Skip to main content

The biggest shocker of Election Day 2010 is now official, and the GOP's tally of Democratic seats flipped now rises to 62:

In a surprise upset in southern Texas, Blake Farenthold, a former radio show co-host with no prior experience in politics, has officially beaten Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Democrat who had held his seat in the 27th district since 1982...“Although I gained votes during the manual recount, I did not surpass my opponent’s lead,” Mr. Ortiz said in a prepared statement. “Therefore, with great respect and admiration in the democratic process, I congratulate my opponent, Mr. R. Blake Farenthold, in his election to the 27th Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

Ortiz was just the highest-profile victim in what was a disastrous night for Democrats in Texas in general, and Latino Democrats in Texas in particular. Not only did Ortiz fall to defeat, but so did Ciro Rodriguez in the 23rd district, which also reaches into the Rio Grande Valley. At the state legislative level, the news was just as bad.  Three Democrats representing heavily Latino areas in South Texas (Solomon Ortiz Jr, Abel Herrero, and Yvonne Gonzales-Toureilles) all were beaten. Also, Democrat Rene Nunez, who represented much of the Rio Grande Valley on the state Board of Education, was upset by his Republican challenger.

The preferences of Latino voters in Texas do not seem to have changed dramatically in recent years. Comparing the 2006 Senate exit polls (since Rick Perry faced three challengers that year) to the 2010 gubernatorial exit polls, we see that both KBH and Perry ran about 15-20 points behind their statewide totals among Latino voters.

So, what happened? It looks like Texas Latino voters stayed home in far greater number than their Anglo (and infinitely more conservative) counterparts.

This isn't reflected in the exit polls: the exits claim that Latinos made up 27% of the 2010 electorate, as opposed to just 15% of the 2006 electorate. But the numbers, as you can see, simply don't match up. Consider the drop off in the heavily Latino 27th Congressional district from the 2008 with the two most heavily Anglo districts in the state (the 4th and the 8th):

Turnout comparsion, Texas Congressional Districts, 2006--2010 (percentage in parentheses is the percentage difference between 2010 and 2006)

TX-04 (79% white): 165,269--186,116 (+12.6%)
TX-08 (80% white): 157,058--202,798 (+29.1%)

TX-27 (67% Hispanic): 109,314--106,480 (-2.6%)

The belief that Texas would eventually evolve into a swing state, or even a blue state, was predicated on the state's growing Latino political influence. 2010 was clearly a significant bump in that evolution.

The Democratic Party, both in Texas and nationwide, would be well served by figuring out why.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:40 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How's that mandate workin' out for ya? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    El Tomaso, not2plato

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:42:23 PM PST

    •  How's that Mandate Working out for Them? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      El Tomaso

      I predict it's going to be much more fun to watch.

      ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

      by NevDem on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:01:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What kind of voting machines do they use? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a lynn, beltane, inHI, El Tomaso, Bluefin, bluezen

    When exit polls are apparently so far off it's time to ask tough questions.

    Texas Republicans have proven to be ruthless.

    Vote machine rigging would not seem to be out of the range of possibility.

    look for my DK Greenroots diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:43:17 PM PST

  •  Ya think maybe deciding 9.8% unemployment (10+ / 0-)

    is OK, meant the base got less motivated to vote for Democrats?

  •  Aiye yi yi! No es bueno. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greatdarkspot, El Tomaso

    Umm, that's PRESIDENT Obama and SENATOR Franken, mr. o'reilly.

    by filby on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:46:34 PM PST

  •  I think we shouldn't assume that Latino (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, greatdarkspot, El Tomaso

    voters vote for the Latino candidate, either.

  •  but... (5+ / 0-)

    not all late-breaking election news is bad.

    See these diaries:

    Our efforts matter -- a post-election tale (NY-1)
    by casperr

    I am a killer
    by some guy

    for some good newses

  •  I'll leave this question to (5+ / 0-)

    the local activists, who undoubtedly know the most.  Apparently, the state Dem party sucked hard this year from what I've heard.

    Cold hearted orb/That rules the night/Removes the colours From our sight/Red is gray and/Yellow white/But we decide/Which is right/And/Which is an Illusion

    by KingofSpades on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:47:41 PM PST

    •  I'll add disillusionment with the Big O. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingofSpades, bluezen

      After Obama won, it was not uncommon for a Black or Latino person to just come up with a big smile and say how happy they were that Obama won. (I'm rather pale, despite my mixed ancestry).

      But for at least a year, many Latinos have been wondering when that immigration reform thing was going to finally come around.  I'm not saying their expectations were justified or not, but those were the expectations of at least some people. They'd been promised, you know, and for a lot of people -- particularly the first generation kids who were just now old enough to vote and are scared about their parents being deported -- that was their number one issue.  

      Obama's Oct 25 promise to "get on reform right after the election" wasn't much of a wooing. It was like, "oh yeah, we knew you'd say that again."

      Again, I'm not advocating the case, but people were disillusioned by not only having their particular promise ignored but also by the scaling up of enforcement to levels stronger than when Bush was in office. And then they'd ask themselves, "Change for the worse?"

      Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

      by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:00:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush actually scaled down from what Clinton was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades

        doing. Quite naturally of course, as it benefited his 'real' base- the corps, etc., employing them and driving wages down.

        but also by the scaling up of enforcement to levels stronger than when Bush was in office.

        Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

        by Bluefin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:01:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's why (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan

        it's key they pass the DREAM Act.

        Cold hearted orb/That rules the night/Removes the colours From our sight/Red is gray and/Yellow white/But we decide/Which is right/And/Which is an Illusion

        by KingofSpades on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:23:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bill White wasn't so hot… (0+ / 0-)

      …at the top of the ticket. He should have easily been able to hang the state budget deficit around Rick Perry's neck and he didn't.

      Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com

      by DemSign on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 06:18:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe the Latino voters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    El Tomaso

    got sick of the racist shit coming out of the pasty white gringos in Texas and Arizona and moved to friendlier confines in California and other places.  

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:49:04 PM PST

    •  What about those (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      El Tomaso

      teabaggers trying to "True the Vote" ?

      Any record of latino voter suppression in this district?

      The drop in latino votes while so much anti latino sentiment is in the air, especially for somebody named Ortiz!

      Donde hay humo, hay calor.

      •  The Rio GrandeValley is majority Mexican-American (0+ / 0-)

        and bilingual, and historically votes Democratic. It doesn't make voter suppression impossible-- there is an aggressive right-wing wealthier anglo minority-- but harder.

        Ortiz was in office a long time, and was a hack. Valley voters wouldn't swoon over him because of his name.

        South Texas is NOT Arizona. Latinos are the majority.

        Human reason is beautiful and invincible --Milosz, Incantation

        by juancito on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:04:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree on your eval of Ortiz. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluezen

          I remember when he first ran (yeah, I voted for him, and most all the (D)'s down there as I and the boundaries moved around).
          Found it curious that his new House committee assignments were mostly on committees dealing in with the so-called "War on Drugs". That "War" has just gone all to Hell since, hasn't it?
          He was a step up (or sideways) from good ole Kika De La Garza though, there was a wheeler-dealer piece of furniture.

          Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

          by Bluefin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:57:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  This district is probably 85-90% Hispanic... (0+ / 0-)

        there has historically been a lot of 'voter manipulation' though.

        Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

        by Bluefin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:47:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  also includes corpus christi (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bluefin, bluezen

          Corpus christi has historically been very conservative with many ex military retiring there.

          God bless the USA

          by jas1984 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:21:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ortiz has always won Corpus (0+ / 0-)

            Though his margins were narrower here than in the Valley. And Obama won Corpus too in 2008, though Bush Jr. won it in 2004 and 2000, Clinton beat both Dole and Bush Sr.

            Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com

            by DemSign on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:00:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  True enough, but still majority minority: (0+ / 0-)

            Corpus Christi still has  "Hispanic or Latino of any race were 54.33% of the population.". Nueces county is slightly higher %, but the remainder of the district (to the south) greatly outnumbers CC.

            Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

            by Bluefin on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 09:57:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  living in south texas (0+ / 0-)

              You also have to look a little at the angry hispanic voter a little as well. We talk about motivations to turn out, I have met a lot of conservative hispanics who hate the anti immigrant rhetoric but who are getting really angry about the corruption so yeah you may have had the same turnout of hispanics but a larger majority of anti ortiz votes came out because he was vulnerable. The biggest voting bloc in south texas is always the people who stay home.

              God bless the USA

              by jas1984 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 10:44:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, YucatanMan, El Tomaso

      Texas hasn't had the same level of Republican vs. Latino tension as California or Arizona.  I'm not saying it's all roses and hand-holding -- but, having lived in all three states recently, the differences are readily apparent.  Bush had a great relationship with state Latino leaders, and it showed in his vote totals.

      In Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet, and hamburgers eat people!

      by cardinal on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:07:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Census data (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, YucatanMan, El Tomaso

      I think that Texas is gaining some seats and California is losing some?

      More info here.

      Mexicans are used to facing discrimination.  In Mexico, it's legal to put up a help-wanted sign that says "Only light-skinned applicants need apply."  So anything they face in Texas is minor league.  Or "segunda division", if you're a futbol fanatico.

      •  California has 53 seats in the House. I don't (0+ / 0-)

        think we will lose one, but if we do 52 is still a big number.

        Over half of the registered voters recently polled did not know the Republicans triumped in the mid-terms. What does that tell you about our electorate?

        by Blogvirgin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:23:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  People in the Valley area were seriously (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        juancito, bluezen

        expecting immigration reform, something that has been tearing their families apart for a long time.

        Instead of a strong push for reform, the Department of Homeland Security cracked down ever harder. This administration has been deporting more people per year that the Bush administration. They have set quotas which are part of the agents' appraisals for deportations with low numbers being "Unacceptable."

        Reform was kicked down the road during insufferable months of aimless wandering over health insurance reform.  And before the election, Obama gave speeches on Univision promising to address reform right after the midterms.  And a lot of people were saying to themselves, "Isn't that what he said two years ago?"

