Comments and observations on Texas politics

Friday, March 24, 2006

Ten Things I Think

My top ten thoughts of the last two weeks:

1) I think President George W. Bush has been on fire the last few days. His speech and question-and-answer session in Cleveland on March 20 was impressive (at the least, open the link, do a text search for Mayor Najim of Tal Afar, and read his comments), both in substance and style – unusual for Bush in non-campaign mode. That was followed by a lively press conference the next morning.

Karl Rove and Karen Hughes must have told him to take off the handcuffs. His approval rate can’t go any lower, so why not try something?

Ironically, his low ratings have emboldened the conservative agenda in Congress (see the progress of recent immigration and border security legislation). Come election time, Republican members may get credit for passing some of that agenda and bringing President Bush closer to their side on some key issues, especially if the new Supreme Court issues some conservative rulings this summer and fall and Iraq appears to be stabilizing. That would mean a stronger Congress (and Bush) come early 2007.


2a) I think John Sharp is starting to look like the smartest guy in the room. Do you realize that he was able to come up with a tax reform plan in three months that the Republican leadership has not been able to find for three years? Then again, maybe that makes Rick Perry the smartest guy in the room -- he was the one who appointed Sharp to his job.

2b) I think the plan will be a tax bill and anything can happen to prevent its enactment or cause its amendment, but anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to oppose the plan should become familiar with the phrase, “the train is leaving the station.”

2c) I think Rick Perry ought to make the special session interesting and offer to cut off his hair if the legislature passes something pretty close to his tax reform plan.


3) I think The Dallas Morning News editorial board needs to hire an attorney to brief them on court rulings. And while they are at it, Larry Kudlow might be looking for another syndication opportunity.

On March 17, the paper published an editorial calling for an initial rate of 3% for the gross receipts tax being proposed by the Sharp Commission mentioned above. They think the proposed rates of 1% and ½%, depending on the business, will not bring in enough money to address the “funding problems . . . schools face.” One, the tax has not even been implemented yet so complaining about an optimal level of taxation seems a bit anxious. Two, the Texas Supreme Court did not rule that Texas’ public schools are underfunded.


4a) I think the Texas economy appears to be in great shape. But according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ March Beige Book, the price of gasoline could remain high for the summer, though it appears the cost of natural gas may hold steady or go down a little.

4b) I think someone needs to tell the Comptroller’s chief revenue estimator, or chief letter writer, or whomever wrote her recent revenue estimate letter to the legislature that the combination of “rising inflationary pressures” and “interest rates . . . that . . . cool the economy” only happens when Democrats named Jimmy Carter are in the White House.


5) I think Mexico has discovered a large new oil field in the Gulf of Mexico; and more big oil and gas fields could be found if the Mexican government privatized both industries.


6a) I think any talk of Laura Miller as a potential candidate for statewide office one day is nonsense. Did you see the news about the recent NFL labor agreement?

In the next four years, the lower revenue teams will now receive almost $450 million dollars from the top 15 revenue earning teams to ensure that the lower revenue teams can still meet the salary cap and make money. Most of that money will come from the owners of the big name teams; the rest via things such as the league’s website and television network.

Yes, you read that correctly. This league is awash in so much money that the large revenue teams can transfer over $300-400 million in four years to other teams. Some reports indicate the revenue transfer could be higher.

About two years ago I ran some rough numbers on what it would take to renovate the Cotton Bowl and parts of Fair Park in Dallas so that the Dallas Cowboys would return to the site. My proposal required a $125 million investment from the Cowboys and an annual five million dollar lease payment for 30 years from the Cowboys that would also give them operational control over the stadium allowing them to recover the cost of the lease payment through other events (Texas-OU game, concerts, rodeos, NCAA games, etc.).

Mrs. Miller, the Dallas mayor, could not figure out a way to put enough political pressure on Jerry Jones to at least make him publicly turn down an offer in which he would have needed to finance only 35-40% of a $650 to $700 million dollar deal?

Granted, Jones always wanted to find a location where he could own the stadium and would have probably balked at such a deal. But anyone who can’t envision a deal and the accompanying nostalgia for the Cotton Bowl and then bring the players together to make it happen, or at least not even try to make it happen, doesn’t deserve serious consideration for governor.

6b) I think I will keep my thoughts about Terrell Owens to myself.


7) I think the November elections in Texas could be impacted by the growth of government in Washington. A recent USA Today story revealed the following:

A USA Today analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time.

It was the largest five-year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.

Spending on these social programs was $1.3 trillion in 2005, up an inflation-adjusted 22% since 2000 and accounting for more than half of federal spending.


If the small-government conservatives think that voting for a Republican doesn’t seem to get them much, then it may hurt Republicans in Texas.


8) I think the late Colonel Earl Rudder, a former Army Ranger, would be extremely proud that Texas A&M University’s Center for Heritage Conservation has been selected by the American Battle Monuments Commission to preserve Point du Hoc in Normandy, France.

I will proudly admit that a few years ago, my two brothers and I maneuvered our way through the barbed wire that has closed off the cliff since 2001 to get a true feel for the heroic actions of the Army Rangers on June 6, 1944. It is nice to know that future visitors to the site will not be required to trespass to see the Point upclose.


