« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Extraordinary Nature of the Texas Runoff

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 30th, 2012 at 08:59 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It is hard to overstate just how extraordinary Ted Cruz’s underdog entry into the Texas runoff is and just how the odds are still stacked against him unless conservatives rally quickly with lots of money.

David Dewhurst has been Lt. Governor of Texas for more than a decade. He has massive name ID throughout the state. Ted Cruz started this race with a three or four percent showing in polling.

More so, Dewhurst is a multimillionaire who can write large sums of money to fund his campaign. Ted Cruz cannot. Texas has several of the most expensive media markets in the country and the state is too large to go door to door across the state.

Dewhurst’s political team is Governor Rick Perry’s highly successful (in Texas) political team. I know a number of them and consider them friends. They are formidable.

To the chagrin of Texas tea party activists, Governor Perry himself is backing Lt. Governor Dewhurst publicly.

All the stars aligned for David Dewhurst — a deep well of money to draw from, high existing name id, statewide incumbency, support from the Governor and his winning political team. Still, the tea party rallied behind Ted Cruz and got him into a runoff.

Now, the variables are largely the same. Ted Cruz must raise a ton of cash quickly to compete. He has eight weeks. Media will be ridiculously expensive. He will have some of the biggest guns in Texas firing in his direction.

One thing Ted Cruz has that David Dewhurst does not is the backing of the conservative movement and tea party activists.

David bested Goliath. Ted Cruz will need your help to best David Dewhurst.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • ctredstater

    Senate seats are so huge – and having a truly conservative caucus is one of the most important priorities if we are to get America back on track. I think wistfully of “what might have been” if we had gotten our people from Alaska, Colorado and Nevada in this Senate.

    Ted Cruz seems like the real thing – and this would be a huge victory for Red State America.

    thanks erick!

  • bk

    You said “Dewhurst is a multimillionaire who can write large sums of money to fund his campaign.”

    In fact, Dewhurst HAS loaned his campaign at least $13 MILLION.

    Ref: Dallas Morning News blog

    He’s worth $200M according to Wikipedia, but even so eight figures is not exactly chump change. No doubt if he loses, anyone expecting legislation to make it through Texas will be expected to pony up.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    Early votes (52% of total): Dewhurst – 47.98%, Cruz – 30.03%, Leppert – 13.82%

    Election day votes: Dewhurst – 41.47%, Cruz – 38.12%, Leppert – 12.88%

    Dewhust only won the election day vote by 3.35%. The run-off is very winnable for Cruz provided he can raise the funds to get his message out. A series of campaign appearances by Sarah Palin would probably put him over the top.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    When the best, most reliable voters were against you, that’s not good news. But it’s fixable.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    …and toward Cruz. Notice that Leppert’s election day numbers basically mirrored his early vote total.

    Dewhurst likely had a well financed absentee vote campaign. I don’t believe that option exists in the run-off.

  • sulmak

    http://www.tedcruz.org/

    Looks like he has ~25,000 of the 100,000 dollar goal so far.

  • nvagvup

    At first glance it appears that Cruz will have trouble winning the runoff. A deeper analsis suggests otherwise.

    Cruz and Dewhurst got 79% of the total votes cast last night, with Dewhurst besting Cruz 44.6% – 34,2%. On the surface that makes it appear that in the runoff, Cruz would need to pick up about 76% of the people who voted for the other candidates. But note that among early voters, Dewhurst beat Cruz 48% – 30%, meaning he got 61.5% of the votes from those who voted for either Dewhurst or Cruz. However, among voters who did not vote early, he bested Cruz by just 52% – 48% in that two man race.

    With Cruz having the momentum in the late stages of the contest, this would suggest that this is closer to a four-point deficit than the ten-point deficit the overall vote totals show. If that’s the case, then Cruz only needs to win about 62% of the voters who voted for one of the other candidates in the primary.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    ….because they won’t all show up.

  • nvagvup

    Yup! Turnout in Texas’ runoffs have been a small fraction of regular elections. The passionate show up. The rest stay home. Cruz wins.