        All that said, I'm not putting it passed the Republicans to have committed some kind of voter fraud or intimidation.  I mean, the numbers are pretty astounding.  At the same time, you don't tell people they are one of your top priorities and then forget to bring it up again for two years.

        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

        by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:47:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you hit it on the head (0+ / 0-)

          I know speaking to many of my Ecuadorian and Brasilian friends that they're not at all happy with Obama.

          Infact, they're downright pissed because while the GOoPers talk alot of bullshit, they LOOOOOOVVVVEE the cheap labor.  Obama OTOH has been cracking down HARD and deporting ALOT of people, including a friend of mine.  

          I seriously don't get Obama (then again maybe I do and just don't want to come to terms with it), he bends over backwards to appease the GOoPers and in the end pisses off his base.  His tough on immigration stance if it continues with no reform will do serious harm to the Dem party with the Latinos.  They don't mind the cracking down by ICE but they want to know that the laws will be changed.  Other than token gestures Obama and the Dems haven't done SQUAT.

          The only thing saving Dems at this point is that the GOoPers are racist fuckers.  The Latinos at this point won't EVER vote for them, but they're not pissed enough to hold their nose and vote Dem either (except in the case of Sharron Angle and Tom Tancredo) so they stay home.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 05:03:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  In Mexico they run… (0+ / 0-)

        …TV commercials advertising for light-skinned people. Seeing that was definitely a top 10 surreality in my life.

        Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com

        by DemSign on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:03:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    El Tomaso, BoxNDox

    So many Americans are racist--2010 just proved that it was easy to blame the Black guy.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:51:18 PM PST

    •  Are you saying (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greatdarkspot, icebergslim

      that the 2010 election results were about racism?  So I guess in 2008 Americans were not racist, but they switched over the next 2 years?  C'mon that's intellectual laziness at best, or racism at worst.

      •  no (0+ / 0-)

        Obama barely beat an easy candidate who had just proclaimed the economy was good--and next day Bush/Paulson said the sky was falling.  That McCain got as many votes as he did was testimony to racism.  I moved to North Carolina--trust me, there are many racists looking for a dark scapegoat.  To ignore this is to put wishful fantasy before fact.

        Apres Bush, le deluge.

        by melvynny on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:11:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Barely beat"? (0+ / 0-)

          He won the biggest landslide since Ronald Reagan.

          The states he "barely won" were states like Indiana and North Carolina, which hadn't gone Dem since before I was even born--and he would have won even without those states, since he crushed the GOP in the traditional blue and purple states.

          The Republican majority is like the McRib Sandwich: loaded with pork fat and back for a limited time only!

          by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:23:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yup (0+ / 0-)

            The economy was destroyed, the military was floundering, Walter Reed hospital was decrepit, Rice and Tennant admitted they knew--and told Bush--an attack was forthcoming.  If John Edwards--a waspy man, had run (assuming no scandal)--he would have gotten over 60% of the vote.

            Apres Bush, le deluge.

            by melvynny on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 10:08:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Don't buy it.. (4+ / 0-)

      and I am African American.  Obama promised to work on immigration reform on YEAR ONE, the Latino vote came out heavy for him.  They are frustrated as everyone else at timid moves by the Democrats and the White House.  Just saying folks are racist is a cop out.  The question is WHY they did not show up.  That is the real question and you better HOPE they show up in 2012.

  •  and the turnout was worse in other Hispanic (8+ / 0-)

    districts

    95.8K in TX15
    84.8K in TX16
    92K in TX20
    110K in TX28
    66.8K in TX29

    and turnout lagged in other predominently Hispanic areas.

    I'm not talking turnout as a percentage of people, but as a percentage of registered voters.

    Then again, knowing how well Obama communicated stuff that he and the Dem majority did overall, i'm sure they didn't totally fail to communicate what they did for the Hispanic community

    Oh wait.. maybe ignoring the base is a dumb idea

    The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

    by RBH on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:53:19 PM PST

  •  So the question of how accurate (5+ / 0-)

    the exit polls are is really important.

    In key groups there was little difference in turnout from 2006.  African American and Hispanic turnout nationally was the same.  Turnout among liberals and the young was virtually identical.

    So this suggests the exit polls maybe wrong about the makeup of the electorate.  A pretty important finding.

    Because there is zero evidence that 2010 was the result of a collapse in Democratic turnout beyond that which always happens in off year elections.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:54:46 PM PST

    •  yeah (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, beltane, El Tomaso, bluezen

      but in 6 years of hearing people taking Exit Polls as the holy grail, I haven't see any of the exit poll takers open up their raw data, and show us how it broke down by location.

      A lot of the areas where the Dem turnout just wilted and died were ones where there was no compelling top-ballot race.

      The Republican Party isn't a party of small government, it's a party of a government for the few. @bhindepmo

      by RBH on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:02:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What are the Republicans doing Right? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkshills, El Tomaso, Bluefin, bluezen

    That's the real question.  I remember being shown a video at a DNC training (back in the Dean Days) that was a Republican video (vhs) mailed to Texas Hispanics.  

