No, Texas' SD9 Is Not A Bellwether for Midterms

Caution -- because there are other races that most certainly ARE possible bellwethers.

While the debate on ICE raged last week a mildly significant runoff election took place last weekend in Texas. I’ll explain, what I mean by “mildly significant” in a moment. So far it’s been used by the legacy press as an epitaph for the GOP resurgence. It’s a district Trump won by +17 and the GOP candidate lost it by 14 — a district that was over 56% Trump last election. You can see how the narrative is an attractive one for Democrats. Attractive, yes, but accurate? No. I’ll explain.

The race began last summer when two Republican candidates announced for Texas’s 9th Senate district to replace the outgoing Kelly Hancock, who left to be Comptroller, and serve the remainder of his term. Democrats solidified behind their candidate fast. Republicans, not so much.

Full disclosure: I have known both of the Republican candidates personally for years, so I had a bit of a front row view of this. The first image is from the November special election, which was one-in-all, primary, everything. You can do the math: Democrat Taylor Rehmet netted 56,565 votes. The Republicans on the ticket, Leigh Wambsganns and John Huffman, received a total of 62,347. As we can see, 62,347 is greater than 56,565 by nearly 6,000 votes. It stands to reason that an undivided ticket would have taken the seat.

The second image there with just Rehmet and Wambsganss shows the total from last Saturday’s election. Because neither received 50% of the vote it went to a run-off between the top two, per Texas law. Yes, the turnout is much lower. No, the ice storm didn’t affect this — we had a week of early voting pre-storm (when I voted, fast and easy) and my college kid drove in on the day of the election to vote, no issues, post-storm and when all of the ice had already melted. The turnout was low because Republicans suck out loud at following up their mouths with their votes — and because some Republican voters were mad over the first election and just weren’t going to support the candidate. Look, I’ve been there. I really liked Ron DeSantis as a presidential contender but it wasn’t in the cards for him in 2024. I absolutely voted for Trump in the general, three times now. You cannot allow pride to deliver victory to the left. It’s bad strategy. It’s bad logic. It’s anti-Machiavelli.

Huffman had called before he announced and I advised him not to run. I felt that he didn’t have enough name recognition, plus he was fresh off a pretty bad loss to Brandon Gill over Texas’s 26th congressional district (Gill has shown himself to be a powerhouse). My opinion, for what it was worth, was that another run with a questionable outcome was too soon and risky. I suggested he return to being our town’s mayor. I know consultants were in his ear, encouraging him to run — consultants whom, by the way, get paid regardless whether or not their candidate win or loses. Huffman pushed ahead, our town went through a very contentious election cycle, and he came in third. It’s unfortunate that it led to a run-off, but it was what it was. I don’t think ill of anyone for shooting their shot, but I do question the soundness of strategy that seems to push a person further away from their goal.

After, Huffman declined to endorse Wambganss, the Republican winner. This was blamed in part, on the severity of the mud-slinging between the two during the first election, and leftover from his failed bud for the 26th congressional district. My advice to everyone candidate has always been to concede, congratulate, and endorse. You don’t have to be best friends. You don’t have to go to J.C.Penny and have photos taken together in front of a beautiful New England fall vignette. You go to battle with the soldiers you’ve got. Magnanimity speaks power This didn’t happen. There was no unity, and crushingly, the mud-slinging continued. To be fair, each dished it as good as they got it. There’s no crying in baseball and there’s no crying in politics. Heaven knows I’ve been through enough political battles to appreciate this. Yet, there was no unity, the hard feelings continued, and I’m convinced that they also contributed to Saturday’s loss. It’s unfortunate and I hate writing it for all involved.

Yes, I also believe, too, that candidates have to sell voters on their attributes. I also know that when elections are over and you have your candidate, you have to make a choice between the R candidate you ended up with … and the Democrat. The choice was between a Republican and Democrat on Saturday, not between Huffman and Wambsganss, not between primary factions, not between any other segment of the coalition — just a Republican facing a Democrat. I like winning elections. I vote for the option that will best move my ideals down the field towards the goal. Sadly, not enough people equally wanted that victory. The local left is joyous over this. I despise socialists too much to give them a victory.

I’m not too broken up by it, though. This gets us back to what I said in my first paragraph about this “mildly significant” race. Why only mildly significant? Because the winner of Saturday’s election will never vote at all during their term. This means Taylor Rehmet will not be in Austin, he will not be voting on legislation. He will serve the rest of Kelly Hancock’s term, which ends in December of this year, and has to defend the seat in another election this November before the Texas Senate reconvenes in 2027. So this means Rehmet won’t even experience a legislative session. He won’t be doing anything. His damage is contained.

But this doesn’t mean he couldn’t win this fall and serve a full four-year term beginning in 2027. Both he and Wambsganss have already filed and will have their rematch this November. This is the election that matters. Wambsganss will have to contend with the slow purpling of the last, large red urban county in America and Republicans at a time when a Trump endorsement doesn’t have the shine it did during his first term (all presidents begin to lose some appeal as their final terms hit the halfway point). Republicans struggle to build coalitions and struggle even more maintaining them. How do you balance your messaging persuasively while giving no ground on principle? That’s the trick and state parties haven’t figured it out yet.

As far as this race being a bellwether, you can see now that it isn’t. However, there are other races that absolutely can be described as such, because they were bellwethers. Virginia’s last election was a huge wake-up to the GOP with their entire legislature and Governor’s seat going dark blue. Miami’s last mayoral race was a jolt. Wisconsin’s last election. No, it’s not re-districting (which has mostly gone in the GOP’s favor), and don’t let the GOP cop-out and tell you this as an excuse for their not correcting the issue to win. No, it’s not fraud, either. The numbers are consistent with the totals from Trump’s previous victories in these areas. It’s independents and dissatisfied Republicans. I’ve seen the election data, these are the rumblings of a coming shift that the GOP is reticent to address.

We have about 11 months to fortify our position, build on previous victories, and correct any course that needs correcting. But where is the RNC? Where is the voter outreach? And equally as important, where is the civic responsibility, voter accountability, and passion?

---