Why Sanchez Lost
Where to begin on this one. Short version of the story, he lost it with conservative Hispanics and moderate whites. He didn't get the highest % in Hispanic counties (Kirk & Sharp did). That's a severe blow and the next time someone tells you negative ads are bad for elections, you tell em they worked just fine in Texas. While both parties ran em, as far as the statewide races go, the Reps had the more effective ones. Anytime you pin a murder on a candidate, make the single most conservative Dem to ever win statewide look like a child molestor, and convince people that a pro-business mayor from Dallas is a big spending liberal, you know you've done something. That's not bitterness there, folks ... just an acknowledgement that it worked.
Nevertheless, there's two counties worth looking at for Sanchez to see where he went down. One is Nueces county, where the votes are in and Sanchez lost. Check the results (100% precints counted):
Sharp - 53.51%
Kirk - 53.24%
Mirabel - 53.04%
Bernsen - 50.01%
Yanez - 49.40%
Watson - 48.81%
Parsons - 47.75%
Sanchez - 47.31%
Boyles - 46.87%
Obviously, the voters paid some attention as they went over the ballot and split their ticket to avoid the murderous drug smuggler, Sanchez. Three Supreme Court candidates (Yanez, Mirabel, and Parsons) all got better results than Sanchez. How much dough did they spend getting out the vote in Nueces? I'm thinking its far less.
In another county, the votes have yet to be counted, but I'll go ahead and take a wild guess that Sanchez either narrowly gets a plurality or outright loses. Bexar goes for Dems only slightly (about as much as Nueces). The fact that Sanchez could not carry major counties that constitute what should have been his base was a major shortcoming on the part of Dems statewide.
I only add this link to check back whenever Bexar County finally gets their crap together.
Report Style
There's a lesson to be learned here, and I think overall, its a positive one. Voters did not seem to look at this as an election about race, or demographics, or regional pride. They seemed to have looked at it on the merits ... that thing some call issues. Sanchez never laid out an argument to toss out Perry ... NEVER. Sure, he tried to say Perry oversaw the insurance mess, etc, etc, etc ... but he never connected the dots for the voters. Just saying that something happens on one's watch isn't enough when its such a low burning issue like homeowners insurance. Another lesson for any party to heed: Think Big. Can anyone really tell me what the Democratic theme of this election was among the statewide candidates? Anyone???
So there we have it ... Sharp's dream that if he only had a few more Hispanics voting in 1998 he could have won might have held true in 1998. The mistake made was to re-fight the last war. Its a mistake that has broght down empires. Let's (well, us Dems anyway) hope it doesn't get repeated in 4 years.
UPDATE: Wednesday at noon, and votes are trickling in from Bexar county ... 15% in and its still predominately Republican in outlook there. Will update tonite with some final number crunching ... presuming Tarrant has their problems solved.
Comments
Insightful. I would like it as well if many of the elections were seen through something other than racist lenses. Just me, but I can't stand too much analysis of "the black vote" or "the Hispanic vote". Don't like the idea of a race being treated as a political monolith.
And, of course, I think Dems do it more than Reps. GWB tried his damndest to get some of the "black vote" with issues like vouchers (and obviously failed miserably), but I'd rather not get the vote than get it by racial pandering and handouts (read: reparations.) I don't like Dems taking blacks for granted any more than I like Reps taking whites for granted. It's disgusting.
Posted by: Ulysses | November 6, 2002 11:29 AM
Well, the facts of the matter are that in any state with a diverse population, when you get to the horserace analogy, you have to guess what's going to happen with the makeup of the voters who you think will vote. There's plenty of ways to divide it and all have had their day in the sun. In 1990, Richards won with the last second surge of support among Republican women. In 1994, W won with a steady stream of support from white males. Wherever the trends come from, they will get analyzed. Doesn't mean that any group necessarily gets a vote out monolithicly, as Richards surely did not get a majority of Rep women ... just enough to break open a close race.
The Nueces County results, and when they come in, the Bexar County results, will show that in this race, the mere fact that Sanchez was Hispanic did not carry much clout. It was a high profile race (contrasted against Victor Morales' Senate run in which he got something like 45% just driving around in his truck) which meant voters apparently paid attention to what the election was about moreso than they did perhaps about whether anyone wanted to see "one of their own" get elected.
One could argue that the results of Sharp, Kirk, and Sanchez in East Texas (as reported in "Why John Sharp Lost") indicate a stronger resolve by conservative Dem voters to support "one of their own" (being a conservative Dem, not just a white guy) more than voters in the valley.
Still looking for the ethnic/regional breakdowns, though. I'll likely do some county/regional results on the statewide races tonite and hopefully have time to do some precint-by-precint results here in Harris County.
Posted by: gregwythe | November 6, 2002 11:49 AM