    Damm, By the end of that, sounded like Bushie was just another compadre from the farm.  If I was a low information voter, Hispanic and had gotten this, probably would have voted for him.  

    What are the Republicans doing right that we can learn from?  It's the one place where they are truly well organized at all levels, and it shows.  

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:55:30 PM PST

    •  What Republicans do RIGHT... (0+ / 0-)

      ...(good play on words!) is to use HATE and FEAR to motivate their base.  Dems usually pursue altruistic goals and talk policy instead.  They then get their asses handed to them.  Dems never will hold onto power long until they come to terms with the fact that American voters respond better to fear than to ideas.  When/if the Dems ever decide to hire their own Karl Rove or Lee Atwater, THEN they will be on the road to more than the occasional victory (e.g., 2008).

      Wilber

    •  They're running everywhere. (0+ / 0-)

      My solid blue district with a super safe incumbent (OR-04) hasn't been seriously contested in decades. The only guy dumb enough to run against The Faz was a crackpot who wants to abolish public schools, who thinks toxic waste in the drinking water is good for you, and whose hilarious old man rants make McCain look calm and dignified.  And they threw buttloads of money at him. They had his ads on the TV all the time, targeted blog ads on most of the pages I read, including Kos.  There was actually a time when the race, that should have been triaged off the radar from day one, was actually in doubt.  

      They ran to win in 435 districts.

      Democrats ran to win in about 300 districts, and not even in all of the Senate Seats. The Dakotas, which have had Zero-GOP Congressional delegations this decade, were completely ignored.

      We won in 2006 and 2008 because of Howard Dean, who competed everywhere. We won five of eight seats in Arizona. Won seats in Tupelo and Baton Rouge and DeKalb and Canton and Erie and Greeley.  We took the battle to their territory and gained footholds.

      We need the ground troops in every state, every district. We need to fight even the unwinnable battles, get that district where the incumbent Gooper wins 75% down to just 73% next year, and 70% or 68% the election after that, until eventually it's a swing district, and then a blue one.  

      The Republican majority is like the McRib Sandwich: loaded with pork fat and back for a limited time only!

      by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:36:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

        Rahm and Kaine were terrible choices to lead the White House and the DNC.  I backed Obama over Clinton because his campaign was run so much more professionally.  Now he refuses to fight the GOP and has turned the DNC back into what it was pre-Dean.  If he gets a credible primary challenger....

  •  GREAT suggestion. (8+ / 0-)

    I'm glad to see somebody around here asking that question.
    I've been more than a little stunned to see DKers (and, to be honest, Democrats in general) act as if the change from the largest Democratic House majority since 1994 turn to the largest Republican majority since 1948 were just, well, another election.

    Ho hum.

    No election introspection.
    No curiosity.
    Certainly no mistakes.

    All the voters' fault and those big bad corporations (even though a passel of very well-funded candidates managed to lose big).

    Sometimes elections SHOULD have consequences.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:57:28 PM PST

    •  The only argument here (9+ / 0-)

      has been the "base didn't show up". Even a cursory examination of the '06 exit polling and the 2010 exit polling shows this argument to be patent nonsense.

      But unlike in past years, the discussion here hasn't been over the data.  In fact, the data have been largely ignored.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:02:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you forgot: blame teh gay! n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greatdarkspot, El Tomaso
        •  It wasn't the gays (0+ / 0-)

          or the blogs. Or Democratic "base" disenchantment.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:59:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then what was it? (0+ / 0-)

            Were we just "too liberal for America" like the beltway says?  Should we just give up and acknowledge that people don't want no stinking unemployment benefits or health insurance, and that DADT is just too wildly popular to oppose?

            How about the "people are stupid" theory? Will that be helpful?

            Seems to me it was big Republican money and their partisan media that caused it, and that the Democratic counter to that will be ground troops, a return to the Howard Dean 50-state, 435-district strategy.  That and our own leaders rolling over and playing Herbert Hoover when they could have been FDR.

            The Republican majority is like the McRib Sandwich: loaded with pork fat and back for a limited time only!

            by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:42:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  well, ok....so what do YOU make of the data at (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, Bluefin

        this point?  to start with, specifically about these heavily hispanic TX CDs: are we claiming that hispanic turnout was roughly equal to 06, in absolute numbers, but not as a % because of a great flood of angry white voters that didn't come out in 06?  

        and then are we claiming that this was basically echoed all over the country, with the core dem groups showing up about avg for a midterm but just being overwhelmed by core gopper voters?  but if that's the case, then the dem core group percentages would have to go down, would they not -- which means the exit polls aren't reliable?  

        Or... is it possible that dem groups in '10 (vs 06) were similar both in absolute numbers and in percentages, and ALL the significant shift was in the middle vs the right -- ie, say 10% of the 06 electorate were dem-leaning indies, but this year these stayed home and were replaced by right-leaning indies or full goppers?  

        •  We lost in '10 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan, Bluefin, bluezen

          Because of two enourmous shifts:

          1.  Independents

          We got killed among independents. In 2006 we won independents 57-39.  In 2010 we lost them 56-39.  Here I think the economy was the key driver.

