It’s almost Halloween, and the GOP is haunting any chance to retake county wide seats next year. The culprit is the same mistake we make over and over; complaints about a candidate’s ideological purity. The 2016 Presidential election should have opened our eyes that ideologically pure candidates can’t win. Sure, the county has some pockets where that’s not the case. We are lucky to have representatives Swanson and Cain representing us in Austin. However, their districts are not representative of the county. Before addressing some specific examples of the current ideological purity complaints and how they will come back to do harm next year, let’s first take a look at the electorate in general.
Voter Orientation
Democracy Fund Voter Orientation Group has done some great work in voter orientation. Their work is national, not county wide, but the county makeup is similar. This gives us a good working premise from where to begin analyzing the upcoming election. A couple of points stand out insofar as why ideological purity requirements are detrimental to the overall health of the GOP. They plotted voter’s ideology social on one axis and fiscal on the other and marked which Presidential candidate the voter chose in 2016. Looking solely at the social orientation of the electorate it is 51.6% conservative and 48.4 liberal. Looking solely at the fiscal orientation of the electorate it is 26.5% conservative and 73.5% liberal. Ouch.
Voters aren’t monolithic blocks. Someone can be socially conservative and fiscally liberal or visa versa. When both the scales are looked at together it shows that 44.6% of the voters are both socially and fiscally liberal. This is going to be the traditional democrat voter. By comparison only 22.7% of the voters are both socially and fiscally conservative – the traditional Republican voter. The democrats only need to hold on to their own and pick up 5.5% more votes in order to achieve a majority. Realistically, the Republicans can’t hope to win over enough of the socially conservative fiscally liberal voters to achieve a majority. We have to be able to peel away some of the more moderate voters in the social and fiscally liberal quadrant in order to win.
The second point that stands out is from more recent data. When voters were asked what characteristics they wanted to see in President there was the expected party divide on most issues. However, one issue stood out as desired by both parties – seek[s] compromise so that things get done. The current combination of a electorate oriented towards the democrats and voters wanting to see compromise so that things get done ensure doom for the GOP with ideological purity testing demanded.
HD 148 Race
I’ve previously written about the need to stay gracious in victory and how Republicans are stronger when we adopt a big tent mentality. The electorate orientation only reinforces how important welcoming all who want to be with us is. Thankfully Speaker Bonnen is not going to be an issue going forward. However, insofar as county politics are concerned the Mayoral race and HD 148 race are both areas where the ideological purity bell sounds and harm to the Republican brand follows.
The HD 148 race is particularly damaging. The district is overwhelmingly democratic in orientation. It’s highly unlikely that anyone who even seems that they may be right of center will be elected. Two conservatives are running in the special election, Luis LaRotta and Chris Carmona. However, Chris decided to run as an independent. Chris has run for this seat before, and has run for Republican Party County Chair. It’s difficult to say with a straight face he doesn’t hold Republican values.
When I reached out to him personally for a statement he said:
When we box ourselves in with ideological purity, we neglect people who should be aligned with us on so many principles. People living at or below the poverty line hear those in our movement spouting on about issues that do not matter in their lives, they just want opportunity. We have the chance to really connect with people on cultural and religious issues by talking about our charity toward others and our desire to address matters with compassion and humanity, but instead we get boxed in on issues where none of our goodness actually gets reflected or conveyed to the people that matter the most.
That’s good insight into the electorate, especially in his district. He said that the district composition is 64% Democrat, 28% swing/independent/undecided, and 8% republican. Given the historical election results and general leftward shift of the county overall there’s no reason to doubt that assessment, and little reason to think that someone under the Republican label can even sniff at victory.
HD 148 is a district where engagement can start to move the needle in our direction. However, rather than see the opportunity the ideological purists are out in force saying that Luis is the only “real republican” in the race. If you were one of the 28% up for grabs, or one of the more moderate democrats in the district observing what’s going on would you even want to listen to what the Republican position is? Or would you think that the Republicans are zealots who demand ideological purity? The latter is more likely. Rather than an opportunity to have two different candidates engage the electorate this has become a detriment to the party brand in a district where votes could be shifted.
Mayoral Election
As damaging as HD 148 race is to the Republican brand the mayoral race is an order of magnitude more damaging. At least with HD 148 the scope of damage is limited. The mayoral election is doing damage on a county wide scale. The question of is Tony Buzbee a real conservative is a pronounced narrative, and it’s a narrative that is going to come back to do untold harm to the Republicans next year.
