
CD24     60.4    50.7    38.0     44.5    -9.7    +6.5
CD25     59.9    55.1    37.8     40.2    -4.8    +2.4
CD26     67.6    60.9    30.7     34.4    -6.7    +3.7
CD29     33.0    25.4    65.9     71.1    -7.6    +5.2
CD31     59.6    53.5    38.3     40.8    -6.1    +2.5
CD32     57.0    46.6    41.5     48.5   -10.4    +7.0
CD33     27.1    23.7    72.0     72.9    -3.4    +0.9
CD35     34.6    30.5    63.0     64.1    -4.1    +1.1

You want to know why we’ll never get rid of Louie Gohmert? He represents CD01, one of two districts where Trump improved on Mitt Romney’s numbers. That’s why we’ll never get rid of Louie Gohmert. In the other districts, the main difference between 2016 and 2012 is the performance of third party candidates, especially Libertarian Gary Johnson. I don’t have vote totals, and the dKos spreadsheet doesn’t include the other candidates, so it’s hard to say exactly what happened at this time. For sure, in some of these districts, there was a shift towards the Democrats. I’ve noted before that the “true” level of Democratic support in CD07 was about 43.5%, but that’s still four or five points better than it was in 2012. When the full statewide numbers come out, probably next month, I’ll be able to do more detailed comparisons. For now, this is what we have. Look over the dKos data and see what you think.

The Trib looks at Fort Bend’s Democratic trend

It’s worth noting.

Despite long being considered a Republican county, Fort Bend went blue on Nov. 8 when Hillary Clinton won the county with an almost seven-point margin of victory. It wasn’t just an electoral flip — it was a 13-point swing from the 2012 presidential election.

And it marked the third presidential election in which the Republican presidential candidate did not win the county by double digits.

Political observers say it’s still too early to call Fort Bend a battleground county after just one election in which it flipped from red to blue. But given its demographics — and the possibility that those could help it turn reliably purple in the future — they acknowledge that something is afoot in this diverse pocket of Texas.

“This phenomenon is a direct result of the fact that the two population groups Trump did the worst with was college-educated voters and minority voters,” said Jay Aiyer, a Texas Southern University assistant professor of political science and public administration. “Fort Bend is unique in that it has a high share of both.”

Like most suburbs, Fort Bend’s landscape is a combination of affluent neighborhoods, old ranch homes, rows of new subdivisions, strip malls and open space. About 45 percent its residents have bachelor’s degrees — well beyond the state’s overall rate of 28.4 percent.

But unlike most suburban counties, Fort Bend is home to minority working and middle classes — except here they aren’t in the minority.

Black and Asian Texans have long made up a larger share of the county’s population compared to their small numbers statewide. And as the share of the county’s white residents dropped from 40.7 percent in 2005 to 34.5 percent in 2015, the share of Hispanic and Asian residents has steadily grown.

[…]

The numbers are still being crunched, but political observers attribute Clinton’s win in the county to a boost in minority voters, particularly Asian Americans, splitting their tickets to vote against Trump.

Fort Bend County had the highest share of straight-ticket voters in November among the state’s 10 biggest counties, but Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the 76 percent of voters that cast straight-ticket ballots.

At a time when the Republican party both in Texas and nationwide is generally moving farther to the right, the challenge for Fort Bend Republicans in the future will be bringing back those typically Republican voters who switched over this year, said Aiyer, the political scientist.

“That’s the question: Has the shift become more permanent?” he added.

A lot of this is stuff I’ve covered before, so I don’t have any great insights. I do think the shift is more durable, given the numbers in the downballot races, but Fort Bend is a dynamic place, and the steady influx of new residents makes it hard to say what things will look like politically going forward. Democrats will have some opportunities this year to make gains in local elections, and that’s something we need to watch. A big piece of the puzzle here is just believing that it can be done, which maybe the 2016 results have helped to do. Fort Bend is still Republican-dominated, but it is not a Republican stronghold any more. It’s just a matter of time before the first part of that assessment changes as well.

Precinct analysis: Brazoria County

I had some time to spare, so I spent it with the canvass reports from Brazoria County. You know, like you do. Here’s what I was able to learn.


        Trump   Clinton   R Avg   D Avg   Weber    Cole
=======================================================
Votes  36,572    15,127  37,036  14,996  37,917  14,678
Pct    68.58%    28.23%  71.18%  28.82%  72.09%  27.91%


        Trump   Clinton   R Avg   D Avg   Olson  Gibson
=======================================================
Votes  36,219    28,073  39,026  26,713  40,179  26,178
Pct    54.08%    41.92%  59.37%  40.63%  60.55%  39.45%


        Trump   Clinton   R Avg   D Avg   Thomp   Floyd
=======================================================
Votes  40,666    30,564  43,599  29,181  44,713  28,505
Pct    54.83%    41.21%  59.95%  40.05%  61.07%  38.93%

Votes  32,125    12,636  32,462  12,528
Pct    69.23%    27.23%  72.15%  27.85%

Brazoria County is part of two Congressional districts, CDs 14 and 22, and two State Rep districts, HDs 25 and 29. The latter two are entirely within Brazoria, so the numbers you see for them are for the whole districts, while the CDs include parts of other counties as well. The first table splits Brazoria by its two CDs, while the second table is for the two HDs. Incumbent Republican Randy Weber was challenged by Democrat Michael Cole in CD14, while Republican Pete Olsen was unopposed in CD22. The second group of numbers in the first table are the relevant ones for CD22; I didn’t include Olsen because there was no point (*). There were no contested District or County Court races, so the “R Avg” and “D Avg” above are for the four contested district Appeals Court races; these are the 1st and 14th Courts of Appeals, which as you know includes Harris County.

The second table is for the State Rep districts. In HD29, incumbent Republican Ed Thompson faced Democrat John Floyd, while Republican Dennis Bonnen was unchallenged in HD25. You can sort of tell from the tables and I can confirm from the raw data that HD29 mostly overlapped CD22, and HD25 mostly overlapped CD14. As I have done before, the percentages for the Presidential races are calculated including the vote totals for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, which is why they don’t add to 100%. The other contested races all had only two candidates.

Still with me? If so, you can see that HD29 was much more interesting than HD25, and was where basically all of the crossover Presidential votes were. Trump lagged the Republican baseline in HD25, but those voters mostly either skipped the race or voted third party. Viewed through the Presidential race, HD29 looks like a potentially competitive district, but if you pull the lens back a bit you can see that it is less so outside that, and that Thompson exceeded the Republican baseline on top of that. It would be nice to point to this district as a clear opportunity, but we’re not quite there. There is another dimension to consider here, however, and that is a comparison with the 2012 results:


       Romney     Obama    Cruz  Sadler   R Avg   D Avg   Weber Lampson
=======================================================================
Votes  35,571    13,940  34,618  13,865  33,931  14,444  33,116  14,398
Pct    70.82%    27.75%  69.34%  27.77%  70.14%  29.86%  69.70%  30.30%


       Romney     Obama    Cruz  Sadler   R Avg   D Avg   Olsen  Rogers
=======================================================================
Votes  35,291    20,481  34,879  19,879  34,466  20,164  35,997  17,842
Pct    62.49%    36.27%  62.14%  35.42%  63.09%  36.91%  66.86%  33.14%


       Romney     Obama    Cruz  Sadler   R Avg   D Avg   Thomp   Blatt
=======================================================================
Votes  40,170    22,480  39,657  21,866  39,203  22,204  40,642  21,388
Pct    63.32%    35.44%  62.86%  34.66%  63.84%  36.16%  65.52%  34.48%

Votes  30,692    11,941  29,840  11,878  29,194  12,404
Pct    70.95%    27.60%  69.45%  27.64%  70.18%  29.82%

In 2012, Randy Weber was running to succeed Ron Paul in the redrawn CD14, which had a nontrivial amount of resemblance to the old CD02 of the 90s, which is how former Congressman Nick Lampson came to be running there. He ran ahead of the pack, but the district was too red for him to overcome. Pete Olsen was challenged by LaRouchie wacko Keisha Rogers, Ed Thompson faced Doug Blatt, and Dennis Bonnen was again unopposed. I threw in the numbers from the Ted Cruz-Paul Sadler Senate race in these tables for the heck of it.

The main thing to note here is that HD29 was a lot more Republican in 2012 than it was in 2016. Ed Thompson went from winning by 31 points in 2012 to winning by 22 in 2016, with the judicial average going from nearly a 28 point advantage for Republicans to just under a 20 point advantage. Total turnout in the district was up by about 11,000 votes, with 7K going to the Dems and 4K going to the Republicans. That still leaves a wide gap – 14K in the judicial races, 16K for Ed Thompson – but it’s progress, and it happened as far as I know without any big organized effort.

And that’s the thing. If Democrats are ever going to really close the gap in Texas, they’re going to have to do it by making places like HD29, and HD26 in Fort Bend and the districts we’ve talked about in Harris County and other districts in the suburbs, more competitive. If you look at the map Greg Wythe kindly provided, you can see that some of the blue in Brazoria is adjacent to blue precincts in Fort Bend and Harris Counties, but not all of it. Some of it is in Pearland, but some of it is out along the border with Fort Bend. I’m not an expert on the geography here so I can’t really say why some of these precincts are blue or why they flipped from red to blue in the four years since 2012, but I can say that they represent an opportunity and a starting point. This is what we need to figure out and build on.

(Since I initially drafted this, Greg provided me two more maps, with a closer view to the blue areas, to get a better feel for what’s in and around them. Here’s the North Brazoria map and the South Brazoria map. Thanks, Greg!)

(*) – As noted in the comments, I missed that Pete Olsen did have an opponent in 2016, Mark Gibson. I have added the numbers for that race. My apologies for the oversight.)

Precinct analysis: Don’t be mesmerized by the Clinton/Trump numbers

From the DMN:

Donald Trump may have carried Texas and clinched the White House in November, but support for the Republican presidential nominee waned in parts of the Dallas area — news that, in a typical election year, could spell trouble for some Republican-held congressional seats.

A Dallas Morning News analysis of nine North Texas congressional districts revealed that, across the board, fewer voters backed Trump than backed Mitt Romney four years ago.

Dallas Rep. Pete Sessions saw his once-firmly red district turn blue as voters cast a majority of ballots for Democrat Hillary Clinton. Sessions cruised to re-election, as Democrats fielded no candidate.

Coppell Rep. Kenny Marchant, like Sessions, handily won his re-election bid, but the gap between those who voted for the Republican and the Democrat in the presidential race fell to just a single-digit margin.

There are signs the same holds true in other urban parts of Texas, such as Houston, where Republican Rep. John Culberson saw his district turn blue for Clinton and Democrats won every countywide seat.

Texas bucked the trend nationwide, with Trump winning the state with a smaller margin — 9 points — than any GOP nominee in decades. On the surface, that seems to be good news for Texas Democrats. But given the peculiarities of Trump’s candidacy, it’s not so clear-cut.

The drop in Dallas-area Republican support doesn’t necessarily indicate voters are moving away from the GOP, several experts say; rather, that many voters moved away from the controversial candidate.

Republican House members outperformed Trump in each of the GOP-controlled North Texas districts reviewed by The News, and the drop in support for the Republican presidential candidate didn’t result in an equal and opposite rise in support for Clinton.

Had Romney earned the same numbers four years ago, “it would indicate a decline in normal Republican vote share,” said Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. “Romney is very much a normal Republican. Trump is anything but a normal Republican.”

Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University, suggested that Romney’s 2012 high numbers were at least partially due to Obama’s low approval ratings.

The drop in support this year could be from “an artificial high … to an artificial low created by the presence of a presidential candidate who alienated a subset of otherwise reliable GOP voters,” he said.

Or, you know, it could simply be that a lot of Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton in Texas. This is why I’ve been emphasizing the judicial races as a more accurate way of measuring partisan support in a given area, and for making comparisons to 2012. I don’t have that data for the Dallas-area districts at this time, but as we know from Harris County, CD07 still looks pretty red when viewed through that lens. I’d say Culberson has a little bit to worry about between now and the next round of redistricting in 2021, when I fully expect more of CD07 will be shifted to the west and north, but barring anything unusual and bearing in mind that no one has any idea what the short term political effects of the Trump regime will be, I’d bet Culberson will still be there.

There’s an image in the DMN story from this tweet by Miles Coleman, which in turn points to this story he wrote about the larger Houston metro area. Basically, it’s a color map of precincts in Harris, Fort Bend, and Montgomery County, all based on the Presidential race. That’s a lot of blue in Harris County, and while it’s concentrated in the center of the county, it’s spread out quite a bit, with a significant incursion into Fort Bend. I’d have liked to have seen Galveston and Brazoria included in this map as well, but what we have is still useful. As is the case with Pete Sessions’ CD32, which pokes into Collin County, there are a lot of districts that cross county borders, and that’s something we need to think about more. That’s for another day. For now, even with the proviso that there’s a lot of crossover votes in the blue of that map, take a look and ponder the potential.

Precinct analysis: Fort Bend State Rep districts

Following on from yesterday’s post, here’s a look at the vote in Fort Bend from the perspective of the State Rep districts.


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        35,005  31,558  52.59%  47.41%
CJ, 1st CofA     40,047  28,336  58.56%  41.44%
1st CofA #4      39,311  28,940  57.60%  42.40%
14th CofA #2     39,351  28,873  57.68%  42.32%
14th CofA #9     40,008  28,185  58.67%  41.33%
240th JD         39,743  28,291  58.42%  41.58%
400th JD         39,954  28,130  58.68%  41.32%
County Court #5  39,194  28,774  57.67%  42.33%
Sheriff          41,342  27,454  60.09%  39.91%
HD26             39,672  28,876  57.87%  42.13%
President 08     39,210  24,076  61.96%  38.04%
President 12     39,595  22,554  63.71%  36.29%


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        18,471  47,471  28.01%  71.99%
CJ, 1st CofA     21,234  46,194  31.49%  68.51%
1st CofA #4      20,732  46,629  30.78%  69.22%
14th CofA #2     20,635  46,766  30.62%  69.38%
14th CofA #9     21,235  46,072  31.55%  68.45%
240th JD         20,912  46,159  31.18%  68.82%
400th JD         20,999  46,161  31.27%  68.73%
County Court #5  20,590  46,422  30.73%  69.27%
Sheriff          21,147  46,215  31.39%  68.61%
HD27             21,531  45,648  32.05%  67.95%
President 08     18,186  42,374  30.03%  69.97%
President 12     18,939  42,811  30.67%  69.33%


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        44,604  36,032  55.32%  44.68%
CJ, 1st CofA     50,370  33,133  60.32%  39.68%
1st CofA #4      49,824  33,595  59.73%  40.27%
14th CofA #2     49,791  33,655  59.67%  40.33%
14th CofA #9     50,503  32,857  60.58%  39.42%
240th JD         50,064  32,972  60.29%  39.71%
400th JD         50,238  32,827  60.48%  39.52%
County Court #5  49,563  33,405  59.74%  40.26%
Sheriff          51,110  32,457  61.16%  38.84%
HD28             56,777       0 100.00%   0.00%
President 08     30,636  21,813  58.41%  41.59%
President 12     40,593  22,001  64.85%  35.15%


Office	            Rep    Dem    Rep %   Dem %
===============================================
President        19,132  19,414  49.63%  50.37%
CJ, 1st CofA     20,705  18,695  52.55%  47.45%
1st CofA #4      20,563  18,773  52.28%  47.72%
14th CofA #2     20,484  18,845  52.08%  47.92%
14th CofA #9     20,795  18,524  52.89%  47.11%
240th JD         20,864  18,405  53.13%  46.87%
400th JD         21,064  18,238  53.60%  46.40%
County Court #5  20,502  18,726  52.26%  47.74%
Sheriff          21,365  18,214  53.98%  46.02%
HD85             20,876  18,539  52.96%  47.04%
President 08     28,328  19,638  59.06%  40.94%
President 12     30,652  19,087  61.63%  38.37%

I want to begin by noting that HD85 is only partly in Fort Bend; it also encompasses Jackson and Wharton counties. I have no explanation for why the Republican vote dropped off by 10K from 2012 while the Democratic vote has held more or less steady over the past three elections. I didn’t include the 2012 and 2008 Presidential numbers when I first drafted this post, so I wouldn’t have even noticed that had I not added them in later. Maybe there are fewer people in the district? I have no idea. Feel free to enlighten me in the comments.

HD26 is the revelation here. It’s never been on anyone’s radar as being potentially competitive, having been drawn as a 62% or so Republican district in 2011. What appears to be happening is that much like Commissioner’s Precinct 4, HD26 gained Democratic voters, about 6,000 of them over 2012, without gaining any Republican voters. This is not a coincidence, as 26 of the 41 voting precincts in HD26 are in CC4, so the fortunes of the two are clearly correlated. The non-Presidential numbers don’t really qualify HD26 as a swing district, but the trend is in the right direction, and if 2018 winds up a lower turnout year for Republicans, this could interesting. And while I’ve consistently downplayed the Presidential numbers in various contexts, one does have to wonder if a Republican who was persuaded to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 might be open to the possibility of voting for a good Democratic candidate against a Trump-supporting Republican officeholder in 2018. The more we can test messages that might move the needle a point or two, the better. Whatever the case, even if 2018 is too soon for demographic change to make HD26 competitive, 2020 may not be. And remember that overlap between Commissioner’s Precinct 4 and HD26. A good candidate in one race can help the other, and vice versa.