          Had we carried Independents in the same percentage as in 2006 we would have won 50-46 instead of losing 52-44.

          1.  High turnout among Conservatives

          In 2006 the electorate was 47% moderate, 32% conservative and 20%liberal. In 2010 it was 42% Conservative, 38% Moderate and 20% liberal.  If the electorate looked like it did in 2006 with respect to ideology, it would have been a tie.  

          So this is, I think, the place where understanding 2006 has to start.  Liberals turned out, but we lost independents, and it appears that either democratic leaning moderates didn't turn out OR they was a substantial swing in the ideology of the electorate.

          In any event I think both swings are almost entirely the result of the economy.

          Which scares the hell out of me.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:57:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Personally, I think too much time can be spent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan

          fretting over data when information is what's needed.

          Look at this fascination with Latino voters.
          There's a certain justification because Latinos are a powerful and growing (non-homogenous) group, but...

          nobody owns them.  Have you forgotten that George Bush enjoyed a great deal of support from Latinos?
          What do you do when the Republicans put up an attractive and savvy Latino like Marco Rubio?

          Maybe its better to ask broader questions like, "Why did the country turn away from us?", because it did.

          You can count on the Republicans to screw up royally and get power back in 2012, or you can lick your wounds and figure out how to win the voters back.

          I'm hoping for the latter.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:59:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ortiz' Votes in Nueces County (0+ / 0-)

          2010 25,874
          2008 52,546
          2006 35,315
          2004 62,373
          2002 35,028
          2000 58,564
          1998 missing
          1996 57,112
          1994 39,194
          1992 49,870

          The trend is clear, Ortiz averaged 50-60k votes in Presidential years and 35-40k in off years. This year he only got 25k, if that isn't a massive failure to turn out the base I don't know what is. For comparison, Farenthold got the same 32k votes that Ortiz' GOP challengers have received every Presidential year, and Ortiz's 25k was less than any of his GOP challengers have ever received.

          Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com

          by DemSign on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:23:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are correct (0+ / 0-)

            The Texas Democratic Party simply cannot function well enought to turn out the base vote.  Sadly, most counties lack a county party strong enough to get the job done.  Dallas County remains the sole exception (and did extremely well on Election Night).  I have long said the key to flipping Texas is to rebuild the dormant county parties and state party and quit wasting so much money on hiring Martin Frost's old campaign team as consultants.

  •  As someone in Austin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan, El Tomaso, bluezen

    [heavy sigh]

  •  What happened is.... (11+ / 0-)
    The Dems forgot who it was who took them to the dance.

    The Dems pissed upon, stomped upon and disrespected their liberal base.

    Witness Rahm Emmanuel's "fuck the UAW".  Witness that universal single payer...arguably the least expensive, most efficient means of providing healthcare to all...was not even invited to the table.  Witness that the public option was bargained away even before bargaining could begin.  Witness Robert Gibbs statements about the "professional left".

    I may be friggin' stupid, but I am not friggin crazy.  When Pres. Obama and the Dems start respecting me, they will certainly continue to get my vote, which they get anyway...Rahm was right about that...but they will start getting my contribution dollars, my respect and my willigness to work for them.

    After all, for progressives, taking one for the team is desirable, but all too often at present, we are taking one from the team.

    by El Tomaso on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:16:27 PM PST

    •  Almost all people don't vote based on policy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock

      They vote on whether their lives have gotten better. And it hasn't. That's why we lost.

      People panic too much on this site.

      by thematt523 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:18:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except Right Has Spent Billions for 2 Generations (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        El Tomaso

        ramming home conservative policy basics, which the Dems largely embrace.

        You could see it as 2006-8 turning out specific incompetent Republicans, and 2010 as saying OK the incompetents are gone, and our flirtation with change brought us a virulent liberal and it hasn't worked, so we go back home to the conservative policies that everyone always agrees we need.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:21:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or (0+ / 0-)

          Elections are based on the economy, and what you said is absolute bullshit on a bullshit stick.

          Okay, maybe PARTS of what you said were true, but elections don't work that way. Elections are based on the economy.

          Remember what I said; people do not vote based on policy. The vote on the economy.

          ECONOMY ECONOMY ECONOMY ECONOMY! Have you gotten it yet?

          People panic too much on this site.

          by thematt523 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:30:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  At least some policy gains might have been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        El Tomaso

        a little sugar to help the bad economy medicine go down.

        But terrible economy plus back-stepping on clear promises is a sure recipe for disaster every time.

        I've seen recessions less severe than this horror show where Dems couldn't stop talking about creating jobs 24x7x365.  This time, White House to Congress, didn't hear a heck of a lot about jobs, except for the regular renewal of unemployment benefits.  

        How about getting people OFF unemployment?  No, didn't occur to the Dems this time. But study the debt? Oh yeah, we really need a commission to do that at once.

        What a huge F.U. to people hurting....

