This is the Democrats’ analysis of why Homer won’t switch parties and is in good shape to win reelection. It was sent to me by a Democratic operative. 1. In 2008, Homer faced the following obstacles in House District 3: –Obama (08) lost ground to Kerry (04) in every county in the district. –His opponent was well known and very well financed. –His opponent benefited from a $100,000 last-minute media buy. Despite these circumstances, Homer improved his position in all counties from 04 to 08. 2. The voter turnout is more favorable to Republicans in presidential years, more balanced in off years. –Of the 111 local elected officials in HD 3, 96 are Democrats and 15 are Republicans. –Of the 15 Republicans, 10 are from the two smallest counties. –Of the 15 Republicans, only five (from the two smallest counties) have won in non-presidential years. 3. After winning a very close race in 04, Homer was targeted in 06 and won comfortably. –He won over 58% of the vote. –Of the 114 voting precincts in HD 3, he lost only 7, four of them in his opponent’s home county. –He delivered 81% of his 04 vote in an off-year election. 4. 80% of his 08 vote is 21,400. The projected 2010 turnout for the district is under 35,000. In 2006 Homer’s % was equal to or greater that the following Republicans that won: Flynn, B. Cook, Hamilton, Krusee, Miller, S. King, Zedler, Goolsby, Harper-Brown, Branch, Hartnett, Crabb, Davis, Murphy, Bohac, and Talton. Within a point of B. Brown, Crownover, Hancock, and Driver. Within two points of Phillips, Aycock, and Dawson. Homer also finished better than 15 Democrats who were elected. So what does this mean? If the Rs were ever going to get Homer the time was 2008 and they clearly understood the situation, tried really hard, spent a pot full of money and had a perfect set of circumstances at the top of the ticket. Homer not only won, he received the most votes he ever has. He improved his position with his constituency, enhanced his lists, and improved his organization. Targeting him in 2010 will make a little money for consultants. * * * * My comments: The contrarian argument is that in 2008 Homer was running against a candidate he had defeated twice before. That will not be the case this time. Republican House candidates had the burden of the Bush presidency, not to mention the controversy that swirled around speaker Craddick, as well as having to agree to lousy Craddick-dictated campaign strategy. Republicans had little motivation in 08, while they are likely to be highly motivated in 2010. And Homer will be running on a ticket that will not have a credible candidate for governor, nor will it have a recognizable name for any statewide office other than Kinky Friedman. I’m not saying Homer is going to lose. I’m just saying the obvious, that 2010 is a very different year, and past election results may not be predictive of what is going to happen in this volatile political climate. It is never good for conservative Democrats when liberals are in control in Washington.
- Meet the Unruly Clan That Once Ruled the Hill Country
- Damn, It Feels Good to Be a Councilman
- Put Texas and Texas A&M in the Academy Sports and Outdoors Texas Bowl, You Cowards
- The Only Texas Chili Recipe You’ll Ever Need
- Who Gets to Live and Die When the State Relies on False Testimony in Death Penalty Cases?