Neither HDs 27 nor 28 are competitive, and neither are all that interesting to look at from this view. HD28 is clearly the fast-growing part of Fort Bend – it mostly overlaps with Commissioner’s Precinct 3, in case you were wondering. Turnout has increased by over 60% in HD28 since 2008. Democrats have kept up since 2012, but are behind overall from 2008. My guess is that if redistricting were to be done today, HD28 would be used to shore up HD26, while perhaps also dumping some Democrats into HD27, which hasn’t grown much. I don’t see HD28 becoming competitive based on what we observe here, but as a population center it’s imperative for Dems to engage here, because this area will have an outsized impact on countywide races. You have to keep the margin here manageable, and make sure that new residents who lean Democratic are aware that their votes are needed even if their local races aren’t really winnable.

Precinct analysis: Fort Bend Commissioners Court precincts

I have not done Fort Bend precinct analyses in the past because I don’t get easily-worked-with CSV-format canvass reports from them after elections. However, it turns out that their election returns page for this year has a “Reports” button on it from which one can download an Excel-format canvass report. It’s laid out differently than the Harris County reports, in a way that made this all a bit more labor-intensive, but I was able to work with it. I’ve got it in two posts, one for today on the Commissioners Court precincts, and one for tomorrow on the State Rep districts. So with that said, let’s dive on in with a look at the Presidential races from this year and 2012.


President - 2016

Pcnct    Rep     Dem    Lib   Grn   Rep %   Dem %   Lib %   Grn %
=================================================================
CC1   28,737  26,823  1,502   332  50.07%  46.73%   2.62%   0.58%
CC2   11,969  41,887    925   470  21.66%  75.81%   1.67%   0.85%
CC3   44,899  29,891  2,555   472  57.70%  38.41%   3.28%   0.61%
CC4   31,607  35,874  1,916   508  45.21%  51.32%   2.74%   0.73%


President - 2012

Pcnct    Rep     Dem    Lib   Grn   Rep %   Dem %   Lib %   Grn %
=================================================================
CC1   26,771  20,521    362    74  56.09%  43.00%   0.76%   0.16%
CC2   12,354  38,699    274   100  24.02%  75.25%   0.53%   0.19%
CC3   42,394  17,862    528   111  69.62%  29.33%   0.87%   0.18%
CC4   34,607  24,062    555   175  58.26%  40.51%   0.93%   0.29%

Looking at these numbers, your first instinct might be to ask how it is that Commissioner Richard Morrison lost his bid for re-election in Precinct 1. I would remind you that he won in 2012 against a candidate that had been disavowed by the Fort Bend County GOP after it was discovered he had voted in multiple locations in a previous election. I’ll also say again not to be too distracted by the Trump/Clinton numbers, since there were a fair amount of crossover votes. This will become apparent when we look at other county races in the Commissioners Court precincts. The bottom line was that this was the first time Morrison, who was elected in 2008 to succeed a scandal-plagued incumbent, faced a conventional, establishment-type candidate with no obvious baggage, and it was too much to overcome in a precinct that skews Republican. It’s a shame, because Morrison is a great guy who did a fine job as Commissioner, but we were basically playing with house money. Morrison is still a young guy who could certainly run for something else if he wanted to – County Judge is one obvious possibility – so I hope we’ll see him again.

The other point of interest is the Democratic growth in Precincts 3 and 4, especially 4, where Hillary Clinto got a majority of the vote. Again, there are crossover voters here, but as you’ll see in a minute, the growth is real. Precinct 4 will be up in 2018, so this is an obvious target of interest for Fort Bend Democrats. As with all population growth areas, ensuring that new residents are registered will be a key to any strategy, as will making new arrivals who are in line with Democratic values aware of the party’s presence while dispelling the myth that Fort Bend is a Republican stronghold. This growth has implications for the State Rep races as well, which we will get to in the next post.

Now let’s take a look at the contested county-level races, for some perspective on the partisan levels in each precinct.


District Judge,  240th Judicial District

Pcnct    Rep     Dem   Rep %   Dem %
====================================
CC1   31,249  25,475  55.09%  44.91%
CC2   13,490  41,211  24.66%  75.34%
CC3   50,214  26,881  65.13%  34.87%
CC4   36,630  32,260  53.17%  46.83%


District Judge,  400th Judicial District

Pcnct    Rep     Dem   Rep %   Dem %
====================================
CC1   31,481  25,299  55.44%  44.56%
CC2   13,570  41,177  24.79%  75.21%
CC3   50,401  26,694  65.38%  34.62%
CC4   36,803  32,186  53.35%  46.65%


Judge, County Court at Law No. 5

Pcnct    Rep     Dem   Rep %   Dem %
====================================
CC1   30,686  25,982  54.15%  45.85%
CC2   13,309  41,330  24.36%  75.64%
CC3   49,725  27,308  64.55%  35.45%
CC4   36,129  32,707  52.49%  47.51%


Sheriff

Pcnct    Rep     Dem   Rep %   Dem %
====================================
CC1   32,010  25,236  55.92%  44.08%
CC2   13,595  41,255  24.79%  75.21%
CC3   51,268  26,386  66.02%  33.98%
CC4   38,091  31,463  54.76%  45.24%

So as you can see, Precinct 1 is basically 55-45 Republican, which is close to what it was in 2012. Morrison lost by five points, so he did get some crossovers, just not enough to overcome the lean of the precinct. Republicans in Precinct 2 who didn’t want to vote for Trump went third party instead of crossing over for Hillary Clinton. Precinct 3 looks more like the Republican powerhouse it was in 2012, though as you can that while both Rs and Ds gained voters, Ds gained a handful more. That’s enough to reduce the Republican percentage of the vote, but it didn’t do much for the size of the deficit. The big difference in in Precinct 4, where Dems netted about a 6,000 vote gain to narrow the gap to about five points. That’s enough to make it an opportunity, but it’s still a challenge. I don’t know enough to have any specific advice for the Fort Bend folks, but the numbers are clear. Start the recruitment process as soon as possible, and look towards 2018.

Precinct analysis: None of the above

We have been told that this was a year where many people were unhappy with the two main choices they had for President. We looked at Presidential numbers in Harris County before, and now we’re going to look again, at write-in candidates and at undervotes.


Dist McMullen  All WI  McMullin%  All WI%
=========================================
HD126     354     417      0.57%    0.67%
HD127     444     521      0.60%    0.70%
HD128     152     192      0.25%    0.32%
HD129     364     446      0.52%    0.64%
HD130     479     554      0.59%    0.68%
HD131      63      87      0.14%    0.19%
HD132     398     461      0.57%    0.67%
HD133     425     517      0.56%    0.68%
HD134     627     707      0.69%    0.78%
HD135     268     316      0.44%    0.52%
HD137      89     100      0.32%    0.36%
HD138     234     293      0.45%    0.57%
HD139     113     135      0.21%    0.26%
HD140      36      47      0.13%    0.17%
HD141      22      42      0.06%    0.11%
HD142     141     150      0.31%    0.33%
HD143      32      46      0.10%    0.14%
HD144      39      56      0.14%    0.20%
HD145      64      80      0.18%    0.21%
HD146     234     267      0.48%    0.54%
HD147     164     179      0.28%    0.31%
HD148     283     324      0.58%    0.66%
HD149     117     145      0.27%    0.33%
HD150     505     596      0.66%    0.78%


Dist     None   Total   None %
==============================
HD126   1,349  63,214    2.13%
HD127   1,480  75,620    1.96%
HD128     909  60,656    1.50%
HD129   1,307  71,355    1.83%
HD130   1,501  83,009    1.81%
HD131     899  47,459    1.89%
HD132   1,285  70,519    1.82%
HD133   1,914  78,173    2.45%
HD134   2,313  93,167    2.48%
HD135   1,111  61,619    1.80%
HD137     590  28,027    2.11%
HD138   1,049  52,787    1.99%
HD139   1,056  53,829    1.96%
HD140     637  28,652    2.22%
HD141     726  39,243    1.85%
HD142     819  46,243    1.77%
HD143     663  34,279    1.93%
HD144     601  28,120    2.14%
HD145     753  35,918    2.10%
HD146     936  50,081    1.87%
HD147   1,205  59,489    2.01%
HD148   1,083  49,819    2.17%
HD149     973  44,955    2.16%
HD150   1,463  78,180    1.87%

The first table documents the votes for Evan McMullin, who drew by far the most votes among the thirteen certified write-in candidates, which means the thirteen whose votes were actually counted. The second column is for all write-in votes for the given district. There were 6,510 total write-in votes, with McMullin receiving 5,647 of them. To put that in some perspective, Ralph Nader received 1,716 write-in votes in 2004, for 0.17% of the vote. McMullen had 0.43% of the vote, a hair less than half of Jill Stein’s 0.90% share.

Not surprisingly, McMullin drew most of his votes in heavily Republican districts. That’s no doubt because McMullin ran as a viable alternative for Republicans who were unhappy with Trump, and because there were more Republicans in those places. The two districts that stand out here are HDs 128, the only Republican district where McMullin finished below his countywide percentage, and 146, the only Democratic area where he outperformed the overall number. My guess for HD128 is that the voters there were just happier with Trump than voters elsewhere. As for HD146, I got nothing. Feel free to speculate about that in the comments.

The second table is for undervotes, which is to say the people who did not vote in the Presidential race. As you might imagine, that is usually the race that has the lowest undervote rate. This year, the undervote rate in the Presidential race was 1.99%; the next lowest rate was in the Tax Assessor’s race, where 3.47% skipped it. County judicial races were around five percent. Before I talk about the rates in each district, here’s how the Presidential undervote compared to other years:


Year   Undervote   Under%
=========================
2016      26,622    1.99%
2012      15,381    1.28%
2008      17,185    1.45%
2004      20,692    1.90%

Gotta say, I would not have expected 2004 to have had that many undervoters. I don’t see much of a pattern here. HD128 again demonstrated its satisfaction with the candidates by having the lowest undervote rate, but the districts that gave McMullin the most support did not necessarily have high undervote rates. Both Democratic and Republican districts above average and below average. Maybe you see something there, and maybe if I went down to the precinct level I’d see something, but right now I don’t. It just is what it is.

I’m going to take a crack at Fort Bend and Dallas Counties next week. As always, let me know what you think.

Precinct analysis: Bennett v Sullivan

Ann Harris Bennett was the only countywide Democratic candidate to be trailing on Election Day as the early voting totals were posted, but as the night went on she cut into the deficit and finally took the lead around 10 PM, going on to win by a modest margin. Here’s how that broke down:


Dist  Sullivan  Bennett  Sullivan%  Bennett%
============================================
CD02   168,936  105,778     61.50%    38.50%
CD07   147,165  106,727     57.96%    42.04%
CD09    29,855  103,511     22.39%    77.61%
CD10    83,213   34,795     70.51%    29.49%
CD18    53,558  148,586     26.49%    73.51%
CD29    41,555   88,942     31.84%    68.16%
				
SBOE6  357,083  249,953     58.82%    41.18%
				
HD126   37,003   24,186     60.47%    39.53%
HD127   50,028   23,460     68.08%    31.92%
HD128   42,659   16,238     72.43%    27.57%
HD129   44,072   24,777     64.01%    35.99%
HD130   60,429   20,277     74.88%    25.12%
HD131    8,121   37,906     17.64%    82.36%
HD132   39,094   29,321     57.14%    42.86%
HD133   50,116   25,241     66.50%    33.50%
HD134   49,352   39,410     55.60%    44.40%
HD135   33,528   26,112     56.22%    43.78%
HD137    9,664   17,099     36.11%    63.89%
HD138   28,827   22,096     56.61%    43.39%
HD139   13,707   38,266     26.37%    73.63%
HD140    7,556   19,790     27.63%    72.37%
HD141    5,934   32,109     15.60%    84.40%
HD142   11,599   33,182     25.90%    74.10%
HD143   10,372   22,294     31.75%    68.25%
HD144   11,810   15,188     43.74%    56.26%
HD145   12,669   21,519     37.06%    62.94%
HD146   11,323   36,903     23.48%    76.52%
HD147   14,119   43,254     24.61%    75.39%
HD148   20,434   26,999     43.08%    56.92%
HD149   16,639   26,389     38.67%    61.33%
HD150   50,472   25,358     66.56%    33.44%
				
CC1     82,916  231,040     26.41%    73.59%
CC2    134,067  117,084     53.38%    46.62%
CC3    202,128  149,943     57.41%    42.59%
CC4    220,415  149,294     59.62%    40.38%
Ann Harris Bennett

Ann Harris Bennett

This was Bennett’s fourth try for office. She had run for County Clerk in 2010 and 2014 against Stan Stanart, and for Tax Assessor in 2012 against now-incumbent Mike Sullivan, losing by fewer than 2,500 votes out of over 1.1 million cast. She becomes the fifth Tax Assessor since 2009, following Paul Bettencourt (who resigned shortly after being re-elected in 2008), Leo Vasquez (appointed to replace Bettencourt), Don Sumners (defeated Vasquez in the 2010 primary and won in November to complete the term), and Sullivan (defeated Sumners in the 2012 primary and then Bennett in November).

Incumbent Tax Assessors tend to do pretty well in re-election efforts. Bettencourt was the top votegetter in 2004, leading even George W. Bush by over 20,000 votes. He trailed only Ed Emmett in 2008, finishing 16K votes ahead of John McCain. Despite his loss, Sullivan was the high scorer among Republicans, beating all the judicial candidates by at least 19K votes. Only Sullivan in 2012 and Sumners in 2010, both first-timers on the November ballot, failed to make the upper echelon. Assuming she runs for re-election in 2020, it will be interesting to see if that same pattern holds for the Democrat Bennett as it has done for her Republican predecessors.

It’s instructive again to compare these results to the judicial races, as they provide a comparison to the base level of partisan support. While Sullivan finished well ahead of the Republican judicial candidates, Bennett wasn’t below the Democratic judicials; she was near the bottom, but did better than four of them. Looking at the numbers across State Rep districts, Bennett was usually a couple hundred votes below the Democratic judicial average, while Sullivan beat the Republican norm by a thousand votes or more. In HD134, he topped it by over 3,000 votes, though interestingly he wasn’t the high scorer there – Lunceford (50,193), Mayfield (49,754), and Bond (49,407) were all ahead of him, with Guiney (49,209), Halbach (49,173), and Ellis (49,081) right behind.

My general hypothesis here is that fewer Republicans skipped this race. I observed in the Sheriff’s race overview that Democratic judicial candidates had more dropoff than Republican judicial candidates did, while the non-judicial Democrats did a good job of holding onto those votes. Bennett performed more like a judicial candidate, while Sullivan overperformed that metric. I assume that the exposure Tax Assessors get, since every year everyone who owns a car and/or a home has to make at least one payment to that person, helps boost their numbers in elections. Again, we’ll see if Bennett benefits from that in her next election.

This concludes my review of Harris County races. I have one more post relating to Harris County in my queue, and I plan to take at least a cursory look at Fort Bend and Dallas Counties. Again, if you have any particular questions you want me to examine, let me know. I hope you have found this all useful.

Precinct analysis: Ryan v Leitner

Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan was the only non-judicial incumbent elected in November. Here’s how his race looked.


Dist    Leitner     Ryan  Leitner%   Ryan%
==========================================
CD02    158,149  113,363    58.25%  41.75%
CD07    135,129  116,091    53.79%  46.21%
CD09     25,714  106,728    19.42%  80.58%
CD10     80,244   36,703    68.62%  31.38%
CD18     46,062  154,354    22.98%  77.02%
CD29     35,312   93,732    27.36%  72.64%
				
SBOE6   331,484  269,022    55.20%  44.80%
				
HD126    34,999   25,571    57.78%  42.22%
HD127    47,719   24,876    65.73%  34.27%
HD128    40,809   17,464    70.03%  29.97%
HD129    41,206   26,677    60.70%  39.30%
HD130    58,268   21,630    72.93%  27.07%
HD131     6,719   39,011    14.69%  85.31%
HD132    37,294   30,571    54.95%  45.05%
HD133    46,509   28,002    62.42%  37.58%
HD134    42,937   44,634    49.03%  50.97%
HD135    31,651   27,468    53.54%  46.46%
HD137     8,661   17,869    32.65%  67.35%
HD138    26,893   23,486    53.38%  46.62%
HD139    11,874   39,721    23.01%  76.99%
HD140     6,316   20,762    23.33%  76.67%
HD141     4,969   32,887    13.13%  86.87%
HD142    10,179   34,249    22.91%  77.09%
HD143     8,745   23,486    27.13%  72.87%
HD144    10,725   16,024    40.09%  59.91%
HD145    10,858   22,921    32.14%  67.86%
HD146     9,532   38,323    19.92%  80.08%
HD147    11,719   45,087    20.63%  79.37%
HD148    17,529   29,206    37.51%  62.49%
HD149    15,405   27,290    36.08%  63.92%
HD150    48,085   26,950    64.08%  35.92%
				
CC1      70,740  240,579    22.72%  77.28%
CC2     123,739  124,368    49.87%  50.13%
CC3     188,415  160,213    54.04%  45.96%
CC4     206,707  158,990    56.52%  43.48%
Vince Ryan

Vince Ryan

Ryan is the third-longest tenured non-judicial countywide officeholder, trailing County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez and County Judge Ed Emmett. He just barely missed having the third-highest vote total in 2016, trailing Hillary Clinton, Kim Ogg, and (by 317 votes) judicial candidate Kelli Johnson. The precinct data tells the story you would expect it to tell given this – Ryan won in HD134 and Commissioners Court Precinct 2, and he was generally above the baseline wherever you looked. He had been an above average performer in 2012 and 2008 as well, and he had a successful, no-drama second term.