Bill King has some good points, but he is definitely not the individual to hold up as a bastion of conservative ideology. And that’s okay; a hard core conservative isn’t going to win the race for mayor. However, to attack Buzbee as not a true conservative by comparison to King is laughable. King has a book where he declares himself to be unapologetically moderate and he also says that prayer in public needs to be avoided. The leftward tilt to his social stances is the exact opposite of what the data on electorate orientation tells us what is electable.
However, because he almost defeated Turner last time, and because he was seen as the “Republican” candidate in that nonpartisan race he is being hailed as the “true Republican” in this race. This in turn is giving rise to attacks on Buzbee for his past entanglement with the Democrat party. Ideological purity means Buzbee has to be attacked. The average voter who hears attacks on Buzbee because he engages with both parties is going to be turned off to the Republican message. The data tells us that voters want someone who will compromise so things get done.
What’s especially worrisome, though, is what happens come runoff time. There’s a persistent rumor that King has said he will vote for Turner in a Turner/Buzbee runoff. King’s camp denies that this was said; however, there’s text messages (see below with names/numbers redacted) in the near contemporaneous time frame to the event where the statement was allegedly made suggesting that King did make the statement. This would be an easy issue to put to rest; King just has to come out and say he will endorse Buzbee if the runoff is Turner/Buzbee. The lack of such a statement lends credibility to those saying that the statement was made. If it does come to pass how is that going to make the Republican Party look? Lots of possible answers come to mind, but none are helpful to the Republican brand.
Path Forward
With Trump on the ballot next year is a tough time to run as a Republican. Absent the way this election cycle has played out there was reason for hope. Some of the political undercurrents, such as the low bail settings, give reason to hope that some of the ticket splitting voters would vote Republican, at least for the criminal courts. The District Attorney’s generally soft on crime actions only reinforce the need for republican judges who are going to be more law and order oriented. Now, messaging, already difficult with Trump using most of the oxygen in the room, becomes exceptionally more difficult because of all the ideological purity party infighting that has occurred. Until the infighting is resolved, and the ideological purity scourge abates, we are our own worst enemy regarding electability.
The problem remains that, with preciously few exceptions, the GOP is characterized by group think and rewards candidates that move further to the right. Sarah Davis barely won her primary, and probably did so by attracting outsiders to vote in the GOP primary. The GOP, at the voter level, has not truly acknowledged its minority status in Harris or Ft Bend and votes in primaries as if they were living in Montgomery or Comal Counties.
Ideological orthodoxy in the GOP makes it quite difficult for the GOP to take advantage of cracks in the normally more fractured Dem coalition. And the GOP is increasingly putting distance between itself and moderate voters that might be open to the GOPs message.
The Democrats in Harris County have so far been playing a much more pragmatic game. They tend to pick the more moderate candidates (Fletcher, for example). For all the heat and light about AOC and Bernie, those types of candidates have performed poorly in Democratic primaries in Texas. There may be a nasty primary for DA, but I suspect theyll just pick the moderate.
The impact of Warren (the most leftward plausible Dem nominee at this point) as a Dem nominee would help the GOP in Harris County…except she would be running against Trump.
In short the Dems vote in primaries as if they are scared of losing general elections…the GOP votes as if there is no general election. Until that changes, and especially if Trump manages a second term, the GOP will end up on a 20 year plus wilderness trek in Harris and Fort Bend that even aggressive GOP gerrymandering will not remedy.
Tom in Lazybrook, great comment.
Buzbee is an open borders guy. Ask him about illegal immigration and watch him run. He’s more left wing than big spending Edd Emmett and abortion promoter Devon Anderson combined.
DanMan, you are never happy with anyone. Is there any politician that you support? Besides Trump?
I responded to a repost elsewhere: I have lived in this district for more than 35 years and worked for Republican candidates dating back to Dave Schein in 1992 in the district. The district is by no means a lock for Democrats. In addition to huge growth of young professionals in the Heights sector of the district, even in the Beto blow-out year the R candidate for HD 148 in a General election took 32% of the vote, and 40% has been more typical. In a special election anything can happen.
Carmona raised zero dollars in the most recent campaign finance report, in contrast to $5800 for Luis LaRotta and $400 for another nominal, inactive R candidate on the ballot. Republican voters would be wise to follow the lead of Congressman Crenshaw and the Harris County Republican Party and unite behind LaRotta.
I’m not sure how a district that is +20 for the Democrats and trending left can be called anything other than a safe district for the Democrats. Young professionals in the Heights aren’t going to break in the numbers needed to overcome the baseline Democratic advantage.
Until we accept the situation on the ground for what it is we won’t begin to change outcomes in elections. This doesn’t mean we have to sacrifice our core beliefs, but it does mean acknowledging that 3/4 of the population disagrees with us on fiscal policy and social policy is an even split. It’s going to take finding areas of common ground and working from there to start seeing a change . No amount of campaign fundraising is going to be enough to overcome the baseline political demographics in the district.
