Let’s just dive right in and have a look at the countywide candidates, shall we?
Dist Emmett Hidalgo Gatlin Under Emmett% Hidalgo% Gatlin%
==============================================================
CD02 150,630 103,625 5,842 5,005 57.91% 39.84% 2.25%
CD07 135,016 100,412 4,967 4,819 56.16% 41.77% 2.07%
CD08 18,697 9,447 637 423 64.96% 32.82% 2.21%
CD09 28,593 88,998 2,100 2,138 23.89% 74.36% 1.75%
CD10 75,149 36,392 2,371 1,559 65.97% 31.95% 2.08%
CD18 49,933 129,017 4,024 3,463 27.29% 70.51% 2.20%
CD22 16,749 14,075 615 577 53.27% 44.77% 1.96%
CD29 35,187 79,825 2,027 2,255 30.06% 68.20% 1.73%
CD36 65,147 32,155 2,000 1,572 65.60% 32.38% 2.01%
SBOE6 324,964 237,414 12,576 11,692 56.52% 41.29% 2.19%
HD126 31,509 22,699 1,137 879 56.93% 41.01% 2.05%
HD127 43,967 22,708 1,428 1,003 64.56% 33.34% 2.10%
HD128 36,488 14,551 913 716 70.23% 28.01% 1.76%
HD129 39,456 23,578 1,434 1,218 61.20% 36.57% 2.22%
HD130 53,835 20,641 1,569 1,046 70.79% 27.14% 2.06%
HD131 8,046 33,121 717 658 19.21% 79.08% 1.71%
HD132 34,890 30,219 1,421 842 52.44% 45.42% 2.14%
HD133 46,358 23,211 1,452 1,532 65.27% 32.68% 2.04%
HD134 49,748 36,624 1,967 2,626 56.31% 41.46% 2.23%
HD135 28,937 25,825 1,142 804 51.76% 46.20% 2.04%
HD137 8,332 15,311 544 464 34.45% 63.30% 2.25%
HD138 25,835 21,425 1,035 914 53.49% 44.36% 2.14%
HD139 13,097 33,093 889 792 27.82% 70.29% 1.89%
HD140 5,999 17,238 371 438 25.41% 73.02% 1.57%
HD141 4,913 25,991 516 408 15.64% 82.72% 1.64%
HD142 10,202 28,780 661 570 25.73% 72.60% 1.67%
HD143 8,651 19,512 478 593 30.20% 68.13% 1.67%
HD144 9,710 13,289 432 384 41.44% 56.72% 1.84%
HD145 11,430 20,587 722 723 34.91% 62.88% 2.21%
HD146 10,903 31,500 849 870 25.21% 72.83% 1.96%
HD147 13,678 39,732 1,333 1,129 24.99% 72.58% 2.44%
HD148 20,031 26,116 1,339 1,374 42.18% 55.00% 2.82%
HD149 15,412 22,824 702 732 39.58% 58.62% 1.80%
HD150 43,674 25,371 1,532 1,096 61.88% 35.95% 2.17%
CC1 79,769 202,915 5,730 5,571 27.66% 70.36% 1.99%
CC2 116,353 106,823 4,548 4,096 51.09% 46.91% 2.00%
CC3 184,649 140,535 6,765 6,036 55.63% 42.34% 2.04%
CC4 194,330 143,673 7,540 6,108 56.24% 41.58% 2.18%
Ed Emmett was of course the best case scenario for Republicans. He won everywhere it was possible for a Republican to win. He won CD07 by fifteen points, which is a wider margin than John Culberson had in 2016. And with all that, he still didn’t win Harris County. This recalls what I was saying when we first saw poll numbers from CD07, which were showing a close race there. If Republicans, who had carried CD07 by double digits in 2016 and gotten shellacked in Harris County overall were now fighting to have any lead in CD07 in 2018, what did that portend for them countywide? Or statewide, for that matter. You can see how that played out, and why I keep hammering on the theme that the Republicans’ main problem in Harris County is that they are now badly outnumbered. There’s a potentially credible case to be made that Ed Emmett was harmed by straight ticket voting. He lost a close race, so any change of conditions might have helped him. But the notion that Republicans overall were harmed by it is laughable.