  • texasref

    While I’m sure you have some data to back your assertion that the percentage of those who voted early have a history of voting more consistently than the percentage of those who waited until election day to vote, I can speak only for myself in that I am a consistent voter, and I waited until the last hour on election day to vote. Even conceding your point, the momentum shift is the larger takeaway. Furthermore, election day votes count just as much as early votes.

    What a pleasure to press the button for Mr. Cruz yesterday evening. I also enjoyed voting out our Republican district attorney, who decided to investigate the grand jurors who had begun to investigate her office–very chilling Obama-like behavior, especially for a Republican–absolutely unforgiveable. Unfortunately, I was in the minority in voting to try to oust our slick, establishment county party chair. And I finally had my say in the Republican nomination for president. Let’s just say I tried to send one last message before coming on board with our eventual official nominee.

  • teapartypatriot4ever

    Like Miitt Romney who learned from Ted Kennedy how to defeat a political opponent the liberal way from his own defeat at the hands of Ted Kennedy, Mr Dewhurst has take his que from Mr Mass liberal progressive RINO Romney and his brutal multi-million dollar GOP establishment funded and supported and Goldman Sachs funded 24/7 Neg Ad carpet bombing political smear campaign war that he waged against Conservatives Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. for 7 months.

    Thus is what Dewhurst is now doing to Constitutional Conservative Ted Cruz..

    Thus, it will take more than a hope on a wing and a prayer to pull this win out, but it can be done. This must be a massive coordinated grass roots effort from every corner in Texas and America. make no mistake about it.

  • RJLigier

    Even the Tea Party is susceptible to revisionist history………….congratulations go to David Dewhurst for holding back two social liberals, Cruz and Leppert, masquerading as conservatives. We cannot afford to dilute the Senate pool with more progressive/libertarian Republicans masquerading as conservatives with upcoming replacements on the US Supreme Court.

  • michaelbowler

    Cruz owes a great deal to the conservative movement, including the local conservative talk show hosts. In Houston, the growing sensation, Michael Berry, made his position pretty clear. He was quick to debunk Dewhurst’s claims about Cruz, also articulating Dewhurst’s positions with descriptions of his actions behind the scenes in Austin.

    If the people of Texas, outside Houston and San Antonio, were to hear a few of Michael’s shows…Dewhurst wouldn’t be able to get elected to dog catcher.

    Another San Antonio/Houston host, Joe “Pags” has been somewhat more favorable to Dewhurst, but most also recognize that his views are a lot more establishment.

    Haven’t been to Dallas recently, so I’m not certain how this being played there, anyone up there want to weigh in.

  • commonsenseobserver

    The Family Research Council and former Senator Rick Santorum have endorsed Cruz, so how is he a social liberal?

    I wouldn’t mind Dewhurst, but I prefer Cruz.

  • RJLigier

    We’ll just say that certain proponents of conservative values are not what they appear to be…………..if you’re familiar with TX politics, you are aware there lies much more under the surface since the days of Ann Richards. Whereas no really cares about social liberals within the municipalities, as the culture war intensifies through the 2012 election cycle, we cannot afford to dilute the Senate pool with progressive/libertarian Republicans with US Supreme Court in the balance.

  • michaelbowler

    RJLigier,
    I know Leppart is a progressive fake who had the backing of SEIU/Acorn groups. We also see how he did…miserably.

    BUT, by what measure do you deem Cruz a social liberal? His real positions are very conservative as his record during his tenure with the state government will confirm.. He has the backing of TEA party conservatives, precisely because of what he really believes. Dewhurst has tried to paint him as an amnesty supporter, though his position is entirely 180 degrees opposite. Dewhurst is a corporate crony, doing all he can to enable illegals and their employers to continue status quo.

    It was Dewhurst that killed the sanctuary cities bill in the last session, had not been shelved, it would have passed. It was Dewhurst who killed the anti-groping TSA bill. Dewhurst is a moderate when he’s got any principles, he’s sure as heck no conservative.