Young professionals tend to vote for Democrats. And if one looks at the precinct data in the district, that is largely supports that assertion. As Anglo districts in Oak Forest, the Heights, and Candlelight have become younger, theyve trended leftward. There is some rightward movement in some of the gentrifying areas, as largely monolithic voters are replaced by groups that split votes more often, but thats just replacing 80 percent Dem voters with 60 percent Dem voters. The Republican movement in those areas has a cap, and at a level below where it needs to be for a GOP candidate to be competitive. An individual Republican can observe more supporters at the same time that the district becomes even harder to win in a general (not special) election.
The only way you get out of that trap is with a dynamic shift in at least one key voting demographic in the district. Primarying anyone who deviates from a party orthodoxy makes that dynamic change very difficult.
Fine points but if debates over ideology are counter productive then so is having political arties to begin with as grouping by ideology is a basic purpose of such.
I see your logic Robert, but that’s a coarse argument to a fine grain argument. The Republican party thrives when we have a big tent mentality. This pure ideology fighting is counterproductive because the Republican coalition is by necessity one of tension between the fiscal and social conservatives. The ideological fighting is because there’s little willingness by a segment of the party that is unwilling to cooperate with the other end of the coalition.
What I don’t understand is how LaRotta is an “ideological purity” candidate. He’s literally the only Republican running in the race…you could argue that Carmona isn’t running as a Republican and the other Republican isn’t really running. “I’m the only Republican” is a message you use to capture the vote of the Republicans in the district. It won’t win you the seat, but it will win you some votes. You don’t use “I’m the only Republican” when you talk to Democrats who might swing your way or when talking to independents.
It’s especially frustrating, because Luis hasn’t had good opportunities to launch a political career until now because he “wasn’t Republican enough” or “he’s not our kind of Republican”. What is the point here? That nobody should run in this district with an R beside their name? A dear departed friend of mine (PhD in Political Science and successful Congressional campaign manager) liked to tell me that “the purpose of a political party is to win elections”. What does it say about the HCRP when the biggest Republican name in the race believes he has a better chance of winning an election by posing as a non-Republican than by accepting their endorsement?
Jeff I’m not criticizing Luis. As far as I know his campaign isn’t behind the attacks on Chris not being Republican enough.
I’ve been a Republican in Texas since it was a felony. In the 1960s, I was an officer of my high school teenage Republican club and was an officer in the University of Texas Young Republicans. I’m an unreconstructed Goldwater Republican.
Yet, based on some of my posts on this board, I’ve been called a Republican in name only. I wonder what the people who call me a RINO were doing in 1968 when I was part of a group of UT YRs who spent hours handwriting postcards to registered voters asking them to join with us to form a two-party Texas. Where were you when I was working to turn out voters for Paul Eggers in 1970?
I’ve voted in Republican primaries every two years for as long as I can remember with two exceptions. One election year, there weren’t any important races in the Republican primary and I had a friend running for judge in a contested Democratic primary. I crossed over and voted for him. The other, I was in Arusha, Tanzania representing a client before an international criminal tribunal and my absentee ballot didn’t get there in time.
The party I worked hard to build is making it harder and harder for me to be part of it.
I’ve got both a strong libertarian streak in me and a strong compassionate conservative streak. For instance, I recognize the need for some form of health care provision for the 20 percent of Texans without health insurance. I worry about our public school system and I am becoming more appalled with our disfunctional tax system and its reliance on property taxes. I get pissed when people restrict the ability of cities to raise money, then complain when the streets are full of potholes.
Then I watch our political leaders pitch a hissy over what bathroom a transgender person should use when there is no record of any transgender person ever doing anything untoward in a public restroom.
I hear Republicans touting local control of government, then I hear a tape of a supposedly moderate speaker of the house talk about making life miserable for cities and counties in the next session.
Whatever happened to the party I worked for that looked for solutions to problems, not just saying no?
Tom in Lazybrook is right in a lot of ways. The Republican Party is no longer a big tent party. This isn’t to say that the Democrats aren’t doing the same thing just at the other end of the political spectrum. But the Republican Party seems to have hitched its wagon to a declining demographic, older white males especially non-college grads, while the Democrats are hitching their wagon to growing demographics.
And, what do I hear from to many people: that I’m not a “true” Republican whatever that means. This isn’t Stalin’s Russia or Kim’s North Korea. I can be a Republican without agreeing with the entire party line.
And, I’ve earned the right to call myself a Republican as long as I want. I won’t let anybody take that away from me.