That may not be the case for his third term, and the people who are most likely to give him heartburn, at least in the early days of 2017, are his fellow Democrats, Sheriff-elect Ed Gonzalez and DA-elect Kim Ogg. I refer of course to the bail practices lawsuit, where Ryan is (via outside counsel) defending the county, which includes the Sheriff’s office, even though Gonzalez doesn’t want to fight the litigation. Ogg is likely to be on Gonzalez’s side when she gets sworn in, which will be a little awkward for Ryan. More awkward is that defending the county’s position doesn’t sit well with the Democratic base. I saw a bit of griping about this on Facebook before the election, but for obvious reasons that got buried under other matters. But it will be a focus of attention when the case gets back on track in January, and if it gets drawn out this is the sort of thing that can generate enmity, and quite possibly a primary challenger in four years.

That’s a long way off, and there’s no reason why the case can’t be settled. Then Ryan can get back to doing the things he really gets energized about, like going after polluters and other public nuisances. If he keeps that up, he ought to be in good position to be an above-average performer again in 2020.

Precinct analysis: Ogg v Anderson

Kim Ogg had the second highest vote total in Harris County this year. Let’s see how that looked at a more granular level.


Dist  Anderson      Ogg  Anderson%    Ogg%
==========================================
CD02   156,027  117,810     56.98%  43.02%
CD07   135,065  118,837     53.20%  46.80%
CD09    26,881  106,334     20.18%  79.82%
CD10    78,602   38,896     66.90%  33.10%
CD18    47,408  154,503     23.48%  76.52%
CD29    36,581   93,437     28.14%  71.86%
				
SBOE6  328,802  277,271     54.25%  45.75%
				
HD126   34,499   26,495     56.56%  43.44%
HD127   46,819   26,260     64.07%  35.93%
HD128   39,995   18,730     68.11%  31.89%
HD129   40,707   27,844     59.38%  40.62%
HD130   57,073   23,239     71.06%  28.94%
HD131    7,301   38,651     15.89%  84.11%
HD132   36,674   31,478     53.81%  46.19%
HD133   46,242   29,195     61.30%  38.70%
HD134   43,962   45,142     49.34%  50.66%
HD135   31,190   28,312     52.42%  47.58%
HD137    8,728   18,040     32.61%  67.39%
HD138   26,576   24,189     52.35%  47.65%
HD139   12,379   39,537     23.84%  76.16%
HD140    6,613   20,621     24.28%  75.72%
HD141    5,305   32,677     13.97%  86.03%
HD142   10,428   34,242     23.34%  76.66%
HD143    9,100   23,434     27.97%  72.03%
HD144   10,758   16,100     40.06%  59.94%
HD145   11,145   22,949     32.69%  67.31%
HD146   10,090   38,147     20.92%  79.08%
HD147   12,156   45,221     21.19%  78.81%
HD148   17,538   29,848     37.01%  62.99%
HD149   15,352   27,535     35.80%  64.20%
HD150   47,268   28,160     62.67%  37.33%
				
CC1     73,521  240,194     23.44%  76.56%
CC2    123,178  126,996     49.24%  50.76%
CC3    187,095  164,487     53.22%  46.78%
CC4    204,103  164,355     55.39%  44.61%
Kim Ogg

Kim Ogg

Ogg received 696,955 votes, which is about 11K fewer than Hillary Clinton, while Anderson drew 588,464 votes, or 42.5K more than Donald Trump. I believe the differences can be accounted for as Ogg not getting as many crossovers as Clinton, while Anderson picked up most of the Gary Johnson supporters. Compare the results from the Presidential race and the judicial races to get a feel for this. In particular, compare the Presidential numbers in HD134 to the same numbers above. Ogg got 4,765 fewer votes than Clinton in the district. Add to that the 4,044 Johnson votes for a total of 8,809, and then observe that Anderson did 8,131 votes better than Trump did. Not exact, but pretty close. There are some fudge factors as well – some of those Johnson voters were straight party Libertarian, Ogg may have received some Jill Stein votes, etc. It’s good enough for a back-of-the-envelope approximation, is what I’m saying.

Outside of HD134, Ogg consistently did about two points better across the county, with slightly bigger gains in more Republican districts. Basically, Ogg is to 2016 what Adrian Garcia was to 2008. Garcia maintained his status as Democratic pacesetter in 2012, and I think Ogg will have the chance to do that in 2020 if she does a good job and accomplishes the goals she has laid out. We have seen plenty of examples of county officials and candidates for county office drawing bipartisan support, on both sides. We’ve also seen examples of failed incumbents getting turned out in emphatic fashion. Good performance is good politics in these elections.

I’ll look at the other countywide races in the coming days. Are there any particular questions you’d like me to explore with this data? Let me know.

Precinct analysis: District courts

Today we will look at the Harris County-specific judicial races, by which I mean the district courts plus two County Court benches. I’m going to begin with something a little different, which is a look at the distribution of how many votes each candidate received. We know that most people know little to nothing about most judicial candidates, yet there’s a surprising range of outcomes even in a year like this where one party swept all the elections. Is there anything we can glean from that? Let’s take a look.


Bench    Democrat    Votes  Bench   Republican    Votes
=======================================================
178th   K Johnson  684,467  165th   Mayfield *  621,070
151st Engelhart *  681,602  CC#16     Garcia *  620,356
152nd  Schaffer *  680,521  337th      Magee *  620,322
129th     Gomez *  677,144  61st   Lunceford *  619,823
127th   Sandill *  673,122  179th     Guiney *  619,027
80th     Weiman *  672,840  176th       Bond *  617,013
125th    Carter *  670,653  177th    Patrick *  615,513
164th   S-Hogan *  670,438  351st      Ellis *  613,151
339th   Jackson *  664,205  333rd    Halbach *  610,904
507th   Maldonado  663,465  338th     Thomas *  610,756
133rd McFarland *  661,240  CC#1    Leuchtag *  607,896
174th     Jones    660,685  334th    Dorfman *  606,184
11th      Hawkins  665,619  174th     McDaniel  605,912
215th    Palmer *  663,604  133rd        Smith  605,601
334th    Kirkland  658,759  11th        Fulton  604,450
CC#1    Barnstone  656,755  507th    Lemkuil *  601,461
333rd       Moore  654,602  339th      McFaden  600,896
338th    Franklin  653,880  215th     Shuchart  600,874
351st      Powell  650,948  125th     Hemphill  598,956
177th   R Johnson  650,703  80th        Archer  597,157
61st     Phillips  650,248  164th         Bail  596,556
176th      Harmon  648,830  127th      Swanson  594,224
CC#16      Jordan  647,122  129th      Mafrige  591,350
165th        Hall  646,314  151st     Hastings  586,609
179th        Roll  645,103  152nd         Self  586,199
337th     Ritchie  643,639  178th      Gommels  580,653

HarrisCounty

Asterisks represent incumbents. Three benches – the 11th (Civil), the 174th and 178th (both Criminal) – are held by incumbents (all Democrats) who chose not to run for another term. The first thing we can tell from this is that incumbents did the best overall. Maybe that’s a name recognition thing, maybe that’s the effect of the legal community crossing party lines to support the judges they know, maybe it’s a random one year phenomenon. Interestingly, all but one Democratic incumbent (Terri Jackson in the 339th) is a Civil Court judge, while the Republicans are on Civil (Mayfield, Lunceford, Halbach, Leuchtag, Dorfman), Criminal (Garcia, Magee, Guiney, Bond, Patrick, Ellis), and Family (Lemkuil) benches. Maybe that means something, and maybe it’s just random.

The top votegetters for each party did about 40K votes better than the bottom. Because there’s an inverse relationship, this means that the margins of victory were very divergent. Herb Ritchie won by 23,317 votes. Kelli Johnson won by 103,786. I have no clear idea why Johnson, running for an open Criminal bench, was the top performer overall, but she was. Speaking as a Democrat, hers was far from the most visible campaign to me. Most of the incumbents were pretty busy with email and social media, with a few doing other things like billboards (Engelhart) and cable TV ads (Sandill). Among the non-incumbents, I’d say Kristin Hawkins and Steven Kirkland were the ones I heard from the most, followed by Hazel Jones and Julia Maldonado.

It’s become a tradition – since 2008, anyway, when Democrats in Harris County first broke through – for their to be calls to Do Something about judicial races after an election. In particular, the call is to Do Something about the effect of straight ticket voting on judicial elections. This year was no exception, though in the past this call has gone unheeded since stakeholders on both sides recognize the pros and cons from their perspective. In Harris County, there were about 71K more Democratic straight ticket votes than there were Republican straight ticket votes, which among other things means that every Democrat from Alex Smoots-Hogan up would have won their race even if we threw out all of the straight party votes. Of course, the people who voted straight ticket did vote, and it’s more than a little presumptuous to think that they would have either skipped the judicial races or done a significant amount of ticket-splitting had they not had that option. They just would have had to spend more time voting, which would have meant longer lines and/or necessitated more voting machines. Somehow, that never seems to be part of the conversation.

Of course, part of this is just another way to complain about the fact that we elect judges via partisan contests. We’ve discussed that plenty of times and I’m not going to get into it here. I’ll just say this: While one may not be able to draw conclusions about how a random person may have voted in the Presidential race this year, it’s highly likely that the Republican judicial candidates this year had previously voted for Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, Ken Paxton, Sid Miller, and Ted Cruz, while the Democratic candidates would not have done so. If someone wants to base their vote in these races on how the candidates likely voted in those races, I don’t see why that should be a problem. People are going to vote based on the information they have.

Anyway. Let’s take a look at some districts. Here I’m going to go with the average vote totals for each party’s candidates in the districts that I want to highlight.


Dist    R CJ Avg  D CJ Avg  R CJ Pct  D CJ Pct
==============================================
CD02    162,006    108,132    59.97%    40.03%
CD07    140,809    108,532    56.47%    43.53%

SBOE6   341,855    254,815    57.29%    42.71%

HD126    35,612     24,770    58.98%    41.02%
HD132    37,744     29,907    55.79%    44.21%
HD134    46,749     39,776    54.03%    45.97%
HD135    32,189     26,673    54.69%    45.31%
HD137     8,995     17,430    34.04%    65.96%
HD138    27,529     22,527    55.00%    45.00%
HD144    10,981     15,673    41.20%    58.80%
HD148    18,532     27,741    40.05%    59.95%
HD149    15,724     26,816    36.96%    63.04%

CC1      75,017    234,844    24.21%    75.79%
CC2     126,175    120,814    51.09%    48.91%
CC3     193,936    152,622    55.96%    44.04%
CC4     210,878    153,004    57.95%    42.05%

One point of difference between the district/county court races and the state court races is that these are all straight R-versus-D contests. There were no third-party candidates in any of these matchups. As such, I consider this a better proxy for partisan strength in a given district.

There are four Congressional districts that are entirely contained within Harris County. The Democratic districts are far bluer than the Republican districts are red. These districts are fairly solid for the GOP now, but they’re going to need some bolstering in the 2021 reapportioning to stay that way. It’s not crazy to think that one or both of them may include non-Harris County turf in the next redrawing.

As for the State Rep districts, I will first call your attention to the HD134 numbers, which you may note are just a little different than the Presidential numbers. Are we clear on what I meant by crossover votes? This is why we need to be very careful about using Presidential numbers to evaluate future electoral opportunities. I’d love to believe that HD134 is more Democratic than before, but the evidence just isn’t there.

Against that, I hope the HCDP is beating the bushes now looking for people to run in HDs 135, 138, 132, and 126, in that order. All of them need to be thought of as two-cycle efforts, to account for differing conditions, the slow pace of demographic change, and the fact that these are still steep challenges. There are only so many viable non-judicial targets in 2018 for Democrats, and these four districts should be prioritized.

I ask again: Is it time to stop thinking of HD144 as a swing district? Given that it went Republican in 2014, I suppose the answer has to be No, at least until Rep.-elect-again Mary Ann Perez can demonstrate that she can hold it in 2018. But note that HD144 is a lot more Democratic than before. The Democratic judicial average is six points higher than the top statewide candidates from 2012, and eight points above what President Obama got there in 2012. It’s higher than what Adrian Garcia got. Heck, Perez outdid herself by eight points from 2012. I’m sure Donald Trump had something to do with this, but that’s still a big shift. In 2016, HD144 was nearly as Democratic as HD148 was. Let’s keep that in mind going forward.

There’s a universe in which all four Harris County Commissioners are Democrats. There are more than enough excess Democratic votes in Precinct 1 to tip the other three, if we wanted to draw such a map. Said map would certainly violate the Voting Rights Act, and I am in no way advocating that. I’m just engaging in a little thought experiment, and pushing back in a small way at the notion that the division we have now is How It Should Be. The more tangible way to do that would be to win Precinct 2 in 2018. I’m not going to say that will be easy, but I will say that it’s doable. Like those State Rep districts, it needs to be a priority.

I’ll have a look at the other countywide elections next. As always, let me know what you think.

HISD special election runoff will be December 10

I don’t believe I’ve seen a news story about this.

Anne Sung

Anne Sung

The runoff election for the top two candidates to fill the unexpired term of outgoing HISD District VII Trustee Harvin Moore has been set for Dec. 10.

Candidates competing in the runoff are Anne Sung and John Luman.

The runoff election winner will serve the remainder of Moore’s term in office, which runs through 2017. Click here to see a map of HISD trustee districts.

Early voting times are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 30 through Dec. 2. Early voting on Dec. 5 and 6 is from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Early voting locations are as follows:

John Luman

John Luman

Harris County Clerk’s Office
201 Caroline St. #420
Houston, TX 77002

Metropolitan Multi-Service Center
1475 W Gray St.
Houston, TX 77019

SPJST Lodge 88 (the Heights Location)
1435 Beall St.
Houston, TX 77008

Harris County Public Health (Galleria Location)
2223 W. Loop South 1st floor
Houston, TX 77027

Here’s the interview I did with Anne Sung and the interview I did with John Luman. As noted in my analysis of Hillary Clinton’s performance in Harris County, Clinton carried the district, but 1) there were also a lot of undervotes, 2) turnout for the runoff is going to be really low, and 3) Clinton carried HISD VII with crossover votes. I haven’t done all of the numbers, but I can tell you that Dori Garza lost here by a 52-42 margin. That said, lower turnout may benefit Sung more than it does Luman, depending on who is motivated to come out and vote. Pantsuit Nation is touting this race, and it’s certainly possible that Sung will have some more momentum going in. All things being equal, though, this is Luman’s race to lose, and even if he does lose, Sung would have a tough re-election in 2017. I’ll be keeping an eye on this one as we go. If you live in HISD VII, mark the dates for voting on your calendar because they will zip past before you know it.

UPDATE: I have received word that the SPJST Lodge is not available for early voting for this runoff. It had originally been reported as being available, but that has changed. My apologies for the confusion.

Precinct analysis: State courts

We return to our tour of the precinct data with a look at the statewide judicial races. These tend to be interesting mostly as proxies for base partisan support, but there are variations that reflect qualities about the candidates. That’s what I’m going to focus on here.