    We know Dewhurst is a republican establishment RINO, when he’s got any principles at all. Mostly he and Joe Strauss are dirty politicians, party not so important.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Just curious :P

  • michaelbowler

    SEIU/Acorn

    ’nuff sed

  • policywonk1492

    I and my three daughters live in Texas and voted at various locations during early voting and on election day itself. We all noticed we were the only ones voting at our locations while we were there and concluded turnout was extremely light. Each of us vowed to try and get at least 10 others to come to the runoff election and are all talking it up wherever we go. Personally I am appalled at the amount of money spent during elections and wish it went toward paying down debt instead. I am also extremely annoyed by robocalls and seeing political (and misleading) ads on TV and even my beloved Internet sites. I was particulsarly upset at Duhurst slurs against Cruz on a number of conservative websites. Every freedom loving Texan needs to do everything possible to get Cruz supporters to actually come and vote in July because it will be turnout, not public sentiment or poll results that provide the ending to this story.

  • tnguy

    …is utterly inconsequential to the national debt.

  • commonsenseobserver

    You know.

  • tnguy

    …is from those with major personal debt issues?

    Or are you suggesting that those who give to campaigns should be responsible for paying the debts of those burdened by household debt?

    Regardless, the billions spent on elections would have no impact on the trillions in debt, government or household.

  • blh557

    seems to be the word for the day regarding Dewhurst’s millions. Seems to me at least part of what our fight is about is the fact that the other guys are painting an “us against them” picture. Looks like they’re not by themselves. We complain that Obamao is “buying” the election with billions in “elitist” donations and yet we fault one of our own for having the wherewithal to put money into his own coffers. “We” had better be able to muster up a much better fighting phrase than “Damn his millions! Full steam ahead!” Like it or not, Cruz is wealthy compared to most of us, as is Dewhurst. Good thing! I wouldn’t want to vote for a guy who couldn’t get past the soup kitchen and I don’t think anyone else would, no matter how stupid we think Joe Biden is. I’m just saying that “we” should stop pseudo-condemning candidates for having wealth.

  • woode

    when I served on the Texas SREC (1990s). He was the state party finance chair and was never friendly to conservatives. I don’t trust him. Similar to KBH.

  • jerbeetwo

    Dewhurst supporters will go into the run-off confident and complacent. Us tea Partiers are more charged up for our guys. I see a “path to victory” for Ted Cruz, as Erick would put it.

  • Liberty Patriot

    Ted Cruz is a form over substance candidate. Republicans have for years crowed that the Democrats elect vapid candidates that have form but no substance – Clinton, Obama and Pelosi to name a few.

    Now comes Cruz, who has been a government employee for more years than he’s been in the private sector. He’s never run a business. He’s never been in an accountable position to stakeholders, investors or constituents. He’s never held elected office, though he’s run two campaigns to get elected in Texas.

    He’s a smooth talking lawyer and a great speaker. He *believes* what he’s saying, but what is his record on those beliefs? As a staffer, he carried out orders. Telling that his Attorney General boss won’t endorse him – probably because Cruz is out taking credit for his boss’s work. As a private sector attorney, his record is not well known. And don’t tell me that he’s written amicus briefs, because anyone can do that.

    Talk all you want about Dewhurst, but Cruz is form over substance. He’s a paper tiger and I’m getting tired of conservatives voting for these kind of guys and wondering why they change their stripes when they get to Washington!

    At least Dewhurst has a record – in elected office and in business.

    We have no idea how Cruz will act in the Senate. He’s more likely to use the latest popular talking points than to stand on principles. That’s basically how he is campaigning in Texas. Form over substance gets America no where.

  • ihateliberals

    The longer the RINO’s stay in power the braver they become and show their liberal spots. I said all along when Perry was still running for the POTUS tht he was a Liberal in disguise and it seems that I was right. People have got to realize that while the Republican Party use to be for Conservatives they ahve moved far left. The likes of John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner just to name a few are tryng to kill the Tea Party and any conservatives they can. They only time they talk of being conservative is when they re running for office.

  • PowerToThePeople

    and like both guys, but what you are trying to peddle is pure hog wash.

    Owning a business does not make one ready for office nor does it make one a good congressman. Plenty of business owners in the congress who suck bad

    Second, one does not have to be a boss to have convictions or be conservative. Being a boss does not guarantee conservatism. In fact past record of conservatism does not guarantee future conservatism.

    And being an attorney does not make one bad or good for being on congress. Being a smooth talker is one of the things that separates good attorneys from great attorneys. It is just how that business works. But there are plenty of attorneys out there who can talk like gods yet are as conservative as anyone. And i have no clue how to write amicus briefs, do not know what an amicus brief is, so you are wrong, not everyone can write them.