One other point: There were about 46K people who either voted Libertarian in this race or who did not vote at all. For Emmett to make up the almost-19,000 vote deficit he had against Lina Hidalgo, he’d have had to win a bit more than 70% of all those voters, if you could go back in time and identify them all and force them to pick their second choice. As it happens – I’m going to skip the table for this, so just trust me – the undervote rate, once you subtract out straight ticket voters, was higher in the Dem districts. That’s probably not the friendliest constituency for him to retroactively woo. Ed Emmett served Harris County with honor and dignity, and he leaves behind a distinguished record. He also lost, fair and square.
Dist Stanart Trautman Gomez Under Stanart% Traut% Gomez%
==============================================================
CD02 135,427 116,744 6,717 6,221 52.31% 45.09% 2.59%
CD07 116,383 116,488 5,648 6,706 48.79% 48.84% 2.37%
CD08 17,784 10,221 679 520 62.00% 35.63% 2.37%
CD09 23,329 93,625 2,504 2,376 19.53% 78.37% 2.10%
CD10 71,172 39,707 2,623 1,970 62.71% 34.98% 2.31%
CD18 39,159 138,311 4,892 4,087 21.47% 75.84% 2.68%
CD22 15,265 15,184 857 711 48.76% 48.50% 2.74%
CD29 30,313 82,449 3,916 2,627 25.98% 70.66% 3.36%
CD36 60,467 35,918 2,452 2,036 61.18% 36.34% 2.48%
SBOE6 287,300 269,837 14,477 15,045 50.26% 47.21% 2.53%
HD126 29,277 24,586 1,293 1,074 53.08% 44.58% 2.34%
HD127 41,017 25,198 1,634 1,260 60.45% 37.14% 2.41%
HD128 34,735 15,876 1,142 915 67.12% 30.68% 2.21%
HD129 35,567 26,799 1,739 1,582 55.48% 41.80% 2.71%
HD130 51,064 22,942 1,722 1,365 67.43% 30.30% 2.27%
HD131 6,110 34,855 864 717 14.61% 83.33% 2.07%
HD132 32,579 32,090 1,680 1,023 49.10% 48.37% 2.53%
HD133 40,721 28,089 1,552 2,192 57.87% 39.92% 2.21%
HD134 37,977 47,211 2,090 3,692 43.51% 54.09% 2.39%
HD135 26,584 27,712 1,379 1,033 47.75% 49.77% 2.48%
HD137 7,257 16,167 678 552 30.11% 67.08% 2.81%
HD138 23,336 23,515 1,257 1,100 48.51% 48.88% 2.61%
HD139 10,545 35,238 1,128 961 22.48% 75.12% 2.40%
HD140 5,269 17,569 722 490 22.36% 74.57% 3.06%
HD141 3,921 26,852 622 438 12.49% 85.53% 1.98%
HD142 8,579 30,125 850 662 21.69% 76.16% 2.15%
HD143 7,405 20,178 952 699 25.95% 70.71% 3.34%
HD144 8,949 13,629 786 450 38.30% 58.33% 3.36%
HD145 9,596 21,809 1,226 834 29.41% 66.84% 3.76%
HD146 8,082 34,044 931 1,065 18.77% 79.07% 2.16%
HD147 10,013 42,972 1,576 1,316 18.35% 78.76% 2.89%
HD148 15,587 29,671 1,907 1,695 33.05% 62.91% 4.04%
HD149 14,042 23,985 859 785 36.11% 61.68% 2.21%
HD150 41,087 27,535 1,699 1,354 58.43% 39.16% 2.42%
CC1 61,603 218,965 6,875 6,563 21.43% 76.18% 2.39%
CC2 105,901 114,124 6,772 5,028 46.69% 50.32% 2.99%
CC3 164,601 157,515 7,843 8,035 49.89% 47.74% 2.38%
CC4 177,194 158,043 8,798 7,628 51.50% 45.94% 2.56%
Stan Stanart was very much on the low end of the spectrum for Republican candidates. Nearly every judicial candidate drew more votes than he did. Note in particular the stark difference between himself and Ed Emmett in HD134. The swing/lean R voters were not there for him. He was one of two countywide Rs to lose in HD138, though he did manage to carry HD132.