Dist    Green    Garza   Guzman Robinson  R SJ Avg  D SJ Avg
============================================================
CD02  156,800  107,513  163,092  100,247   158,852   103,416
CD07  135,310  108,540  144,087   99,977   138,618   104,011
CD09   25,906  103,431   27,993  101,594    26,242   102,489
CD10   79,113   34,926   80,104   33,297    79,337    33,927
CD18   45,665  149,521   50,198  144,817    46,814   146,929
CD29   34,618   91,898   40,381   85,592    35,849    88,188
						
SBOE6 329,707  253,583  346,471  235,776   335,602   243,912
						
HD126  34,635   24,431   35,565   23,230    34,861    23,735
HD127  47,208   23,767   48,074   22,592    47,409    23,032
HD128  40,567   16,310   40,856   15,756    40,513    15,989
HD129  40,578   25,159   42,100   23,578    41,139    24,193
HD130  57,460   20,405   58,131   19,372    57,638    19,776
HD131   6,812   38,016    7,565   37,395     6,923    37,668
HD132  36,509   29,355   37,394   28,250    36,716    28,697
HD133  46,810   25,780   49,559   23,138    47,911    24,387
HD134  44,064   41,029   49,468   35,686    46,233    38,348
HD135  31,226   26,170   32,263   25,003    31,496    25,523
HD137   8,568   17,074    9,165   16,546     8,743    16,774
HD138  26,600   22,314   27,842   20,926    26,972    21,525
HD139  11,909   38,459   12,907   37,412    12,132    37,903
HD140   6,219   20,336    7,324   19,129     6,430    19,617
HD141   4,993   32,192    5,391   31,834     4,982    32,006
HD142  10,070   33,520   10,763   32,789    10,208    33,091
HD143   8,718   22,970    9,933   21,652     8,927    22,196
HD144  10,592   15,528   11,318   14,623    10,689    14,987
HD145  10,584   22,300   12,511   20,273    11,063    21,133
HD146   9,618   36,999   10,637   36,067     9,928    36,519
HD147  11,536   43,516   13,478   41,685    12,147    42,533
HD148  17,146   27,893   19,709   25,140    18,013    26,352
HD149  15,245   26,292   15,875   25,657    15,370    25,934
HD150  47,406   25,632   48,229   24,488    47,624    24,911
						
CC1    70,859  232,823   78,886  225,102    73,125   228,635
CC2   122,115  119,904  129,022  112,013   123,728   115,261
CC3   187,552  151,403  196,274  142,372   190,521   146,507
CC4   204,547  151,305  211,872  142,722   206,690   146,412


Dist    Green    Garza   Guzman Robinson    R Avg%    D Avg%
===========================================================
CD02   56.81%   38.95%   59.09%   36.32%    57.28%   37.29%
CD07   53.24%   42.71%   56.70%   39.34%    54.00%   40.52%
CD09   19.42%   77.53%   20.98%   76.15%    19.34%   75.55%
CD10   66.72%   29.46%   67.56%   28.08%    66.96%   28.64%
CD18   22.47%   73.57%   24.70%   71.25%    22.82%   71.64%
CD29   26.39%   70.04%   30.78%   65.24%    26.88%   66.12%
						
SBOE6  54.15%   41.64%   56.90%   38.72%    54.62%   39.70%
						
HD126  56.39%   39.78%   57.90%   37.82%    56.72%   38.62%
HD127  64.08%   32.26%   65.25%   30.67%    64.37%   31.27%
HD128  68.85%   27.68%   69.34%   26.74%    67.98%   26.83%
HD129  58.89%   36.52%   61.10%   34.22%    59.05%   34.73%
HD130  71.00%   25.21%   71.83%   23.94%    71.16%   24.42%
HD131  14.80%   82.57%   16.43%   81.22%    14.88%   80.97%
HD132  53.12%   42.71%   54.41%   41.10%    53.35%   41.70%
HD133  62.02%   34.15%   65.66%   30.65%    63.04%   32.09%
HD134  49.46%   46.05%   55.52%   40.05%    51.07%   42.36%
HD135  52.28%   43.81%   54.01%   41.86%    52.30%   42.39%
HD137  31.93%   63.63%   34.16%   61.66%    31.92%   61.24%
HD138  52.08%   43.69%   54.51%   40.97%    52.34%   41.77%
HD139  22.82%   73.69%   24.73%   71.69%    23.05%   72.01%
HD140  22.65%   74.05%   26.67%   69.66%    23.03%   70.25%
HD141  13.06%   84.21%   14.10%   83.27%    12.95%   83.21%
HD142  22.41%   74.60%   23.95%   72.97%    22.57%   73.18%
HD143  26.59%   70.05%   30.29%   66.03%    26.61%   66.17%
HD144  39.06%   57.26%   41.73%   53.92%    38.95%   54.61%
HD145  30.76%   64.81%   36.36%   58.92%    31.52%   60.21%
HD146  19.91%   76.58%   22.02%   74.65%    20.26%   74.54%
HD147  19.94%   75.21%   23.29%   72.05%    20.71%   72.50%
HD148  35.91%   58.42%   41.28%   52.65%    37.16%   54.37%
HD149  35.46%   61.15%   36.92%   59.67%    35.03%   59.11%
HD150  62.31%   33.69%   63.39%   32.19%    62.52%   32.70%
						
CC1    22.48%   73.86%   25.03%   71.41%    22.93%   71.70%
CC2    48.48%   47.61%   51.23%   44.47%    48.46%   45.14%
CC3    53.16%   42.92%   55.63%   40.36%    53.51%   41.15%
CC4    55.12%   40.78%   57.10%   38.46%    55.47%   39.29%
Justice Dori Garza

Justice Dori Garza

The figures above represent the races with Dori Garza and Eva Guzman, who were the top Democratic and Republican vote-getters among judicial candidates. Guzman was actually the high scorer overall, while Garza has the second-best Democratic total, trailing Hillary Clinton but topping Barack Obama in 2008. The other numbers are aggregates of all the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals candidates, where “R SJ Avg” means “Republican statewide judicial average” and “D SJ Avg” is the same thing for Democrats. The percentages have been calculated to include the third parties, though I didn’t explicitly list them for the sake of saving space.

The differences in each district are small, but they add up. Dori Garza received 162K more votes statewide than Savannah Robinson, while Eva Guzman collected 124K more than Paul Green. As previously expressed for third party candidates, I believe being Latina was an advantage for both Garza and Guzman, as I suspect they got the votes of some people who didn’t have a strong partisan preference and were perhaps drawn to a familiar name in a race where they didn’t know anything about who was running. This advantage is not universal – I suspect if I looked around the state, the effect would be small and possibly even negative in places that have few Latino voters. You can certainly see a difference for Garza in HDs 140, 143, 144, 145, and 148 compared to other districts, where the gap between her and the average D is around four points. It also doesn’t hurt that Garza and Guzman were both strong candidates, who were widely endorsed and (at least in Garza’s case) ran actual campaigns. None of this mattered this year, but if this had been a year where the margin at the Presidential level had been two or three points instead of nine, this could have been the difference between a close win and a close loss. I don’t want to over-generalize here, as in any year there will be a high scorer and a low scorer, but it’s something to keep in mind when we start recruiting candidates for 2018 and 2020.

But also keep in mind the fact that despite getting nearly 300,000 more votes than President Obama in 2012, Garza only received 41.12% of the vote, which is less than what Obama got that year. This is because the Republican vote was up, too. Compare Garza’s race to the Supreme Court, Place 6 election in 2012. Garza outpolled Michelle Petty by 279K votes, but Paul Green outdid Nathan Hecht by 629K. Go back to 2008 and Supreme Court, Place 8, and it’s more of the same: Garza improved on Linda Yanez by 170K, while Green did 738K better than Phil Johnson. The preponderance of new voters in Harris County were Democrats. That was not the case statewide. That’s a problem, and we shouldn’t let Hillary Clinton’s performance against Donald Trump distract us from that.

Precinct analysis: The RRC and the Libertarian moment

Back to precinct analysis, and the race that I featured in my post from yesterday, the Railroad Commissioner race. Here are the numbers:


Dist  Christian  Yarbrough  Miller  Salinas
===========================================
CD02    152,751     97,235  18,346    6,835
CD07    130,384     96,652  20,510    6,537
CD09     24,638     99,920   4,712    4,090
CD10     77,311     32,577   5,878    2,337
CD18     43,820    142,609   9,862    6,382
CD29     33,443     85,330   4,257    7,592
				
SBOE6   319,691    228,147  44,294   15,691
				
HD126    33,674     22,848   3,185    1,459
HD127    46,101     22,131   3,739    1,499
HD128    39,827     15,472   2,187    1,374
HD129    39,382     22,904   4,625    1,965
HD130    56,188     18,871   4,140    1,483
HD131     6,367     36,890   1,305    1,461
HD132    35,680     27,715   3,292    1,823
HD133    45,030     22,170   6,822    1,533
HD134    42,007     33,962  10,841    2,219
HD135    30,447     24,537   3,064    1,606
HD137     8,239     16,035   1,500    1,012
HD138    25,823     20,468   3,066    1,530
HD139    11,398     37,155   1,986    1,531
HD140     5,966     19,100     723    1,554
HD141     4,720     31,697     739      938
HD142     9,770     32,566   1,201    1,244
HD143     8,346     21,557     872    1,895
HD144    10,257     14,596     872    1,313
HD145    10,263     19,993   1,814    2,227
HD146     9,111     35,284   2,502    1,397
HD147    11,201     40,452   3,795    2,287
HD148    16,582     24,304   4,471    2,249
HD149    14,760     25,088   1,879    1,236
HD150    46,285     24,053   3,891    1,615
				
CC1      67,803    220,765  16,172    9,891
CC2     119,023    110,723  11,292   10,243
CC3     181,634    138,514  23,279    8,882
CC4     198,962    139,834  21,768    9,432


Dist Christian%      Yarb% Miller% Salinas%
===========================================
CD02     55.51%     35.34%   6.67%    2.48%
CD07     51.32%     38.04%   8.07%    2.57%
CD09     18.47%     74.93%   3.53%    3.07%
CD10     65.46%     27.58%   4.98%    1.98%
CD18     21.62%     70.36%   4.87%    3.15%
CD29     25.60%     65.33%   3.26%    5.81%
				
SBOE6    52.60%     37.54%   7.29%    2.58%
				
HD126    55.05%     37.35%   5.21%    2.39%
HD127    62.75%     30.12%   5.09%    2.04%
HD128    67.66%     26.29%   3.72%    2.33%
HD129    57.18%     33.25%   6.71%    2.85%
HD130    69.64%     23.39%   5.13%    1.84%
HD131    13.83%     80.16%   2.84%    3.17%
HD132    52.08%     40.45%   4.81%    2.66%
HD133    59.60%     29.34%   9.03%    2.03%
HD134    47.18%     38.15%  12.18%    2.49%
HD135    51.04%     41.13%   5.14%    2.69%
HD137    30.76%     59.86%   5.60%    3.78%
HD138    50.75%     40.22%   6.03%    3.01%
HD139    21.89%     71.36%   3.81%    2.94%
HD140    21.82%     69.85%   2.64%    5.68%
HD141    12.39%     83.21%   1.94%    2.46%
HD142    21.82%     72.72%   2.68%    2.78%
HD143    25.55%     65.98%   2.67%    5.80%
HD144    37.94%     53.98%   3.23%    4.86%
HD145    29.92%     58.29%   5.29%    6.49%
HD146    18.87%     73.06%   5.18%    2.89%
HD147    19.40%     70.06%   6.57%    3.96%
HD148    34.83%     51.05%   9.39%    4.72%
HD149    34.36%     58.39%   4.37%    2.88%
HD150    61.03%     31.71%   5.13%    2.13%
				
CC1      21.55%     70.17%   5.14%    3.14%
CC2      47.37%     44.06%   4.49%    4.08%
CC3      51.56%     39.32%   6.61%    2.52%
CC4      53.77%     37.79%   5.88%    2.55%

One thing I didn’t discuss in my previous post was whether Libertarian votes tend to come from people who otherwise vote Republican and Green votes tend to come from people who otherwise vote Democratic. There’s some support for that in the numbers above, as Libertarian candidate Mark Miller did better than Green candidate Martina Salinas in all of the Republican districts, but that wasn’t true in reverse, as he also beat her total in several Democratic districts. The clearest correlation appears to be that Salinas did best in the heavily Latino districts, which is a bit of corroborating evidence for my overall theory. Beyond that, I don’t see anything to contradict that hypothesis, but I don’t see anything to settle the matter.

What can one say about Miller’s top performances, in HDs 134, 133, and 148? Well, HD148 is where the Heights dry area is, and Gary Johnson ran well in that neighborhood, so it’s not too surprising that Mark Miller might have also. It may well be that these are the parts of town that have a higher concentration of people who read the Chronicle and takes its endorsements seriously. “Why” is a hard question to answer with just numbers, but if I had to guess those would be my top two reasons.

Coming up will be a look at judicial races, and after that the county races. As always, let me know what you think of these.

Precinct analysis: Hillary in Harris County

Let’s get started with the precinct data, shall we? Here’s a Chron story from the day after the election about how things looked overall in the county.

Hillary Clinton

The country’s most populous swing county turned a shade bluer Tuesday, when Hillary Clinton trounced Donald Trump in Harris County despite trailing nationally.

Clinton’s commanding victory here is a watershed moment for local Democrats who have struggled mightily to translate recent demographic shifts into gains at the ballot box.

It also is seen, by some, as a harbinger of potential political change across Texas.

Against the state’s crimson backdrop, Harris County has waffled between red in recent mid-term election years and light blue in presidential ones.

President Barack Obama broke the county’s 44-year Republican presidential voting streak when he won by less than 2 percentage points eight years ago. The offices of sheriff, county attorney and district clerk fell into Democratic hands then, too, as did a swath of judicial posts.

This year, Democrat Kim Ogg ousted Republican Devon Anderson in the highest-profile countywide contest, for district attorney, and Democrat Ed Gonzalez bested Ron Hickman for sheriff.

[…]

Harris County Republican Party Chair Paul Simpson emphasized that the party’s local candidates outperformed Trump in Harris County.

“With such a big headwind at the top of the ticket, we’re still doing fairly well down-ballot,” Simpson said, noting he believes this year is an aberration. “One election alone doesn’t tell you everything about the future.”

As Republicans prepare to battle back in two years, Simpson said the party will be eyeing where and why Harris County voters turned out, as Democrats focus, in part, on Hispanic voter participation.

“The question is whether or not these results were driven by disaffected conservative Republican voters that for this cycle voted Democrat, or is it something structural?” Texas Southern University political scientist Jay Aiyer said. “Are we seeing the beginning of that demographic shift that’s been written about for a very long time as an inevitability?”

Here’s a subsequent article with some maps for those of you who like to see the pictures. As we will see as we go through the data, Hillary Clinton definitely received Republican votes. My estimate of this remains thirty to forty thousand crossover votes overall. There were also some people who clearly voted for Gary Johnson instead of Trump. The combined effect of all this is such that going forward I will not be using the Clinton/Trump numbers as a way of measuring how Democratic or Republican a given district is. I’ll be using numbers from judicial races instead, as I did in yesterday’s post.

So with that said, let’s get to the numbers. I’ve got them grouped by districts – Congressional, State Board of Ed, State House, Commissioners Court, HISD as a whole, HISD District VII, and the part of the Heights that voted on the dry ordinance. Vote totals first, then percentages.


Dist      Trump  Clinton  Johnson  Stein
========================================
CD02    145,264  119,389   10,299  2,353
CD07    120,912  124,408    9,111  2,246
CD09     23,817  108,115    2,328  1,399
CD10     75,361   38,345    3,970    804
CD18     40,914  156,809    5,338  2,038
CD29     33,960   94,815    3,128  1,465
				
SBOE6   300,561  286,273   22,212  5,379
				
HD126    32,551   26,420    1,982    510
HD127    45,097   25,702    2,345    502
HD128    40,621   17,135    1,460    375
HD129    38,545   27,908    2,529    686
HD130    55,140   22,633    2,688    533
HD131     6,202   39,221      661    438
HD132    34,437   31,433    2,350    597
HD133    41,446   31,244    2,740    568
HD134    35,831   49,907    4,044    753
HD135    29,450   28,184    2,006    576
HD137     7,931   18,342      764    355
HD138    24,634   24,646    1,786    467
HD139    10,844   40,064    1,254    472
HD140     6,113   20,964      548    300
HD141     4,839   32,769      525    329
HD142     9,484   34,454      919    360
HD143     8,729   23,823      627    362
HD144    10,541   15,842      761    301
HD145    10,083   23,484    1,104    428
HD146     8,479   38,920    1,064    533
HD147     9,835   46,346    1,756    727
HD148    14,779   30,937    2,195    560
HD149    14,265   28,190    1,006    415
HD150    45,081   27,896    2,587    608
				
CC1      62,935  244,980    7,796  3,146
CC2     119,471  126,335    7,134  2,381
CC3     171,710  169,602   11,638  3,112
CC4     190,841  165,527   13,133  3,116
				
HISD    117,296  312,988   13,766  4,494
HISD 7   27,886   31,379    2,554    517
				
Heights   5,262   10,379    1,107    169


Dist      Trump  Clinton  Johnson  Stein
========================================
CD02     52.38%   43.05%    3.71%  0.85%
CD07     47.11%   48.47%    3.55%  0.88%
CD09     17.56%   79.70%    1.72%  1.03%
CD10     63.61%   32.36%    3.35%  0.68%
CD18     19.95%   76.46%    2.60%  0.99%
CD29     25.46%   71.09%    2.35%  1.10%
				
SBOE6    48.92%   46.59%    3.62%  0.88%
				
HD126    52.96%   42.99%    3.22%  0.83%
HD127    61.23%   34.90%    3.18%  0.68%
HD128    68.17%   28.75%    2.45%  0.63%
HD129    55.33%   40.06%    3.63%  0.98%
HD130    68.08%   27.94%    3.32%  0.66%
HD131    13.33%   84.31%    1.42%  0.94%
HD132    50.04%   45.68%    3.41%  0.87%
HD133    54.54%   41.11%    3.61%  0.75%
HD134    39.58%   55.12%    4.47%  0.83%
HD135    48.91%   46.80%    3.33%  0.96%
HD137    28.95%   66.96%    2.79%  1.30%
HD138    47.80%   47.83%    3.47%  0.91%
HD139    20.60%   76.12%    2.38%  0.90%
HD140    21.89%   75.07%    1.96%  1.07%
HD141    12.58%   85.20%    1.36%  0.86%
HD142    20.97%   76.20%    2.03%  0.80%
HD143    26.02%   71.03%    1.87%  1.08%
HD144    38.41%   57.72%    2.77%  1.10%
HD145    28.73%   66.91%    3.15%  1.22%
HD146    17.31%   79.44%    2.17%  1.09%
HD147    16.76%   79.00%    2.99%  1.24%
HD148    30.49%   63.83%    4.53%  1.16%
HD149    32.51%   64.25%    2.29%  0.95%
HD150    59.18%   36.62%    3.40%  0.80%
				
CC1      19.74%   76.83%    2.44%  0.99%
CC2      46.79%   49.48%    2.79%  0.93%
CC3      48.22%   47.63%    3.27%  0.87%
CC4      51.22%   44.42%    3.52%  0.84%
				
HISD     26.15%   69.78%    3.07%  1.00%
HISD 7   44.73%   50.34%    4.10%  0.83%
				
Heights  31.10%   61.35%    6.54%  1.00%

So as you can see, Clinton carried the following districts: CD07, HDs 134 and 138, Commissioners Court Precinct 2 (Jack Morman’s precinct), and HISD district VII. That doesn’t mean these districts are all suddenly ripe for Democratic takeovers. HD134 was basically ground zero for Republican crossovers – which is basically what I expected going forward. HD134 is almost entirely within CD07, and there’s a fair amount of overlap with HISD VII, so those districts will closely correlate. But as you’ll see with the rest of the numbers, there’s not much else there to get excited about. In fact, the average Democratic judicial candidate in CD07 got almost exactly the same percentage of the vote as James Cargas did against John Culberson. I wish it were not the case, but there’s just nothing to see there.