        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

        by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:07:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you but Rahm was wrong (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, nathguy, El Tomaso

      When Pres. Obama and the Dems start respecting me, they will certainly continue to get my vote, which they get anyway...Rahm was right about that

      I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't vote for Obama again if he were running against Michelle Bachmann.

      What's the point in voting for those Democrats who have been captured by the moneyed interests?

      Best,  Terry

  •  Hope and Change (5+ / 0-)

    Hope turned out to be no effort whatsoever at immigration reform, and change turned out be to keep Bush war and national security policies in place, except now the TSA feels up your wife and kids at the airport. Just sayin.

    •  Obama's form of Liberalism (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      easong, YucatanMan, Bluefin, bluezen

      lacks spine or courage and the people can't stand that.

      Get up and throw a few punches around.

      People like that.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:52:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  People want to know what their leader stands for. (0+ / 0-)

        Reagan, as much as I hate to utter his name, knew that. He represented some reprehensible concepts, but it was perfectly clear what he represented.

        Obama made some clear campaign promises.  And, in office, did dances all around the place.  Take this off the table, Republicans? Ok, I can do that. And people's jaws started dropping open.

        Diaries were common here about people reporting their conservative friend or conservative family or whoever stating, "We really hope your man can fix things, because we are hurting." And then... of course... jobs didn't appear to be much of an issue, especially in a vital election year.

        One too small "stimulus package" (sounds like icky medicine) and repeated monstrous (in size and concept) bailouts of Wall Street muckety-mucks.  Pissed people off.

        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

        by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:12:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Part of the reason jobs didn't materialize (0+ / 0-)

          was b/c Rethug strategists decided early on in Obama's presidency to oppose any and all attempts to remedy what ails the economy -- they attacked the stimulus package like a pack of rabid dogs, R govs sat on their, ummm, brains :) and refused to allocate stimulus funds and blamed the administration for the misallocations (!!) or didn't give them out at all, any measure that had a whiff of helping out union jobs was demonized and mocked, any criticism of WS or the financial mafia was considered taboo by the MSM who instead labeled it as "the WH's war on business" . . .

          and the message from the WH and D leadership was -- criticism of the liberal/Progressive base for "whining and complaining" . . . and how the administration was working to reach out more to Rs.

          Go figure, huh?

  •  Not enough people registered to vote. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, Bluefin

    I live in Texas, and I have found that it's hard to persuade people to register because they don't want to be called for jury duty.

    The ones who register are the ones who don't mind being called because they are either retired or self-employed or work for an enlightened employer and don't risk being fired for missing work. (Yes, it's illegal, but Texas is a right-to-work state. They can fire you for any damn thing they want to.)

    If they decoupled voting from jury duty, I think more people would register.

    Making election day a national holiday would help too, as would not making it harder and harder for citizens to vote because of challenges and new voter ID laws that Texas has never needed before.

    PS: Farenthold traded on name recognition, as so many Texas politicians do. His grandma is Sissy Farenthold, former Democratic candidate for governor. Some people probably voted for him not realizing his grandma was a loyal Democrat.

    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:26:38 PM PST

    •  In person Absentee Voting? (0+ / 0-)

      let people vote early at the county courthouse.

      They do that in Oklahoma, makes it real easy.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:48:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You still have to be registered to show up (0+ / 0-)

        to early absentee vote.

        Texas has early voting, which does no good for people who are not registered.

        I don't know about the registration angle that Brooke proposes.  I live in Texas and most everyone I know is registered.  And I do get called a heck of a lot for jury duty - by the city and the county both.  Once a year, if not twice.

        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

        by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:49:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Texas has 'early voting' with extended hours, (0+ / 0-)

        mobile voting stations in some counties too. It's easy enough to pre-vote (if no shenanigans going on).
        The jury duty tie-in may be a factor like Brooke says.
        I never had a problem with it, but retired from a good job (have witnessed judges send a deputy after shirkers during jury calls though, always wondered if it might get me for missing the mail while on road trips, heh).

        Ah yes: Vote early and vote often, even more so now...

        Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

        by Bluefin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:58:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is nonsense, Brooke (0+ / 0-)

      The connection between voter registration and jury duty lists was severed by the Legislature twenty years ago.

  •  Figure Out Who's the Democratic Party Base 2012 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan, brooklynbadboy

    Then see if anyone's chasing them.

    I can see people chasing the Republican base.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:28:01 PM PST

  •  Careful with the Word "Turnout" (0+ / 0-)

    If all we know is that there were fewer Latinos as a proportion of the electorate, we don't yet know enough to conclude whether that was caused by Latino turnout dropping, or older whiter turnout surging.  If older whiter people turned out in droves, that might swamp all other demographic trends.  

    OK, made-up numbers here...

    Let's say you have 100,000 people living in your district, and 67% of them are Latino, 25% are white, and 8% are black.

    Let's say that in a typical election 20% of Latinos vote, 40% of whites vote, and 30% of blacks vote.

    That would give you a baseline: a typical electorate with 13,400 Latino voters, 10,000 white voters, and 2,400 black voters.  Total:  25,800.  That's a composition that's 52% Latino, 39% white, 9% black.