Dist Daniel Burgess Under Daniel% Burgess%
===============================================
CD02 141,260 116,519 7,334 54.80% 45.20%
CD07 123,371 114,006 7,852 51.97% 48.03%
CD08 18,163 10,443 598 63.49% 36.51%
CD09 24,355 94,774 2,710 20.44% 79.56%
CD10 72,943 40,231 2,301 64.45% 35.55%
CD18 41,900 139,805 4,756 23.06% 76.94%
CD22 15,794 15,389 836 50.65% 49.35%
CD29 31,677 84,520 3,107 27.26% 72.74%
CD36 62,225 36,222 2,429 63.21% 36.79%
SBOE6 301,347 267,739 17,585 52.95% 47.05%
HD126 30,045 24,900 1,285 54.68% 45.32%
HD127 42,379 25,207 1,525 62.70% 37.30%
HD128 35,350 16,229 1,092 68.54% 31.46%
HD129 37,093 26,728 1,868 58.12% 41.88%
HD130 52,331 23,186 1,577 69.30% 30.70%
HD131 6,394 35,330 823 15.32% 84.68%
HD132 33,433 32,741 1,199 50.52% 49.48%
HD133 43,049 26,936 2,570 61.51% 38.49%
HD134 42,398 44,322 4,252 48.89% 51.11%
HD135 27,386 28,119 1,204 49.34% 50.66%
HD137 7,631 16,369 654 31.80% 68.20%
HD138 24,200 23,659 1,351 50.57% 49.43%
HD139 11,114 35,635 1,125 23.77% 76.23%
HD140 5,450 18,021 577 23.22% 76.78%
HD141 4,114 27,220 501 13.13% 86.87%
HD142 8,918 30,566 735 22.59% 77.41%
HD143 7,755 20,637 843 27.31% 72.69%
HD144 9,208 14,084 524 39.53% 60.47%
HD145 10,182 22,269 1,012 31.38% 68.62%
HD146 8,681 34,241 1,203 20.23% 79.77%
HD147 11,052 43,323 1,504 20.33% 79.67%
HD148 17,008 29,859 1,996 36.29% 63.71%
HD149 14,449 24,305 918 37.28% 62.72%
HD150 42,068 28,023 1,585 60.02% 39.98%
CC1 66,296 220,197 7,525 23.14% 76.86%
CC2 109,601 116,240 5,988 48.53% 51.47%
CC3 172,133 156,516 9,354 52.38% 47.62%
CC4 183,658 158,956 9,056 53.60% 46.40%
Dist Sanchez Osborne Under Sanchez% Osborne%
===============================================
CD02 143,554 114,652 6,909 55.60% 44.40%
CD07 125,682 112,399 7,148 52.79% 47.21%
CD08 18,412 10,220 571 64.31% 35.69%
CD09 25,189 94,006 2,646 21.13% 78.87%
CD10 73,755 39,560 2,159 65.09% 34.91%
CD18 43,632 138,230 4,601 23.99% 76.01%
CD22 16,131 15,097 791 51.66% 48.34%
CD29 33,727 82,733 2,854 28.96% 71.04%
CD36 62,909 35,668 2,300 63.82% 36.18%
SBOE6 306,826 263,570 16,277 53.79% 46.21%
HD126 30,564 24,473 1,195 55.53% 44.47%
HD127 42,897 24,755 1,459 63.41% 36.59%
HD128 35,601 16,037 1,033 68.94% 31.06%
HD129 37,714 26,225 1,750 58.98% 41.02%
HD130 52,878 22,739 1,475 69.93% 30.07%
HD131 6,681 35,063 801 16.00% 84.00%
HD132 33,941 32,283 1,150 51.25% 48.75%
HD133 43,732 26,575 2,250 62.20% 37.80%
HD134 43,286 43,737 3,949 49.74% 50.26%
HD135 27,906 27,692 1,112 50.19% 49.81%
HD137 7,819 16,212 622 32.54% 67.46%
HD138 24,737 23,257 1,216 51.54% 48.46%
HD139 11,586 35,228 1,060 24.75% 75.25%
HD140 5,833 17,684 533 24.80% 75.20%
HD141 4,259 27,067 509 13.60% 86.40%
HD142 9,169 30,316 735 23.22% 76.78%
HD143 8,184 20,271 782 28.76% 71.24%
HD144 9,529 13,786 502 40.87% 59.13%
HD145 10,827 21,703 936 33.28% 66.72%
HD146 9,038 33,897 1,190 21.05% 78.95%
HD147 11,483 42,904 1,494 21.11% 78.89%
HD148 17,912 29,056 1,897 38.14% 61.86%
HD149 14,769 24,032 872 38.06% 61.94%