Now HISD VII is going to be a bit of a special case, because it normally exists only in odd-numbered years, where it will be more subject to variations in turnout and where the non-partisan nature of its elections means that a clear difference in candidate quality can make a difference. There were over 61,000 ballots cast in this district last week, with over 35,000 votes for one of the candidates. What might a runoff electorate look like? We actually haven’t had many HISD runoffs in recent years. Here are the ones I could find:

HISD III, 2015 – 6,189 votes
HISD I, 2009 – 9,730 votes
HISD IX, 2009 – 12,323 votes
HISD III, 2003 – 8,206 votes
HISD IV, 2003 – 16,246 votes

Note that all of those occurred at the same time as a Mayoral runoff, which helped increase overall turnout. The HISD VII runoff will be the only race on the ballot in December. This is a high-turnout district, but I wouldn’t expect much. Maybe eight to ten thousand votes overall.

Back on topic. HD138 and Commissioners Court Precinct 2 are both places where I do believe opportunities exist for Democrats. Both have demographic factors pointing in their direction, and the dropoff from Clinton’s performance to those of other Democrats is not as stark. I keep waiting for CC Precinct 3 to get more competitive, and it is moving that direction slowly, but the key word there is “slowly”. As with CD07 and HD134, don’t be distracted by Clinton’s strong showing in CC3.

Finally, did the Gary Johnson number in the precincts with the Heights dry referendum stand out to you? I live in the Heights, though not in the part that had this vote. I saw a lot more Gary Johnson signs than I’d ever seen for a Libertarian candidate before. I also saw no Trump signs in front of numerous houses where I normally see signs for Republican candidates. They still had signs – for Devon Anderson, for Republican judicial candidates, occasionally for Republican Constable candidate Joe Danna, but none for Trump. I’d say this was Ground Zero for the “not Trump, but not Hillary either” caucus.

More to come over the next week or so. Let me know what you think.

Statewide review: 2016 was like 2008, but not in a good way

vote-button

There’s no point in beating around the bush, so I’ll just come out and say it: Despite the excitement about increases in voter registration and heavy early voting turnout. statewide Democratic candidates outside of Hillary Clinton generally did not do any better than their counterparts in 2008. Republican statewide candidates, on the other hand, were generally setting new high-water marks for vote totals. Every statewide Republican other than Wayne Christian topped Donald Trump’s 4,681,590 votes, with all of them but one besting it by at least 100,000. Meanwhile, only Dori Contreras Garza’s 3,598,852 votes exceeded President Obama’s 2008 tally. Overall turnout was up in Texas (in absolute numbers, though not in percentage), but while Dem turnout was better than 2012, it didn’t hit any new heights. I fear we may be at a plateau, as we have been in the off years since 2002.

Why am I not more encouraged by Hillary Clinton’s 3.8 million-plus total? Because I estimate at least 100,000 of her votes came from people who supported Republicans in other races, and because the dropoff from her total to downballot candidates was enough to show no visible growth. For these purposes, I’m using judicial races as my metric, as I believe it is a better proxy for partisan intent. I used as a baseline for comparison between 2012 and 2016 two Court of Criminal Appeals races – the 2012 Sharon Keller/Keith Hampton race, and the 2016 Mike Keasler/Robert Burns race. I believe these contests are low enough profile to draw a relatively small number of crossovers, and in this particular case they were the only such races each year to have just a Libertarian candidate in addition, thus allowing for a more apples-to-apples comparison. I put all the county totals into a spreadsheet and then calculated the difference between the two. From a Democratic perspective, there’s good news, so-so news, and bad news.

I’ll get to the news in a second. You can see the spreadsheet here. I’ve put a list of the 62 counties in which Democrats gained votes from 2012 to 2016 beneath the fold. Take a look and then come back, and we’ll talk about what I think this means.

Ready? Democrats really killed it in the big urban counties. Harris, Bexar, Travis, El Paso, and Dallas combined for nearly 240,000 more Democratic votes in 2016, compared to 83,000 for the Republicans, a net of over 150K. Dems took such a big step forward in Harris County that HD144 might not really be a swing district any more, while HDs 132, 135, and 138 are now in the picture as pickup opportunities, with HD126 a little farther out on the horizon. I’ll have more to say about Harris County beginning tomorrow, but I feel like maybe, just maybe, we’ve finally turned a corner. I know that the off-year turnout issue is a problem until we can demonstrate that it’s not, but I believe it’s getting hard to dispute the assertion that there are just more Democrats in Harris County than there are Republicans. I also believe that national conditions will be different in 2018 than they were in 2010 and 2014. Doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily be better, but they will be different, and when you’ve consistently been on the short end of the stick, having conditions change – even if you don’t know how they will change – is a risk you ought to be willing to take.

Democrats also showed a nice gain in the big Latino counties (Hidalgo, Cameron, and Webb), while netting over 9,000 votes in Fort Bend. I’ll be looking at Fort Bend data later as well, and while this wasn’t enough to push any non-Hillary Dems over the top there, it’s a step in the right direction.

The so-so news is that Dems more or less held steady in most of the big suburban counties, by which I mean they mostly lost a little ground but not that much. Other than Fort Bend, Dems posted a solid gain in Hays County and barely gained more votes in Brazoria County than the GOP did. They had modest net losses in counties like Tarrant, Collin, Denton, and Williamson, such that one might feel we are at or near an inflection point in those counties. In math terms, the second derivative is approaching zero. This is a genteel way of saying that we’re falling behind at a slower pace. Better than falling behind in huge chunks, but still not good news.

The bad news is that in several other suburban counties, and basically all the non-Latino rural ones, Democrats got crushed. Montgomery County continues to be a sucking chest wound, with 21,087 more Republican votes and 8,432 more Dems. Comal County is Montgomery’s little brother, with continued steady growth and a deep red tint that shows no signs of abating. And if you’re old enough to remember when Galveston County was reliably Democratic, well, the score here is 10,335 more votes for the GOP, and 1,521 more for the Dems. So, yeah.

It’s the rural counties where things really become dreary. I said the Dems gained votes over 2012 in 62 counties. That means they lost votes in 192 others. Now, most of these are small counties, and the losses themselves were small in most of them; the average loss was 323 votes. But Republicans gained an average of over 700 votes in each of those counties, and as they say after awhile it adds up. Plus, some of these counties are now more exurban than rural, and like the suburbs are seeing steady growth. Two examples for you are Johnson County, northwest of Travis and home of Cleburne, and Parker County, west of Tarrant where Weatherford is. Those counties saw a combined voter registration increase of about 20,000. Of that, 17,201 were Republican and 449 were Democratic. That right there is enough to negate the Democratic net gain in Dallas County.

The single most eye-catching item in here is Polk County, up US59 between Houston and Lufkin; Livingston is the county seat. Unlike Johnson and Parker, it has about the same number of voters as it did four years ago. The difference is that in 2012 fewer than half of registered voters bothered, while this year nearly everyone did. Turnout in the Presidential race in Polk County was an mind-boggling 89.48%, and nearly the entire increase came from Republicans. In this CCA comparison, Mike Keasler got 12,183 more votes than Sharon Keller did, while Robert Burns improved on Keith Hampton by only 1,845 votes. All this with only 38,530 total registered voters. OMG, to say the least.

So what should we be doing about this? Well, we should keep doing what we’re doing in the urban counties, because it definitely bore fruit this year. I’d like to think we’re starting to maybe get a little traction in the suburbs, at least some of them, but it’s going to take a lot more resources and an effort that doesn’t just gear up at campaign time to really get that going. Mostly, we need to have a way to make sure we’re being heard in these places, because I don’t think we are, not outside of the faithful who are there. If I were a fabulously wealthy person who wanted to move the needle outside the urban counties, I’d throw a bunch of money at the Texas Organizing Project and ask them to figure out (and execute) a way to do for these suburbs and exurbs what they’ve been doing in Pasadena. It’s slow and methodical and just one piece of the puzzle, but we have got to start somewhere.

Data on the counties where Dem turnout grew is beneath the fold. More to come over the next week or so.

(more…)

Chron overview of HD134

The Chron looks at that perpetual swing district, HD134

Rep. Sarah Davis

Rep. Sarah Davis

Artful redistricting has squeezed the general election suspense from nearly all of Harris County’s legislative races, rendering most districts solidly red or blue.

Democrat Ben Rose is hoping to prove his west Houston district can be the exception.

The 31-year-old political newcomer is seeking to leverage traditionally high Democratic turnout in presidential election years to oust three-term Republican state Rep. Sarah Davis. Doing so would return District 134 to Democratic hands for the first time in six years.

“To effectuate change, you’d have to want that change. And based on her record, I don’t think that she really is distinguishable,” Rose said during an interview in his Meyerland campaign office. “On cutting $5 billion from education, where was she? On accepting federal (Medicaid) dollars, where was she?”

Davis, known as a moderate, is campaigning on her fiscal conservatism and clout in the state Legislature as a member of the majority party.

“From just a general standpoint of who can get something done, your choice is someone who’s on the most powerful committees and has some experience and is in the majority party, versus a freshman with no seniority and in the minority party,” said Davis, 40, whose committee posts include appropriations and calendars.

District 134, which runs from Meyerland north to Timbergrove, has traded parties twice in the last decade, from Republican Martha Wong to Democrat Ellen Cohen in 2007, and Cohen to Davis in 2011.

Ben Rose

Ben Rose

Since then, it has become more Republican.

District 134 lost five precincts in 2011’s redistricting, all of them left-leaning. And the district gained 25 others, most of them right-leaning, according to a Chronicle analysis of straight-ticket voting.

[…]

Donald Trump’s divisive candidacy is expected to handicap many local Republican candidates, whose fate typically is tied to the performance of their party’s presidential pick and the turnout he draws.

However, University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus said he expects Davis to be more insulated than many of her GOP peers, who could be hurt by higher Democratic turnout or a lower percentage of Republican straight-ticket voting.

“The core of it is: Are there more Democrats in 134?” Rottinghaus said. “It seems to me they’ve already maxed out the number that are there, so i don’t think you’re going to find a lot more turnout … and some of those Democrats are supporters of Sarah Davis.”

Here’s my interview with Ben Rose. I basically agree with Prof. Rottinghaus that a boost in Democratic turnout is unlikely to have much effect on this race. For one, turnout in this district is always pretty high; it was 72% in 2012. For another, the district is indeed redder than it was in 2008 – President Obama got 42% of the vote in 2012 after topping 46% in 2008. I think the more likely path to victory for Rose is not higher turnout but lower turnout, with that being the result of more Republicans staying home. That could happen, but it’s not sustainable if it does.

What I think may happen is that Hillary Clinton carries the district due to a larger than usual number of crossovers and other Republicans who refuse to vote for Trump, though she may not have a majority in doing this. Beyond that, Republican candidates in other races, with the possible exception of the DA race, win the district, probably with a lower than expected margin. I don’t claim to be a fan of Sarah Davis, but she’s a good fit for the district and hasn’t done anything obvious to turn off her supporters. Barring a surprise, I expect her to win by an amount that keeps this district firmly in the “swing” category going forward.

Flipping Fort Bend

FiveThirtyEight projects a national insight down to the local level.

In August, Nate Cohn of The New York Times put it well when he wrote: “The simple way to think about Mr. Trump’s strength is in terms of education among white voters. He hopes to do much better than Mitt Romney did in 2012 among white voters without a degree so that he can make up the margin of Mr. Romney’s four-point defeat and overcome the additional losses he’s likely to absorb among well-educated voters and Hispanic voters.”

There’s evidence that Trump is underperforming Romney among Asiansand African-Americans, not just Latinos and college-educated whites. Clinton, on the other hand, has been underperforming President Obama among non-college-educated whites.

To get a handle on how these shifts could affect the electoral landscape, we modeled how many of Romney’s votes came from college-educated whites and minorities and how many of Obama’s votes came from non-college-educated whites in each state, county and congressional district. The difference between these two vote totals, shown in the map above, can tell us where Clinton and Trump have the most potential to build on 2012.

Then we went a step further: How would the 2016 map look if one out of every five whites without a college degree who voted for Obama in 2012 defected to Trump and if one out of every five non-whites and college-educated whites who voted for Romney in 2012 switched to Clinton? (Why one out of five? It’s a somewhat arbitrary number but represents a realistic shift of these groups, according to polls released over the past few months.)

Let’s call this scenario the “2016 Vote Swap.” In it, Clinton would win the election, and her share of the two-party vote would be 52.7 percent — 0.7 percentage points higher than Obama’s 2012 showing. However, we also estimate she would win 10 fewer electoral votes than Obama did in the Electoral College.

[…]

The model suggests that several traditionally Republican suburban locales with diversifying and highly educated electorates could be poised to flip and support the Democratic presidential candidate: Orange County, California; Gwinnett County, Georgia; Chester County, Pennsylvania; Fort Bend County, Texas; and Virginia Beach. The model also suggests that Clinton could make major gains — while still falling short — in Douglas County outside of Denver; Hamilton County outside of Indianapolis; and Delaware County outside Columbus, Ohio.

Here’s what the map of all this looks like for every county:

There are a total of six counties in Texas that would flip from red in 2012 to blue in 2016 under the assumption that college-educated Anglo voters will shift from Trump to Clinton. Here they are, along with their 2012 results:


County       Romney    Obama   Romney%  Obama%
==============================================
Fort Bend   116,126  101,144    52.91%  46.08%
Nueces       48,966   45,772    50.95%  47.63%
Uvalde        4,529    3,825    53.69%  45.35%
Brewster      1,976    1,765    51.10%  45.64%
Hudspeth        471      379    54.58%  43.92%
Kenedy           84       82    50.30%  49.10%

Needless to say, some of these counties are more consequential than others. Having Fort Bend go blue, which nearly happened in 2008, would if nothing else be a big psychological lift for Democrats, as it would represent the first beachhead outside the traditional big urban/border county box that the party has been in. If Fort Bend, then why not Williamson, or Collin, or whichever other suburban county?

The other county worth keeping an eye on is Nueces, which is the population center for CD27, home of Rep. Blake “I was thrown off by the anchor’s use of a hypothetical question” Farenthold. That district could conceivably come into play if things get really bad for Trump; Lord knows Farenthold is incapable of being an asset to himself, so if there’s trouble he’ll be right there in it. We don’t have the the fuller Census data that the 538 crew uses to make these projections, so it’s impossible to say how much of a shift there might be if their hypothesis holds. There would be plenty of other factors affecting things as well, so don’t get too wrapped up in this. But if you’re in one of those counties, especially Fort Bend or Nueces, take this as motivation to do some GOTV work. The promise of a good result is there waiting to be taken. Juanita has more.