    OK, it's a new election cycle.

    Latino voters are engaged.  They go from turning out at a 20% rate to a 25% rate.  Now you've got 16,750 Latino voters.  But let's say white voters go crazy and jump up to 60% turnout.  Now you've got 15,000 white voters.  Black voters stay the same:  2,400.  This election you've got a total of 34,150 voters.  49% Latino, 44% white, 7% black.

    If you look at the composition of the electorate, you might want to say Latinos stayed home:  their share dropped from 52% to 49%!  But they didn't really stay home.  Someone else turned out more.  So looking for explanations for Latino anger in this hypothetical district wouldn't actually be very productive.

    I think we need to be careful about blurring the distinction between a few different things we might call "turnout."  Sometimes we mean "percentage of a certain demographic group that votes," and sometimes we mean "percentage of voters who belonged to a certain demographic group."  And different kinds of explanations will result from misunderstanding the relationship between those.

    •  Hispanics have a massive population advantage in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan

      South Texas.
      Many towns approach 100% Latino, I would guess (as an Anglo resident) that the region is probably around +85-90% Hispanic overall.
      I'll let you use the county (census) links within the above URL and add 'em up (all 41 mostly huge counties).

      It was (missing) Democratic TURNOUT, period (of course a very large portion of the population are illegals, but they can't vote anyway...).
      Unless it was Diebold...
      (and I forgot to put a Diebold root cause in my other comment, dang it; I put my handmarked paper ballot in a Diebold scanner machine this time too)

      Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

      by Bluefin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:34:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry but a large percentage of the population (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bluefin

        of the Valley are LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS-- who can't vote, either.

        Calling all non-citizens "illegals" is sort of insulting.  (As is the word 'illegal' itself when used for undocumented workers, imo; but I won't go there more than to say that)

        Human reason is beautiful and invincible --Milosz, Incantation

        by juancito on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:11:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spent much of my life there, worked in (0+ / 0-)

          practically every named place there is there (and traveled Mexico a lot); saw few permanent resident status holders, very large numbers of "illegals", have dealt with many of them on a one-to-one basis (didn't call "all non-citizens" that, only the actual ones). Huge colonias have sprung up everywhere (especially the last 30 years) housing hundreds of thousands. Example (I remember when there were maybe 50 dwellings here): Colonia Las Milpas with the enormous migrations that have occurred.
          Not looking for a pissing match, the Valley 'culture' is a large part of my family. I'm not going there either as it's a topic I digress from most DK'ers on (along with weapons and a few others) and always get clobbered  ;] .

          Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

          by Bluefin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:44:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  hand recounts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bluefin

        living in cameron county, we had hand recounts for both the county judge and ortiz, the vote is more likely to be stolen by the democratic machine not the diebold machine. ortiz just didn't put in the time. for example bill clinton (much loved) came to campaign and only 300 people showed up to support ortiz.

        God bless the USA

        by jas1984 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:31:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  we gotta win these folks back (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    juancito

    Immigration reform would be the best issue right now...

    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle

    by not2plato on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:49:58 PM PST

  •  Sorry Steve, I already figured it out for you 19 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    juancito

    days ago in a couple of comments, might still bruise some tender sensibilities (YKWYA), but I really held off to be nice (emphasis added):

    Well said FOOW. And the low (D) turnout didn't (3+ / 0-)
    help. Yeah, I'm going to call a whatever a whatever, whichever minority you want.
    Lots of commenters and diarists here have already pointed out that a certain cohort turned out reliably once again for the Rescummies (and I'm in that cohort, but NOT an (R)!).
    All those other cohorts just couldn't get their sorry asses in gear and were just sooo unenthusiastic (because some gawddamn charismatic messiah figure wasn't running and 'inspiring' them like two years ago) that they couldn't be bothered to save their own delicate asses.
    I see now why the Rescummies were so confident, after all, they were 'dead in the water' 18 months ago.
    They knew that they could count on the (D)'s undisciplined mice.

    I just got done sort of analyzing the election results in Texas, using the (Texas') SOS's website.
    In the state lege, the (D)'s have been decimated.
    In district after district, already minority status (D) incumbents were slaughtered. In districts that had already been gerrymandered, they still got shredded. In some of the few Texas areas that went for Obama, the (D)'s were eviscerated. TURNOUT!
    Redistricting will be pure Hell around here.

    Even a long-long-time incumbent U. S. Representative District 27 from South Texas, Solomon Ortiz, got sliced and diced by a teabagger. In South Texas!
    I haven't even seen that race even mentioned on DKos.
    I could almost see U. S. Representative District 23, Ciro Rodriguez (D) (Incumbent) getting flipped (Ciro was like Harry Reid, without all the testosterone.../snark) in a muy sucio race. But Ortiz? Valley Hispanic turnout.

    And after listening to the likes of Boehner and McConnell on the teevee and the radio today, and then hearing our 'leader' Obama making mouse-like noises, I don't think I can stand any more.