HD150 42,646 27,573 1,457 60.73% 39.27%
CC1 68,703 217,956 7,362 23.97% 76.03%
CC2 112,338 113,891 5,610 49.66% 50.34%
CC3 175,031 154,383 8,589 53.13% 46.87%
CC4 186,919 156,335 8,418 54.46% 45.54%
Dist Cowart Cantu Under Cowart% Cantu%
===============================================
CD02 136,367 120,574 8,171 53.07% 46.93%
CD07 116,611 119,973 8,648 49.29% 50.71%
CD08 17,953 10,600 651 62.88% 37.12%
CD09 23,168 95,724 2,949 19.49% 80.51%
CD10 71,965 41,047 2,462 63.68% 36.32%
CD18 39,150 142,169 5,144 21.59% 78.41%
CD22 15,358 15,745 916 49.38% 50.62%
CD29 29,829 86,321 3,165 25.68% 74.32%
CD36 60,960 37,258 2,656 62.07% 37.93%
SBOE6 288,532 278,836 19,307 50.85% 49.15%
HD126 29,470 25,363 1,399 53.75% 46.25%
HD127 41,600 25,816 1,693 61.71% 38.29%
HD128 34,987 16,505 1,177 67.95% 32.05%
HD129 35,892 27,731 2,065 56.41% 43.59%
HD130 51,661 23,756 1,677 68.50% 31.50%
HD131 6,016 35,627 904 14.45% 85.55%
HD132 32,893 33,181 1,299 49.78% 50.22%
HD133 40,783 28,895 2,879 58.53% 41.47%
HD134 37,785 48,422 4,767 43.83% 56.17%
HD135 26,756 28,684 1,269 48.26% 51.74%
HD137 7,294 16,661 699 30.45% 69.55%
HD138 23,374 24,339 1,497 48.99% 51.01%
HD139 10,484 36,185 1,205 22.46% 77.54%
HD140 5,165 18,317 569 22.00% 78.00%
HD141 3,963 27,323 549 12.67% 87.33%
HD142 8,541 30,867 813 21.67% 78.33%
HD143 7,319 21,069 849 25.78% 74.22%
HD144 8,953 14,300 564 38.50% 61.50%
HD145 9,481 22,947 1,038 29.24% 70.76%
HD146 8,001 34,803 1,322 18.69% 81.31%
HD147 9,954 44,255 1,671 18.36% 81.64%
HD148 15,471 31,235 2,158 33.12% 66.88%
HD149 14,072 24,620 980 36.37% 63.63%
HD150 41,446 28,510 1,719 59.25% 40.75%
CC1 61,305 224,448 8,270 21.45% 78.55%
CC2 106,277 119,247 6,313 47.12% 52.88%
CC3 165,385 162,387 10,232 50.46% 49.54%
CC4 178,394 163,329 9,947 52.20% 47.80%
These three races did not feature a Libertarian candidate. District Clerk was actually one slot above County Clerk on the ballot, followed by County Treasurer and the At Large HCDE Trustee race. Abel Gomez, the Libertarian County Clerk candidate, got 30K votes. Chris Daniel outpolled Stan Stanart by 22K votes, while Marilyn Burgess took 3K more than Diane Trautman. There were 5K more undervotes in the District Clerk race. For those of you who speculate about the effect of Libertarian candidates in races like this, make of that what you will. I would also note that Abel Gomez is a Latino candidate, and these other two races featured Latino candidates. Orlando Sanchez pulled in 33K more votes than Stanart, with Dylan Osborne lagging Diane Trautman by 6K. In the HCDE race, Marc Cowart only got 2K more votes than Stanart, while Richard Cantu outpaced Trautman by 20K. Again, make of that what you will.
That’s all I’ve got from Harris County, at least for now. I’ve got a post on Fort Bend in the works, and we should soon have the state data available to ponder. I know there will be more to look at, but for now I hope this has been useful to you.