Three State Rep race overviews

In the order of their publication, beginning with HD149:

Rep. Hubert Vo

Rep. Hubert Vo

For more than a decade in Texas House District 149 – where Harris and Fort Bend counties meet – a growing, ethnically diverse voting population has done something rare for the Houston suburbs: Elect a Democrat.

State Rep. Hubert Vo, whose district includes Alief and Katy, hopes the trend will carry him to a seventh term in Austin.

In 2004, his path to the Texas Capitol proved an ordeal, as he sought to unseat longtime Republican state Rep. Talmadge Heflin, who was chairman of the powerful House Committee on Appropriations. Vo won the race by 33 votes and, after a short-lived challenge by Heflin, Vo became the first Vietnamese-American elected to the state Legislature.

Vo has fended off Republican attempts to take back the seat, including in 2014, when he defeated Al Hoang, a former Houston City Council member, thanks to a majority coalition of Latino, African-American and Asian-American voters.

Come November, the Democratic legislator will face his latest GOP challenger: Bryan Chu, a Houston dentist who moved to Texas from California about a decade ago.

Born in Vietnam, Chu and his family fled the Southeast Asian country by boat in 1980, when he was 13, “in order to escape the harassment from the government.”

Chu said the district’s voters have kept Vo, a 60-year-old businessman and real estate developer, as their state representative largely because of ethnic-based loyalty.

[…]

Vietnamese-American voting preferences since 2000 have shown a sharp swing toward Democratic candidates, locally and nationally, for a group that once strongly supported Republicans, said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a public policy professor at the University of California-Riverside.

“Over time, we’re seeing that issues like the social safety net, health care are the kinds of things that are becoming more important in Vietnamese communities,” said Ramakrishnan, who directs the annual National Asian American Survey. “But there’s also a generational shift, much like the Cuban story, where (younger Asian-American voters) tend to be more Democratic.”

To Prof. Ramakrishnan’s point, I would note that HD149 voted for President Obama over Mitt Romney 58.8% to 40.1% in 2012, with every downballot Democrat carrying the district by at least 15 points. I’d call that a bit more than “ethnic-based loyalty”, which last I checked didn’t help Al Hoang very much. I suppose anything is possible, but you’d get long odds on Rep. Vo losing this race.

HD144:

Mary Ann Perez

Mary Ann Perez

One challenger has an unusual pitch in one of the state’s few competitive House races.

“I am former state Representative Mary Ann Perez and I’m coming by to ask your support to get my seat back,” the Democrat tells residents on a residential Pasadena street.

She is block-walking almost daily in her campaign to once again represent District 144, which includes Pasadena, Baytown and parts of east Houston. Her 2012 victory was the first time the district had sent a Democrat to Austin since Ann Richards won the governor’s mansion in 1990.

Perez, a 54-year-old insurance agent, ticks off her experience: She already served one term in the Legislature, losing to Gilbert Peña’s shoestring Republican campaign in 2014. She chaired the Houston Community College board and shepherded the system’s largest-ever bond package to passage. She led her homeowners association, volunteered with the Little League where her boys played and led a youth group at a nearby Catholic church.

Perez portrays herself as an experienced public servant and a pro-business Democrat with local roots who lost her seat practically by accident. Peña’s 152-vote victory surprised even Republicans, who had given him little support. “He got lucky,” Perez said.

Now, observers say, the socially conservative GOP incumbent is fighting for his political life in a presidential election year when Democratic turnout is expected to be strong. Donald Trump’s polarizing candidacy also may hurt down-ballot Republicans, especially in a district that is 70 percent Hispanic.

Here’s the interview I did with Perez in the primary; she won a three-way race without a runoff. This is a genuine swing district, but every Democrat carried it in 2012, with Perez outperforming the other Dems, winding up with a five point win against a stronger candidate than Gilbert Pena. The Republican establishment seems to consider this a lost cause based on fundraising totals in the July and 30 day reports. Again, anything can happen, and a stronger incumbent would make this a much more interesting race, but it would be a pretty big upset if Perez lost.

And finally, HD137:

Gene Wu

Gene Wu

Kendall Baker proudly admits that before deciding to try to replace his state representative, he had no idea who his state representative was.

“Nobody knows who he is,” Baker said. “That’s part of the reason I wanted to run. Because he is not visible to the community, and he’s not known to the community.”

The representative, Gene Wu, has a different take.

“We’re not a flashy office, but we are a responsive office. And I’ve been in this area for 30 years, and I’ve been always been a volunteer and community busybody,” Wu said. “And this is the first time I’ve ever seen his face pop up at any community event.”

The disagreement highlights the dynamics of the District 137 race, where the two candidates appear to be operating in different worlds.

Wu, a Democrat who is running for his third term representing the west and southwest Houston district, said he has built a reputation as a hardworking policy wonk who has helped the area by reaching across the aisle to achieve commonsense accomplishments in energy policy and criminal justice reform.

Baker, a Republican and high-profile opponent of Houston’s equal rights ordinance who ran unsuccessfully for city council last year, said that years of poor representation has left the district dilapidated and in need of a “good ol’ fashioned politician” to cut taxes and create jobs.

Here’s my primary interview with Rep Wu. Let’s just draw a curtain over this one, because Kendall Baker is an idiot who was a complete non-factor in the District F Council race last year and who was “indefinitely suspended” from his job at the city for being a sexual harasser. HD137 is strongly Democratic – 63.9% to 34.5% for Obama over Romney in 2012 – and Rep. Wu is a damn fine legislator who campaigns tirelessly. Donald Trump will shave his head and join the board of directors at Our Bodies Ourselves before Kendall Baker wins this race.

Precinct analysis: HISD Trustee district VII in a Presidential year

As you know, we have a special election for HISD Trustee in district VII on the ballot this November. There’s one Democratic candidate in that race and three Republicans. These races are normally held in odd-numbered years, in which turnout is considerably lower than in Presidential years. Overall turnout in Harris County in 2013 was 13.23%, with turnout in the HISD VII race at 21.86%; this was the highest level among the three contested Trustee races that year. In 2012, turnout in Harris County was 61.99%. There are going to be a lot more people at the polls for this Trustee race than there usually are, is what I’m saying. What effect might that have on the special election?

Well, the conventional wisdom is that Democrats do better in higher-turnout environments. There’s a lot of empirical evidence for this, but just because something is true in the aggregate doesn’t mean it’s true in all specific subsets. Here’s what the numbers look like in HISD VII in 2013 and in 2012:


Pcnct  Moore   Sung   Moore%   Sung%   Romney    Obama  Romney%   Obama%
========================================================================
54        79    222   26.25%  73.75%      531      444   54.46%   45.54%
70       271    375   41.95%  58.05%    1,487      825   64.32%   35.68%
129      473    373   55.91%  44.09%    2,369    1,279   64.94%   35.06%
135      377    205   64.78%  35.22%    1,366      657   67.52%   32.48%
139      199    317   38.57%  61.43%    1,027      965   51.56%   48.44%
177      102    134   43.22%  56.78%      628      398   61.21%   38.79%
178      198    177   52.80%  47.20%      878      375   70.07%   29.93%
204      261    537   32.71%  67.29%    1,411      939   60.04%   39.96%
217      480    226   67.99%  32.01%    1,388      633   68.68%   31.32%
227      377    118   76.16%  23.84%    1,089      289   79.03%   20.97%
233      298    351   45.92%  54.08%    1,496    1,310   53.31%   46.69%
234      629    280   69.20%  30.80%    2,327      606   79.34%   20.66%
269      398    125   76.10%  23.90%    1,278      282   81.92%   18.08%
272       77    132   36.84%  63.16%      404      660   37.97%   62.03%
282      112    186   37.58%  62.42%      765      481   61.40%   38.60%
303      541    165   76.63%  23.37%    2,052      404   83.55%   16.45%
312      247    246   50.10%  49.90%    1,286      982   56.70%   43.30%
421       11     19   36.67%  63.33%       45      169   21.03%   78.97%
431       38     40   48.72%  51.28%      309      867   26.28%   73.72%
432       35     55   38.89%  61.11%      158      402   28.21%   71.79%
434      176    128   57.89%  42.11%      657      319   67.32%   32.68%
435      303    304   49.92%  50.08%    1,515      716   67.91%   32.09%
436	 257    215   54.45%  45.55%    1,232      762   61.79%   38.21%
491      144    123   53.93%  46.07%      680      438   60.82%   39.18%
567       78    109   41.71%  58.29%      280      748   27.24%   72.76%
569      184    219   45.66%  54.34%    1,192      910   56.71%   43.29%
570       38     90   29.69%  70.31%      414      484   46.10%   53.90%
684        7      4   63.64%  36.36%       58       38   60.42%   39.58%
809        1      2   33.33%  66.67%       10       17   37.04%   62.96%
839       36     37   49.32%  50.68%      113      464   19.58%   80.42%
902      165    246   40.15%  59.85%      869      576   60.14%   39.86%
								
Total  6,621  5,773   53.42%  46.58%   29,314   18,439   61.39%   38.61%
Harvin Moore

Harvin Moore

Did that upend your view of this race? It upended mine. Before I get into what this may mean for the candidates, let’s try to answer the question why Republican turnout improved so much more in the Presidential year – or if you want to look at it more chronologically, why it deteriorated more in the off year. Here are a few thoughts about that.

It’s important to keep in mind that odd year elections are different from even year elections, in that there generally isn’t much in the odd years for Republicans in Houston. Bill King last year was the first serious Republican candidate for Mayor since 2003, and he wasn’t running on the kind of culture-war issues that tend to boost Republican turnout in even years. There wasn’t much to draw Republican voters to the polls in 2013, at least in these precincts, so their turnout lagged more compared to 2012 than Democrats’ turnout did.

Along those lines, Anne Sung ran a campaign that strongly identified her as a Democrat and a progressive, which may have helped her draw some people out, or at least ensure that some of the people who had come out anyway continued down the ballot to vote for her. Harvin Moore is a Republican, but he doesn’t have a Republican brand, if you will. You wouldn’t know he was a Republican unless you paid close attention. The difference in branding may have affected some voters in a way that benefited Sung.

Of course, it’s not always about partisan labels. Moore was a strong supporter of former Superintendent Terry Grier; in fact, Moore was the trustee who proposed extending Grier’s contract more than a year before it was to expire. Sung was a critic of Grier’s, and identified herself as such in the campaign. It may be that the closeness of the race was more a reflection of that dynamic than anything else.

Anyway. The point I’m making here is that the higher turnout we’ll see in this race does not necessarily accrue to Anne Sung’s benefit, which is not what I had originally thought. Before I looked at the numbers, I would have said that her best bet to win would have been to achieve a majority in November and avoid a runoff, where turnout would be miniscule. Think Chris Bell in the special election for SD17 in 2008 as a parallel, or what I had thought would be a parallel. In reality, given what we saw in these numbers, I’d say Sung’s job is just to make it to the runoff, then try to drum up enough turnout among friendly voters in that race to win. Conversely, each of the three Rs should want to be the other person alongside Sung in that runoff, and reap the advantage of the district’s natural Republican lean. An R-versus-Sung runoff is preferable to them than an R-versus-R runoff, which will be more about persuasion than turnout.

Still considering the possibility that Hillary could win Texas

Josh Barro looks at recent national poll numbers and contemplates the possibilities.

Hillary Clinton

If things get just a little bit worse for Trump nationally, he could start losing a lot of states we normally think of as very safe for Republicans — not just Georgia, but states like Texas, South Carolina, and even Mississippi.

Even as he polls badly nationally, Trump is performing remarkably well among whites without a college degree, especially men. He’s getting hammered among college-educated whites, especially women, and he’s doing even worse with nonwhite voters than Republican nominees usually do.

Overall, these shifts hurt Trump more in some states than in others.

In a state like Pennsylvania, you can see these effects counterbalancing each other across regions. Trump’s weakness with college-educated whites leads to him getting crushed in the suburbs of Philadelphia. (The recent Franklin & Marshall poll has him down by 40 points in those areas; Romney lost the region by just 9 points.) But that’s partly offset by gains among working-class whites elsewhere in the state.

But in states like Georgia and Texas, white voters already vote overwhelmingly Republican, and Republicans depend on huge margins among whites to overcome the votes of large, heavily Democratic nonwhite populations. So if Trump loses support among college-educated white women in the suburbs of Atlanta and Dallas, not many high-school-educated white men are available for him to pick up, and upscale whites and nonwhite voters could form a majority coalition for Clinton.

Plus, Republican candidates have usually picked up a significant share of the Hispanic vote in Texas, meaning there is room for Trump to do worse than Romney among nonwhites in the state.

[…]

Romney won Texas by 16 points in 2012 while losing the whole country by 4, but Clinton does not need to win nationally by 20 points to have an excellent shot of winning Texas. A national margin in the low teens could do it.

Texas hasn’t been publicly polled since June. I’m very interested to see the next poll.

So am I. Looking at the sidebar for the 2012 poll numbers, we really didn’t start to get much until late September. I’m hoping we don’t have to wait that long this year, but we’ll see.

Speculating about Hillary Clinton winning Texas is fanciful enough, but I figured, why not take that to the next level? That would be to try to extrapolate what might happen downballot if she is truly competitive with Donald Trump at the top. Let’s acknowledge up front that Clinton is very likely to run well ahead of downballot Democrats, thanks to Republicans who cross over to vote for her or who abandon Trump to undervote or go Libertarian. She’ll have some coattails if Democratic base turnout is boosted, and Trump will have some anti-coattails if Republicans are discouraged, but the cumulative effect will be much greater for her than it will be for anyone else. In other words, take this already exuberant premise and apply another few shakes of salt to it before proceeding.

With all that out of the way, I looked at the 2012 statewide results for Congress, the SBOE, the Senate, and the House. I indexed the percentages in each district race to a hypothetical world in which both the R and D Presidential candidates received exactly 50% of the vote, which is a fancy way of saying I increased each Democrat’s percentage by about 20% and decreased each Republicans by about 12.5%. That leads to some oddball numbers, since in reality the R plus D totals often did not add up to 100%, but it does illuminate where the interesting action would be in that scenario. Here’s what we get:


Dist      Adj R%    Adj D%
==========================
CD06      50.74%    47.40%
CD07      53.18%    44.02%
CD10      52.93%    43.80%
CD14      51.86%    47.61%
CD21      52.96%    42.77%
CD24      53.37%    43.50%
CD25      51.11%    45.24%
CD27      49.63%    47.39%
CD32      50.97%    47.68%


SBOE5     44.87%    51.51%
SBOE6     50.00%    47.16%
SBOE10    49.50%    52.44%


HD23      47.78%    53.41%
HD43      45.09%    58.54%
HD47      50.72%    47.49%
HD54      50.30%    51.34%
HD65      51.71%    46.62%
HD85      51.03%    50.33%
HD93      51.56%    45.34%
HD97      51.98%    45.49%
HD102     50.01%    51.80%
HD105     43.79%    58.31%
HD107     44.46%    59.40%
HD108     51.60%    47.46%
HD112     48.10%    52.56%
HD113     45.92%    55.94%
HD114     46.36%    55.40%
HD115     48.37%    50.06%
HD117     40.84%    62.59%
HD118     37.87%    66.70%
HD134     47.79%    54.81%
HD135     52.79%    47.90%
HD136     46.40%    49.20%
HD144     41.89%    61.38%

You may notice that in some cases, the two-party totals exceed 100%. That’s an artifact of the Presidential race only adding up to about 98.5% in reality, but to 100% in this exercise. I applied the adjustment factor to the totals of the candidates who were running for that specified office, so if there were only two candidates in the district race, the adjusted percentages will exceed 100; if there were other candidates, and they took a higher share of the vote than the non-R and D Presidential candidates did, the resulting totals will fall short. The exact numbers aren’t that important. What I’m trying to illustrate here is what some district races may look like if it really is the case that Hillary Clinton is neck and neck with Donald Trump in Texas, and not just because Republicans have abandoned him. This is a thought experiment of how the landscape might change if Democrats were truly competitive at a statewide level.

You may also note that in a lot of cases Democrats are farther below 50% after adjustment than Republicans are above it. That’s the situation in most of the highlighted Congressional races. For these races, the Republican incumbent didn’t do much better than Mitt Romney’s 57.17%, but the Democrats fell several point short of President Obama’s 41.38%. Third party candidates account for the gap, and my guess is that while they draw more from the Rs than from the Ds, weakness among the D candidates holds down their total as well. In a race where ambient conditions make for a competitive contest, candidate quality can be a difference-maker. In a fully hypothetical scenario, we could assume some level of equity between the candidates, which might allow some Dems to win races where they are slightly outnumbered, but in reality (or at least, this reality with the silly hypothetical I’ve constructed layered onto it) most of the challengers would not have the resources to take advantage of the upgrade to their environment. In other words, most of these Republican incumbents could withstand this level of threat to them, and at least a little bit more. If Dems could have known a year or so ago what was coming, they could have recruited and fundraised better to put themselves in a more competitive position. That’s hindsight for you.