    Ferchrissake, those fuckers are all over bragging about grabbing Obamas' lunchbox and slamming him over the head with it, kickin' him in the 'nads, stealing his shirt, shorts and shoes; and he still talks about playing nice with them. WTF???
    We are sooooo fucked!
    Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "
    by Bluefin on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 10:57:22 PM PST

    The problem was the Democrats who did NOT (3+ / 0-)
    vote, period.
    Cases in point: Texas' US Representative 27th District and Texas' US 23rd District.

    Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "
    by Bluefin on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:00:56 PM PST

    And a correction is needed with this: "...but so did Ciro Rodriguez in the 23rd district, which also reaches into the Rio Grande Valley.".
    The 23rd District ends above Laredo, while running from western San Antonio all the way to El Paso's eastern edge. A long way from what is traditionally known as the "Rio Grande Valley" (an area/strip about 40 miles wide, roughly from South Padre Island to Zapata, not including Laredo).
    Starting at the Gulf of Mexico, moving west (follow the map/link around), the southern Texas US Districts are (roughly): 27th, Corpus to Brownsville- Ortiz(D); 15th, SE of San Antonio to McAllen/Harlingen- Hinajosa(D); 28th, San Marcos to Laredo/Zapata- Cuellar(D), 23rd, north of Laredo to El Paso- Rodriguez(D).
    Most of you have no idea of the distances involved in these fairly sparsely populated districts, about the longest/largest in the US.

    Root causes: Motivation, Turnout, $$/Media, Snowbird teabaggers (voting twice? hmmm...), maybe Catholic Church influence, certainly all the (WASP) Christo-fundie flavors (who evangelize the hell out of Hispanics).
    I thought it might be bad, but not this bad.

    Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

    by Bluefin on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:15:01 PM PST

  •  Why? Where is the promised (0+ / 0-)

    Immigration Reform?  
    You know, one of our party's top priorities?
    Dream Act? not yet, huh?
    Keeping our powder dry?

    You gotta support your base to get 'em to turn out.

    Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

    by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:39:38 PM PST

    •  They're doing the DREAM Act (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan

      over the lame duck.  It would have been done before the election, but it was blocked and the clock ran out.

      Cold hearted orb/That rules the night/Removes the colours From our sight/Red is gray and/Yellow white/But we decide/Which is right/And/Which is an Illusion

      by KingofSpades on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:27:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fingers crossed. Supposed to be (0+ / 0-)

        a lot of things magically get passed in the lame duck. I'm not so sure, but I'm writing and calling my congress-critters all the same.

        Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

        by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:46:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan

          I know there's not much time, but they did similar amount of working at speed last December as well, finishing before Christmas break.

          Cold hearted orb/That rules the night/Removes the colours From our sight/Red is gray and/Yellow white/But we decide/Which is right/And/Which is an Illusion

          by KingofSpades on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:35:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  From what I've heard elsewhere (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, KingofSpades

    a lot of it was Solomon Ortiz.  He's been in the House 28 years or so, he's relatively ineffective and undistinguished and hasn't been energetic about anything, he runs in the middle.  There were rumors of corruption iirc.

    I think losing TX-27 can be chalked up either to the Democrats in the district getting tired of Ortiz, or- as in some other districts- letting a stale long term Democratic incumbent go down who they identify with the sleazy 1970s/1980s/early 1990s House cliques and/or their way of operating.

    *at work immanentizing the eschaton*

    by killjoy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 11:56:23 PM PST

  •  Live in texas 27 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluefin, KingofSpades, bluezen

    As a resident of texas 27 I would like to suggest a few possible explanations for ortiz loss. In addition to the general tide of disappointing economy etc. one has to look at the corruption in the local democratic party. Cameron County in south texas has had one of the most corrupt party machines imaginable. People here were just fed up with the endless corruption. Ortiz was part of that machine. Second an ugly school board and county judge race also brought out the protest vote while many voters were turned off to the whole thing kept Ortiz' vote totals down. Finally Ortiz was a lousy campaigner. He barely showed up and took his safe seat for granted.

    •  Someone on SSP from TX-27 suggested (0+ / 0-)

      that Juan Garcia quit his job at the WH and run for that seat in 2012.  He's apparently well-liked, won in a conservative-ish area, and is a rare rising star out there.

      Could he be recruited to run?

      Cold hearted orb/That rules the night/Removes the colours From our sight/Red is gray and/Yellow white/But we decide/Which is right/And/Which is an Illusion

      by KingofSpades on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:42:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whoever runs (0+ / 0-)

        Blake will be a one termer. Besides redistricting is going to make a mess of all of this. Browntown will likely get their own rep since it will just about guarantee a dem/hispanic rep and let corpus get a more conservative rep.

        God bless the USA

        by jas1984 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 10:49:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Heh, has Ray Ramon made a comeback? (0+ / 0-)

      one has to look at the corruption

      Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

      by Bluefin on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 10:11:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  umm, could it be policy related, n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  The picture in the West seems to have been very.. (0+ / 0-)

    different. Perhaps it was the nastiness of Sharrron Angle and Tom Tancredo. I can't remember how Perry or GOP Congressional candidates played the immigration issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site