    And last but not least. Being brand new to politics is no less proof a person will govern how they promise than being in politics for some time proves a person will continue to govern the correct way. Every politician has to start new and the only thing that matters is how they governed today, yesterday, and tomorrow. People who have been consistent conservatives change stripes all the time, the only thing we can do is see what happens then vote accordingly.

  • whitetop

    Saying Pags is establishment is an understatement. Times I have heard him interview Lamar Smith his questions were so softball a 5 year old could have answered. I don’t think he ever had Richard Mack on his show to give his audience a chance to hear Mack. Power of the media. Give the people information you want them to have.

  • cbartlett

    I decided if Romney was going to be inevitable, then he’d be inevitable without me. Noticed that about 15% of the voters in our county did the same thing, but didn’t see the state totals.

    It was a privilege to vote for Ted last week. This runoff will be totally about turnout. Interesting – I heard Ted speak at our local University back in January and this is exactly what he and his team predicted. They actually WANTED a runoff (even back then) because they saw a huge advantage for a tea-party conservative to go up against a GOP establishment candidate in a run-off. It’s all about turnout and they think a couple of months of concentrated effort will get more passionate turnout for Ted. I certainly hope DewCrist doesn’t manage to buy this election – he sure put out lots of flat out lies and several mis-truths at the last minute so that rebuttal wasn’t possible. Now that the lies are out in the open, I hope Ted’s campaign picks up the ball and runs!

  • cbartlett

    Ted’s campaign received $120,000 as of noon today – 36 hours after results were in! Maybe we woke up the rest of the country! Hooray!

  • PowerToThePeople

    as betting on the Cowboys to win the Superbowl after being eliminated from the playoffs.

    But by golly you made a point, some point that is.

  • cbartlett

    Anyone that can win a Mayor’s race in Houston, Dallas or Austin is probably at least a moderate, if not a downright liberal.

  • cbartlett

    Dewhurst is VERY deep in GOP party politics and has been for a lot of years – he will be no different than Kay Bailey has been. I think I’d rather take a chance on someone that doesn’t “owe” so many people. Ted just might decide to be a real conservative and buck something that good ‘ole Mitch is going to try to force down our throats.

  • Liberty Patriot

    So form over substance is just fine with you?

    My read of your comments is:

    A. Experience, of any kind, is arbitrary as far as determining whether someone will be a good or bad lawmaker

    B. Beliefs are more important

    C. Convictions in your beliefs are important

    Um, yeah. This is the kind of stuff that wins a debate tournament.

    What a person *does* with their convictions is what we should be looking at, especially those who have served in office and are seeking reelection. Voters have no idea how, or whether, Cruz will stand when his convictions are under a test. They do know he’ll give a great speech and argue against the opposition.

    Yeah, that’s form over substance. And that’s what voters like me hate about Congress. These guys are great on the stump, but when they get to DC, they cave to lobbyists, drifting away from constituents and the rhetoric on the campaign trail.

  • PowerToThePeople

    and try again. Your comment makes little to no sense.

    All politicians promise, few live by those promises. Plenty of experienced “:conservatives” have gone astray. So no, record means little when they start pandering.

    Being “new” to the game of politics does not mean a thing. It does not prove they will keep their word or break their word. And that is what elections are for. If people actually started voting out liars, few would break their word. But being new to the game does not mean he is bad or will not stand on his convictions.

    I am reminded of two losers in my neck of the woods that started out so strongly conservative yet wen the way of the RINO, Graham and Ingliss. Just because someone has been in office for so many years does not mean that tomorrow they will not become squishes. Your argument makes little sense and is in no way a reason to not vote in a guy who states he believes they way we believe. If he turns out to be a liar, you vote him out. It is that simple.

    I said I like both, but there is a ton to complain about with Dewhurst. So let’s not act as if the voters are taking a big chance by voting in Cruz and in fact, they will win big if he turns out to be the conservative he claims to be. With Dewhurst, they will keep the same ole moderate person they had yesterday.

  • gekster

    I know it has to be too much.

  • acat

    …

  • gekster

    ntntntntnt