There are no Senate races listed here because by luck of the post-redistricting draw, all of the potentially interesting Senate races – I’m thinking specifically SDs 09, 10, 16, and 17 – are on the non-Presidential cycle this decade. Of the ones that are on the ballot this year, Hillary would probably have to top 55%, maybe more, for them to become close. Even I can’t spin a yarn than frazzled.

You may note that the math for a few districts doesn’t match up with the candidates’ actual performance from 2012. In CD14, the Democrat was former Rep. Nick Lampson, who greatly outperformed other Dems in the district. Nobody running this year was going to get match was he did, so I substituted the Presidential numbers for that race. I did the same for a couple of State House races as well, like HD113, where there wasn’t a challenger in 2012 but there is one this year. By the same token, I skipped a couple of State House races that might have been interesting had there been a Democrat on the ballot, like HD45, but as there isn’t there wasn’t any point.

Finally, there are several districts that were won by Dems in 2012 but are now held by Republicans – HDs 23, 117, 118, and 144, in particular. Again, I used the 2012 Obama/Romney numbers as proxies. In the case of HD23, this more accurately reflects the district’s Republican lean, which was masked by the re-election numbers of then-incumbent Rep. Craig Eiland. All of the other districts were already Dem-leaning without any boost from Trump, so the adjusted numbers are especially blue.

Anyway. I’ll say again, this is for entertainment purposes only. If in mid-to-late October Hillary Clinton is polling in the high 40s or better against Trump, we can revisit. In the meantime, consider this an added bit of incentive to boost turnout in your own districts.

An early look ahead to the legislative races

The Trib takes a look at the legislative races that could end with a seat changing parties.

vote-button

• HD-23. Freshman state Rep. Wayne Faircloth, R-Dickinson, against former state Rep. Lloyd Criss, R-La Marque.

• HD-43. State Rep. J.M. Lozano, R-Kingsville, will face Democratic challenger Marisa Yvette Garcia-Utley.

• HD-54. State Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen, decided not to seek reelection in a district where Republicans have only a narrow advantage over Democrats in presidential election years like this one. Killeen Mayor Scott Cosper apparently won the Republican runoff, but his 43-vote margin over Austin Ruiz has prompted a recount. The winner will face Democrat Sandra Blankenship in November.

• HD-78. State Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, will contend with Jeffrey Lane, a Republican in a district where Democrats have demonstrated a slight advantage.

• HD-102. Freshman Rep. Linda Koop, R-Dallas, will face Democrat Laura Irvin.

• HD-105. State Rep. Rodney Anderson, R-Grand Prairie, currently holds this swing district. He’ll battle Democrat Terry Meza in November.

• HD-107. State Rep. Ken Sheets, R-Dallas, has fended off a series of challenges in his narrowly Republican district; this time, the chief opponent is Democrat Victoria Neave.

• HD-113. Like Sheets in the district next door, state Rep. Cindy Burkett, R-Sunnyvale, has a district where the incumbent is always under attack. Her Democratic opponent this time is Rhetta Andrews Bowers.

• HD-117. State Rep. Rick Galindo, R-San Antonio, is one of two House Republicans defending a district where Democrats generally win statewide races. He’ll face the guy he beat, former Rep. Philip Cortez, a Democrat, in November.

• HD-118. The other of those Republicans is John Luhan, also of San Antonio, who won a special election earlier this year to replace Democrat Joe Farias, who retired. He’ll face Democrat Tomás Uresti — the loser of that special election — in a November rematch.

• HD-144. State Rep. Gilbert Peña, R-Pasadena, represents a district that has gone for Republicans in some years and Democrats in others. And it’s another rematch: He will face former Rep. Mary Ann Perez, the Democrat who lost in 2014 by 152 votes out of 11,878 cast.

Several incumbents got free passes in districts where an able opponent might have been dangerous. In HD-34, state Rep. Abel Herrero, D-Robstown, drew no Republican challenger. In HD-45, Republican Jason Isaac didn’t draw a Democratic opponent.

That’s a pretty comprehensive list. Because I like numbers, I went and dug up the 2012 district results so you can get some idea of how steep a hill these are to climb for the Democrats:


Dist    Romney    Obama    Romney%   Obama%    Diff   Boost
===========================================================
023     31,282   25,365     54.56%   44.24%   5,917   23.3%
043     25,017   22,554     52.05%   46.92%   2,463   10.9%
054     25,343   21,909     52.90%   45.73%   3,434   15.7%
102     29,198   24,958     53.01%   45.31%   4,240   17.0%
105     23,228   20,710     52.11%   46.46%   2,518   12.2%
107     27,185   24,593     51.81%   46.87%   2,592   10.5%
112     28,221   22,308     55.01%   43.48%   5,913   26.5%
113     27,098   23,893     52.51%   46.30%   3,205   13.4%
114     35,975   28,182     55.21%   43.47%   7,793   27.7%
115     29,861   23,353     55.26%   43.22%   6,508   27.9%
136     35,296   26,423     55.06%   41.22%   8,873   33.6%

“Diff” is just the difference between the Romney and Obama totals. “Boost” is my way of quantifying how wide that gap really is. It’s the ratio of the Diff to the Obama total, which put another way is how big a turnout boost Democrats would need in 2016 over 2012 to match the Republican total. That doesn’t take into account any other factors, of course, it’s just intended as a bit of context. Note that for HDs 78 (where Obama won by more than ten points in 2012), 117, 118, and 144, Democrats already had a majority of the vote in 2012, so in theory all that is needed is to hold serve. Individual candidates matter as well, of course, though in 2012 there was literally only on State House race in which the winner was not from the party whose Presidential candidate carried the district, that being then-Rep. Craig Eiland in HD23. Point being, you can swim against the tide but it’s a lot more challenging to do so these days. I went and added a couple more races to the list that the Trib put together just for completeness and a sense of how big the difference is between the top tier and the next tier. I don’t have a point to make beyond this, I’m just noting all this for the record.

Precinct analysis: 2016 Republican Presidential primary

How did things look on the Republican side, with its record-breaking (though not 2008 level) turnout?


Dist     Cruz   Trump   Rubio    Cruz%  Trump%  Rubio%
======================================================
126     9,206   5,012   3,604   46.45%  25.29%  18.18%
127    13,475   6,585   4,579   49.53%  24.20%  16.83%
128    10,789   5,618   2,166   54.41%  28.33%  10.92%
129    10,906   5,812   4,288   46.71%  24.89%  18.37%
130    16,313   7,227   4,674   53.40%  23.66%  15.30%
131     1,409     813     573   44.62%  25.74%  18.14%
132     8,936   4,403   2,931   50.17%  24.72%  16.46%
133    11,465   7,630   8,696   35.58%  23.68%  26.99%
134     8,702   6,534   9,195   29.84%  22.40%  31.53%
135     8,276   4,020   2,814   50.38%  24.47%  17.13%
137     1,679   1,394     945   37.01%  30.73%  20.83%
138     7,380   3,794   2,862   47.84%  24.59%  18.55%
139     2,981   1,464   1,096   48.28%  23.71%  17.75%
140     1,372     727     415   51.19%  27.13%  15.49%
141     1,061     610     263   50.40%  28.98%  12.49%
142     2,287   1,107     827   49.86%  24.13%  18.03%
143     1,974     966     608   51.76%  25.33%  15.94%
144     2,471   1,334     615   51.84%  27.98%  12.90%
145     2,601   1,333   1,023   47.98%  24.59%  18.87%
146     2,293   1,287   1,338   40.74%  22.87%  23.77%
147     2,039   1,406   1,659   34.39%  23.71%  27.98%
148     3,693   2,219   2,434   39.38%  23.66%  25.96%
149     3,422   2,053   1,524   43.97%  26.38%  19.58%
150    13,090   6,513   4,115   50.51%  25.13%  15.88%

As was the case with yesterday’s analysis, the percentages don’t sum to 100 because of the other candidates, whose numbers are now shown. There’s a lot more of them here, and their collective numbers are larger, but the top three took at least 80% of the vote in all districts, in many cases more than 90%. I briefly thought about including John Kasich’s numbers, but I quickly regained my senses.

The first thing that strikes me is how consistent Donald Trump’s numbers were. With the exception of HD137, he’s in a tight band between 22% and 29%, and even in 137 he’s only just above 30%. He did not win any districts, coming closest in HD134 where Ted Cruz had his weakest showing, but Marco Rubio did. Three cheers for the Establishment, I guess. Cruz won a majority in eight districts. That includes three of the five predominantly Latino districts, though how many Latinos actually voted in the GOP primary is not something I can answer from this data.

I don’t know that I have any deep insights here. 2012 and 2008 were such different years, with 2008 also having different district boundaries, that it’s hard to make meaningful comparisons. The main thing I think we should all take away is that when races are hot enough, more voting may take place on Election Day than one might normally expect. Hopefully, that will inform the decisions about what precinct locations and how many voting machines to have in the future.

Precinct analysis: 2016 Democratic Presidential primary

I love the smell of precinct data in the morning, don’t you? Here’s a breakdown of the Democratic Presidential primary vote for Harris County:


Dist   Bernie Hillary  Bernie%   Hill%
======================================
126     2,315   4,649   33.04%  66.35%
127     2,621   4,905   34.54%  64.64%
128     1,756   3,532   32.46%  65.30%
129     3,425   5,247   39.24%  60.12%
130     2,376   3,692   38.89%  60.44%
131     2,481  10,874   18.40%  80.65%
132     2,619   4,547   36.26%  62.95%
133     2,980   5,561   34.79%  64.92%
134     5,588  11,759   32.11%  67.57%
135     2,672   4,892   35.10%  64.27%
137     1,824   3,374   34.76%  64.30%
138     2,500   4,093   37.68%  61.70%
139     2,711  10,826   19.81%  79.12%
140     1,312   4,145   23.58%  74.50%
141     1,453   8,499   14.46%  84.57%
142     2,086   9,663   17.53%  81.20%
143     2,037   6,403   23.47%  73.78%
144     1,336   3,044   29.83%  67.96%
145     2,749   5,403   33.11%  65.07%
146     3,089  11,078   21.62%  77.52%
147     4,819  12,743   27.20%  71.91%
148     3,901   7,365   34.24%  64.64%
149     2,079   5,523   27.04%  71.84%
150     2,595   4,994   33.96%  65.36%

Percentages don’t add up to 100 because of the other candidates, whose totals I didn’t show. I’ve said before that races that aren’t close seldom offer interesting precinct data. That’s the case here, where Hillary Clinton took over 70% of the vote in Harris County. There was some variation – as has been the case around the country, Clinton dominated in the predominantly African-American districts, while Sanders’ six best districts were all Republican-held, and no coincidentally predominantly Anglo. Beyond that, there’s not a whole lot to say. Clinton lost the county in 2008, though she did do well in Anglo and Latino districts (apologies for the formatting on that one; I was still using Movable Type back then, and the code apparently didn’t port that well to WordPress). Different year, different result. I’ll look at the Republican Presidential primary tomorrow.

Precinct analysis: Controller runoff

One last election to review:


Dist     Brown  Frazer
======================
A        5,232   7,918
B       13,161   2,616
C       15,244  15,726
D       16,390   4,197
E        6,118  16,073
F        3,890   3,527
G        8,775  21,762
H        6,558   3,117
I        5,253   2,731
J        2,794   2,763
K       10,632   5,434

A       39.79%  60.21%
B       83.42%  16.58%
C       49.22%  50.78%
D       79.61%  20.39%
E       27.57%  72.43%
F       52.45%  47.55%
G       28.74%  71.26%
H       67.78%  32.22%
I       65.79%  34.21%
J       50.28%  49.72%
K       66.18%  33.82%
Chris Brown

Chris Brown

Chris Brown was the only runoff candidate who did not finish first in November to win in the runoffs. Brown ran better than Mayor-elect Sylvester Turner in every district except the three predominantly African-American ones, and he still had very strong showings in those districts. He won districts F and J, both of which Turner did not win, and came within 500 votes of winning District C. Some of that was due to a successful strategy of making this a D-versus-R race – Brown had multiple email blasts going out in the days after the November race highlighting endorsements from a phalanx of Democratic elected officials, including many African-American officials, which no doubt helped him in B, D, and J – and some of it was his continued TV advertising, which likely helped keep the undervote rate to a modest 14.20%, the lowest among citywide races. I can’t say for sure if Brown did a better job of holding on to Turner supporters than Frazer did of holding on to King supporters or if he claimed some crossover voters. It’s not clear because despite Brown’s better performance in the districts I cited, he still had a lower absolute vote total in all of them, so I can’t say for sure that there had to be some King/Brown voters. I’m sure there were some, I just can’t put any numbers to it. Whatever the case, it worked. Brown won, by a 10,000 vote margin.

As for Frazer, this is two close losses for him. The “thanks to my supporters” email he sent out after the runoff said he intends “to stay very involved in the financial issues of Houston as a private citizen, not as a candidate”, so I suspect this was his last campaign. That said, four years is a long time, and people have been known to reconsider. Maybe the Chronicle will want someone to take over their “pension reform columnist” gig. I didn’t agree with Frazer on a number of things, but I respected the way he ran for the office. You knew what he believed in and what he would do about it. We can always use more of that.

Precinct analysis: At Large #5 runoff

Our last Council runoff review:


Dist  Christie   Moses
======================
A        8,729   3,657
B        3,273  11,539
C       17,743   8,757
D        5,285  13,847
E       16,652   4,324
F        4,108   2,747
G       23,150   4,954
H        4,230   4,405
I        3,716   3,611
J        3,149   1,985
K        6,152   8,582

A       70.47%  29.53%
B       22.10%  77.90%
C       66.95%  33.05%
D       27.62%  72.38%
E       79.39%  20.61%
F       59.93%  40.07%
G       82.37%  17.63%
H       48.99%  51.01%
I       50.72%  49.28%
J       61.34%  38.66%
K       41.75%  58.25%
Jack Christie

Jack Christie

CM Jack Christie is a genuinely nice person, the kind of moderate Republican one fears is going extinct in Texas. He’s definitely been fortunate in the opposition he’s faced. He was fortunate to get then-CM Jolanda Jones into a runoff in 2011 – he trailed her in the November vote, and probably would have lost at that time if it had been just him and her in that race – then won in a low-turnout runoff, which unlike the runoff he lost to her in 2009 did not have a Mayoral race on the same ballot. He faced nominal opposition in 2013 from a couple of late entrants, and was put into a runoff again this year against a candidate who was not well known and who did not generate a lot of Democratic excitement. He’s one of six third term Council members who got two bonus years from the term limits change (five second-year members get four bonus years), and as a senior member of Council ought to have plenty of opportunities to help new Mayor Turner make his mark on the city.

Despite having interviewed her for the runoff, I’m still not sure what to make of Sharon Moses. I thought she came across reasonably well in the interview, though like many first-time candidates she didn’t have a deep knowledge of most issues. A lot of Democratic groups were hesitant with both her and Georgia Provost, and while Provost generally won their endorsements, Moses lagged behind, which is one reason why I expected Provost to do better. She was involved in a dustup over HERO and LGBT equality at a meeting of the Meyerland Democrats’ meeting prior to the runoff. Some of you may have seen a report on that elsewhere; Moses disputed that written account, but a couple of people later corroborated it to me in person. I don’t know how much of that was genuine disagreement and how much was a first-time candidate who maybe didn’t express her views as clearly as she could have, but the electoral effect was clear. In the end, the beneficiary was Jack Christie, and perhaps the candidates who will run for his to-be-open seat in 2019, the only open citywide office on the ballot that year barring anything unexpected.

Precinct analysis: At Large #4 runoff

Here we have the least competitive runoff of the six that were citywide.


Dist   Edwards  Morales
=======================
A        6,322    6,153
B       14,660    1,761
C       17,813   10,238
D       18,341    2,882
E        7,688   13,231
F        4,046    3,080
G       11,996   15,203
H        5,610    3,903
I        4,371    3,774
J        3,070    2,287
K       12,150    3,830

A       50.68%   49.32%
B       89.28%   10.72%
C       63.50%   36.50%
D       86.42%   13.58%
E       36.75%   63.25%
F       56.78%   43.22%
G       44.10%   55.90%
H       58.97%   41.03%
I       53.66%   46.34%
J       57.31%   42.69%
K       76.03%   23.97%
Amanda Edwards

Amanda Edwards

As was the case in November, Edwards had a dominant performance in the runoff, winning every district except E and G, and she didn’t do too badly in them, either. I saw more ads on TV for her and for Controller-elect Chris Brown than I did for the two Mayoral candidates combined. That may have helped her achieve the rare distinction of getting more votes than any other candidate, a hard thing to do when there’s a contested Mayoral race on the ballot since the undervote is so much higher for At Large contests. With this strong win, Edwards joins CM Michael Kubosh as the early favorites to not get serious challengers in 2019. Four years is an eternity, and it’s also uncharted waters for us in Houston, so it’s a bit silly to say such things now. It’s always possible for things to go wrong for a Council member, and who knows what the electorate will be like in four years. That said, AL5 will be open, AL1 is sure to draw interest, and five district Council seats will also be up – A, B, C, J, and K. Assuming nothing crazy happens between now and then, I’d surely put any of those races higher on my priority list if I were inclined to run for something.

As for Roy, he’s beginning to edge into Andrew Burks/Griff Griffin territory. He’s been on a ballot for something in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2015, winning his HCDE seat by forfeit in 2006 and making it into an At Large runoff in 2007, 2013, and now 2015. What I find fascinating, beyond the psychology of people who run for office cycle after cycle without any clear plan for a campaign or idea of how they might win, is how little support Morales seems to draw in some of these elections. The runoff in the special election in 2007 was closer than supporters of Melissa Noriega would have liked, but that was mostly about the usual problem of getting Democratic voters out to the polls at non-standard times, and she still won by ten points. He got a bit of late support in the 2009 Mayor’s race, enough to get his Election Day vote total to nudge past Peter Brown’s though not enough to threaten the top two finishers. He didn’t seem to make much of an impression in 2013 or this year. Morales was unlikely to win against Edwards, and I can certainly understand why Republican players might have put a higher priority on folks like King, Frazer, Knox, and Le. I still wonder, do they just not like the guy? Do they get the same Burks/Griff vibe that I get? Is it that he’s just not good at asking for support? Whatever the case, it’s another familiar result. I wonder if he’ll be back for more in 2019.

Shades of 1997

The Chron looks to the past to analyze Sylvester Turner’s runoff victory.

Sylvester Turner

Sylvester Turner

As the Chronicle reported, voting in the Houston mayor’s runoff fell overwhelmingly along racial lines, with Sylvester Turner edging out a slight victory in part by securing 93 percent of the vote in the city’s majority-black precincts.

King, meanwhile, took 71 percent of the vote in the city’s majority-white precincts. Turner beat King by about 4 percentage points in majority-Hispanic precincts, earning 52 percent of the vote.

That degree of racial polarization also was seen in the 1997 mayor’s race, when Brown won 99 percent of the vote in majority-black precincts and 38 percent in majority-white precincts, according to a 2011 Texas Southern University study.

However, Brown earned just 17 percent of the vote in majority-Hispanic precincts.

TSU political scientist Michael Adams attributed Turner’s comparatively strong support among Latinos in part to his campaign’s Hispanic outreach.

“Campaigns matter,” Adams said, pointing to Turner’s endorsements from Hispanic elected officials and former opponent Adrian Garcia.

Adams also noted that Latinos increasingly have leaned Democratic in the intervening years, and that Mosbacher focused extensively on the Hispanic community during the 1997 race.

See here for the background. Lee Brown’s runoff win over Orlando Sanchez in 2001 was actually closer than his win over Rob Mosbacher in 1997. I’d have liked to see an analysis of that race, especially of the Latino precincts. You’d think Brown would have done worse there in 2001 against Sanchez than in 1997 against Mosbacher. Regardless, I think it’s fair to say that Turner would have been in some trouble this year had he not done as well as he did in these precincts.

Runoff precinct analysis: At Large #2

Now for a race that’s both a little easier and a little harder to understand, in At Large #2:


Dist  Robinson   Davis
======================
A        6,193   5,825
B        7,698   7,508
C       18,432   8,938
D        9,941   9,840
E        8,762  11,677
F        3,557   3,233
G       13,439  13,197
H        5,677   3,026
I        4,570   2,919
J        2,773   2,336
K        8,592   6,407
		
A       51.53%  48.47%
B       50.62%  49.38%
C       67.34%  32.66%
D       50.26%  49.74%
E       42.87%  57.13%
F       52.39%  47.61%
G       50.45%  49.55%
H       65.23%  34.77%
I       61.02%  38.98%
J       54.28%  45.72%
K       57.28%  42.72%
CM David Robinson

CM David Robinson

If there was ever a race in which the vaunted Pincer Strategy should have worked, it was this one. Willie Davis should have had the best of both worlds – increased African-American turnout thanks to Sylvester Turner, and high Republican turnout from Bill King. What more could an African-American anti-HERO candidate ask for? Turns out, he could have asked for some of those voters to actually vote for him. Davis got in the race late, never had more than the one issue, never raised much money, and apparently never drew much support. I guess this is the flipside of the Pincer Strategy: Republicans weren’t particularly invested in a guy who’d only voted in Democratic primaries before now even if he was with them on that one big issue, and African-Americans – who are, you know, mostly Democrats – were perfectly willing to vote for the candidate that was advertising himself as the Democrat and collecting all the Democratic endorsements. Sometimes it’s just that simple.

Anyway. I really was worried about Robinson going into this runoff. He didn’t have that great a November performance, and none of the candidates that failed to make the runoff had supporters that would necessarily transfer to him. And yet they did. I still don’t quite know what to make of these numbers, and I still think that if Willie Davis had run an actual campaign, he could have won. But he didn’t, and he didn’t. And the Council is a better place to have David Robinson back in it.

Precinct analysis: At Large #1 runoff

Let’s move on to the At Large races. Here’s how the vote went in At Large #1:


Dist    Knox  Provost
=====================
A      8,758    4,042
B      2,518   13,058
C     14,925   12,240
D      3,692   16,877
E     16,406    4,735
F      4,040    2,871
G     21,391    6,190
H      3,684    5,080
I      3,272    4,340
J      3,029    2,182
K      5,442    9,846
		
A     68.42%   31.58%
B     16.17%   83.83%
C     54.94%   45.06%
D     17.95%   82.05%
E     77.60%   22.40%
F     58.46%   41.54%
G     77.56%   22.44%
H     42.04%   57.96%
I     42.98%   57.02%
J     58.13%   41.87%
Mike Knox

Mike Knox

I suggested before that undervoting might be the key to understanding some of these results. I mean, obviously if everyone who supported Turner also supported other Democrats like Georgia Provost, these downballot candidates would win as well. That never happens, of course – undervoting in At Large races usually exceeds 20% of the total. Given that, the first question to ask is which Mayoral voters kept going down the ballot, and which were one and done? There’s also the fact that not everyone votes uniformly in these races. Some candidates are better known than others, some have appeal that others don’t, and so on.

Both of those factors are in play here. Mike Knox still got beaten badly in Districts B and D, but in each case he exceeded Bill King’s vote totals. I don’t know what the profile of a voter that supported both Sylvester Turner and Mike Knox might look like, but those folks clearly existed.

I can even quantify that to some extent. In my canvass spreadsheet, I subtracted Knox’s total for each precinct from King’s, and Provost’s from Turner’s, then sorted each column in turn to see what the differences looked like:

For Provost, there were 32 precincts in which she had more votes than Turner, for a net gain of 225. For Knox, there were 207 precincts in which he had more votes than King, for a net gain of 3,026.

On the flip side, for Provost there were 568 precincts in which she had fewer votes than Turner, for a net loss of 23,357. For Knox, 383 precincts in which he had fewer votes than King, for a net loss of 19,796.

Put that all together, and Knox had more crossover support, while holding on to more of King’s voters. I’ll be honest, I might have expected the latter, but not the former. I can only speculate about that, and the first thing that comes to my mind is that Provost wasn’t as well known as Knox was. He had more of a campaign, as well as some establishment support, for the November election, while Provost didn’t really have a campaign before the runoff and didn’t have much attention paid to her till then. That’s my guess, and yours is as good as mine. What did you think of this race?

Precinct analysis: Mayoral runoff

Believe it or not, the County Clerk’s office put out draft canvass reports last night. As a result, I can do the thing that I do. Here’s a look at the Mayor’s runoff race:


Dist    King   Turner
=====================
A      9,491    5,472
B      1,356   17,406
C     19,866   16,004
D      3,368   20,245
E     20,108    5,600
F      4,664    4,005
G     28,193    6,892
H      4,070    7,317
I      3,605    5,894
J      3,412    3,012
K      5,791   12,718
		
A     63.43%   36.57%
B      7.23%   92.77%
C     55.38%   44.62%
D     14.26%   85.74%
E     78.22%   21.78%
F     53.80%   46.20%
G     80.36%   19.64%
H     35.74%   64.26%
I     37.95%   62.05%
J     53.11%   46.89%
K     31.29%   68.71%
Sylvester Turner

Sylvester Turner

The Chron used this data to create some maps – a City Council district map, a precinct map, and a turnout map.

Remember as always that this is Harris County data only. Turner did win Harris County, by a small amount. The bulk of his margin is in Fort Bend, which is mostly in District K. You have to give King some credit. He won F and J after having trailed in them in November, and he carried C by a fairly healthy amount. I thought if he won in C he’d be in a strong position to win overall, and he came close to that. In November I suggested that King needed to duplicate Jack Christie’s 2011 runoff performance against Jolanda Jones to win. A performance like Christie had in District C would have done it for King, but he had some other avenues as well. Two questions to ponder in analyzing this result: How many previous supporters of Garcia and Bell and Costello did King move to his column, and how many new voters did he bring out? I will try to get a handle on that when I get a copy of the voter roster. A question I’m not sure how to answer is why did King do better on Election Day than he did in early voting, despite the expectations of some pundits? Turner clearly did a good job getting his voters out early. Maybe that’s all there was to it.

As for Turner, he did what he had to do. His margins in districts B and D were awesome, but it wasn’t just about the percentage, it was about the absolute total. It’s clear Turner needed the high turnout he got in those districts, but I think it’s an oversimplification to credit his win to “high turnout”, as I’d argue that King benefited from it as well. I’d love to see someone dig up precinct information from the 2001 Mayoral runoff between Lee Brown and Orlando Sanchez and do a side by side comparison with this year. I’m guessing there would be a lot of overlap.

I’ll be looking at the other races over the coming days. This result is understandable by looking at the numbers, as both candidates did what they needed to do, with Turner ending up on top. Some of the others are more of a puzzle, especially given the context of the Mayoral race. But we’ll get to that when we get to that. What are your impressions?

Precinct analysis: “Extreme” voters

The Chron’s Mike Morris looks at undervotes in a way that I hadn’t thought of before.

vote-button

On Monday we looked at the phenomenon of the November undervote, when Houstonians made the (relatively rare) commitment to vote, but skipped one or more ballot items once they actually made it to the voting booth.

In that analysis, some trends emerged from looking at which voters skipped certain ballot items. African-Americans, for instance, focused on the mayor’s race and, to a greater extent than other voters, the citywide council races. White voters, at both the conservative and liberal ends of the political spectrum, focused on the city’s controversial (and now rejected) nondiscrimination ordinance, dubbed HERO.

Today’s post takes a closer look at polarized precincts – areas where a disproportionate share of voters showed up to vote only for mayor or only on the HERO referendum, but skipped most (or perhaps even all) of the other items on the municipal ballot.

[…]

The clearest trends came on college campuses, however, such as in Precinct 361, which covers only the boundaries of Rice University.

Just shy of 400 Owls showed up to vote, and more than a fourth of them skipped the mayor’s race, while more than three out of four skipped the controller and council races. Just nine of these voters skipped the HERO contest, however, and the campus voted 93 percent in favor of the ordinance.

A similar but less severe trend showed up in Precinct 389, which includes the University of Houston and folks on a few streets just north of campus. As at Rice, Turner was the clear choice among mayoral voters there, but one out of every eight voters skipped the mayor’s race.

Only three voters in Precinct 389 skipped HERO, however, and the area was 70 percent in favor.

Go read the whole thing, it’s really good. I highlighted the last bit to suggest that the pro-HERO problem wasn’t turnout as much as it was messaging, but I think we already knew that even if we couldn’t put numbers to it. I may go back and fool around with this a bit more myself now that the idea has been planted.

Precinct analysis: Age ranges

Let us one more time ask the question: Just how old were the voters in our 2015 election?


Range       All    Pct
======================
18-30    21,998   8.2%
31-40    32,359  12.1%
41-50    39,074  14.6%
51-60    58,610  21.9%
61+     115,755  43.2%

vote-button

The short answer is “not as old as we’ve seen in previous elections“. That’s a high-water mark for the 30-and-under crowd, by a considerable amount, as well as a high score for the 31-to-40 consort. The 61+ group is smaller than it was in the last few elections, though of course that is relative. It’s smaller as a proportion to this electorate, but this electorate was quite large, so the over-60 share is much bigger in absolute terms than before – there were nearly as many over-60s this year as there were total voters in 2011 – even if it’s a smaller piece of the pie.

I can’t easily tell you what the average age of a Houston voter in 2015 was. I’ve heard several people cite a figure of 69 years old, which I believe comes from the KUHF/KHOU poll in October. Based on the ranges I’ve shown above, I’d guess that 69 is a little high to be the average age, but it’s probably not too far off from that. The point I’m trying to make here is that this election wasn’t driven by a frenzied turnout of senior citizens. Turnout was up across the board, and while this electorate was hardly young – less than 35% were under 50 – there was more age diversity than we have seen in the past.

Where you will legitimately find a younger electorate is in the new voters than showed up this year. Here’s that table, with the accompanying one for the set of folks who voted in all elections since 2009 following it:


Range       New    Pct
======================
18-30    17,106  16.8%
31-40    19,522  19.2%
41-50    17,889  17.6%
51-60    20,528  20.2%
61+      26,557  26.1%


Range       Old    Pct
======================
18-30       351   0.6%
31-40     2,009   3.4%
41-50     5,279   8.9%
51-60    12,233  20.5%
61+      39,766  66.7%

A majority of the new voters this year were 50 and under, with 36% being 40 and under. That’s not too shabby. As for the old reliables, here “old” is an appropriate word. If you told me the average age of this group was 69, I’d believe it. I will say, if the revised term limits ordinance stands, it’s going to be more challenging to talk about new and experienced voters in our every-four-years elections, simply because there will be so much turnover in the voting population. Under the new system – again, if it stands – the last three elections would be 2011, 2007, and 2003. Three elections from now would be 2027. Of course, with incumbents limited to two terms, maybe there will be that much more emphasis on the last election, and less on others except for open seats. Who knows? One way or another, we are headed into uncharted waters.

I hope you enjoyed this trip through the data. I may take a look at recent runoff rosters to see if there’s anything there worth writing about. Happy Thanksgiving!

Precinct analysis: Where the voters came from

Yesterday we looked at the voting history of the people who participated in the 2015 election. Today we’re going to take a look at how those numbers broke down by Council district.


Dist   All 3    None    Rest   Total
====================================
A      4,686   7,238   8,173  20,097
B      4,873   8,829   8,738  22,440
C     11,471  17,129  18,588  47,188
D      6,988  10,196  11,204  28,388
E      5,906  14,302  13,392  33,600
F      2,348   5,456   4,942  12,746
G      9,703  13,523  17,630  40,856
H      3,035   7,452   6,958  17,445
I      2,897   5,939   5,856  14,692
J      2,001   3,437   3,305   8,743
K      5,730   8,101   8,846  22,677

Total 59,639 101,603 107,630 268,872

vote-button

Just a reminder, “All 3” refers to voters who had also participated in the 2013, 2011, and 2009 elections; “None” refers to voters who voted in none of those three elections; “Rest” refers to the people who voted in one or two of those elections, but not all three. The first thing to notice is something I hadn’t noticed till I started working on this post, which is that for all the talk about “new” voters, there were a lot of “sometimes” voters in this election. Perhaps one of our oft-quoted poli sci professors could put a grad student or two on the question of why people vote in some city elections but not others. Obviously, some people are new to town or are newly eligible to vote, but what about the others? Why skip one election but vote in another? I don’t understand it. I wish someone would make the effort to try.

The other number that jumps out at you is the number of “None” voters in District E. It’s fair to assume a significant number of these were anti-HERO voters. Notice that E wasn’t the only district that saw the number of new voters be more than double the number of old reliables – F, H, and I also fit that bill. Why might that be? Could be any number of reasons – HERO, a disproportionate number of new and/or newly-eligible residents, the fact that there weren’t that many old reliables to begin with, some other reason. Of course, even the district that had a lot of old reliables, like C and D and G, saw a lot of newbies show up as well. What can you say? There were a lot of new voters. Even in this high-for-Houston-elections-turnout environment, there are still a lot of other people who vote in other years.

Another way of looking at this: The share in each district of each kind of voter:


Dist   All 3    None    Rest   Total
====================================
A      7.86%   7.12%   7.59%   7.47%
B      8.17%   8.69%   8.12%   8.35%
C     19.23%  16.86%  17.27%  17.55%
D     11.72%  10.04%  10.41%  10.56%
E      9.90%  14.08%  12.44%  12.50%
F      3.94%   5.37%   4.59%   4.74%
G     16.27%  13.31%  16.38%  15.20%
H      5.09%   7.33%   6.46%   6.49%
I      4.86%   5.84%   5.44%   5.46%
J      3.36%   3.38%   3.07%   3.25%
K      9.61%   7.97%   8.22%   8.43%

Again, you can see the differential in E. No matter how you slice it, District C is the leader, but who comes in second and third and by how much C leads the way varies. Again, I have no broad conclusions to draw, I just think this is interesting. What do you think?

Tomorrow we’ll have a look at how old the voters were this year. Let me know if you have any questions.