9) I think U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, will not be the last government official to suggest releasing information to the public with hopes of gaining increased analytical capacity.


10) I think, presuming they don’t raid his campaign office before November, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission may have just handed Kinky Friedman one of his big issues for the gubernatorial election.


Please send any comments to cowboypolitics@yahoo.com.

posted by Mark at 11:57 AM | 0 comments

Thursday, March 23, 2006

On the Road Again

If you haven’t heard yet, the Texas Transportation Commission is proposing the building of several toll roads across the state in hopes of relieving traffic congestion. In an effort to make the state tax dollars go farther and allow for more projects, they are also basing some funding decisions on local projects on whether or not local areas decide to toll.

As you can imagine, such a large increase in the number of toll roads has caught the attention of the public and the media the last few years. But since most the policy changes have been in the past four years, the issue has yet to receive much serious attention in statewide elections.

Governor Rick Perry has proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor, basically a compliment to the interstate highways in Texas. And the Legislature in the past few years has created the means for local areas to create entities called regional mobility authorities that oversee highway funding projects and may construct toll roads.

The figures can get pretty big when you start looking at how we pay for highways in Texas. Old roads to maintain here, new roads to build there; highways here, tolls roads there; gasoline taxes here, toll fees there; billions from state taxes here, billions from federal taxes there.

But, no matter big the numbers are and how many highways we build the only real way to analyze the efficiency of the dollars and the soundness of the policies is to look at them on smaller levels.

Assuming school finance and tax reform are resolved by the summer, the roads issue may come up in the gubernatorial election in the fall. So let’s look at some of the numbers and policy questions behind the issue.

During the fiscal years 2004-2005 biennium, the Legislature appropriated $10.5 billion for the Texas Department of Transportation, almost half of which came from the federal government. This $10.5 billion was spent as follows: $7.7 billion for highways ($5.6 billion for construction and $2.1 billion for maintenance) and $2.8 billion for highway planning, right-of-way acquisition, aviation, public transportation, research, vehicle titling and registration, and general operating expenses such as salaries and the like.

The portion of these funds derived from the gasoline taxes paid at the pump was $2.84 billion in fiscal year 2003. From fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2003, that amount averaged about $2.5 billion annually with an annual increase of 5.65% during that time. As mentioned, the fiscal year 2003 amount was $2.8 billion; so, you could say that the portion of the state gasoline tax going to TXDOT pays for the construction of new highways (2.8 billion * 2 = 5.6 billion), still leaving a shortfall of $2.1 billion needed to pay for maintenance.

Highway officials argue that the shortfall is much greater than that because the $5.6 billion spent on new highways does not cover current demand.

Mr. Ric Williamson, chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, TXDOT’s governing board and the entity that awards highway funds, has stated recently that factoring in the state’s significant growth in population (57% from 1980-2005 and an expected 64% from 2005-2030) and miles traveled (a 50% increase from only 1990-2005 and an expected 200% increase from 2005-2030) with the limited increased road capacity (only 8% from 1980-2005), it should not surprise anyone that Texans face a supply shortage of roads and should look at all options to consider increasing that supply.

It becomes pretty obvious that we need new roads. Some advocate that our current funding only meets about one-third of our actual needs while others argue that we have enough money to meet half our needs at worst.

What is the best way to identify that shortfall and how best should it be covered with a system most beneficial to the taxpayer?

Mr. Williamson is one of several government policy leaders promoting tolls as the way to pay for that highway shortage. As a matter of fact, he and others on the Transportation Commission have even said it would take a 50 cent to one dollar increase in the gasoline tax to pay for this demand. Adding this to the current 20 cents per gallon would place the tax somewhere in the 70 cents to $1.20 range.

It’s important to note that only 75% of the state gasoline tax of 20 cents per gallon goes towards transportation in one form or another. The amount which goes towards new highway construction is about 60 to 65 % of the 20 cent tax, or 12 to 13 cents.

The gasoline tax was last increased in 1991 and would be roughly 27 cents per gallon today if it was indexed to increase with inflation. Some state number crunchers estimate that each penny of the gasoline tax collects about $100 million, though this seems somewhat conservative since the amount collected from the tax in fiscal year 2003 was almost $3 billion. That would place each penny of tax at about $150 million.

The seven cents from inflation could be worth anywhere from $1.4 billion to just over $2 billion in the course of the two-year budget cycle. That would go a long way towards meeting the $2 billion plus shortfall in funds for highway maintenance.

Inflation increases the price of construction, too. But there is a little good news here. The Federal Highway Administration calculates that the average price of construction for highways in the United States has grown slightly more than inflation overall from 1992 through 2004. So that’s basically a wash.

The major tolling authorities in Dallas and Houston say that their roads cost about 10 to 12 cents per mile to construct and operate. Using that as a guide, let’s compare tolls to an increase in the gasoline tax.

With a corporate average fuel economy of roughly 25 miles per gallon per vehicle in 2005, it would appear that at ten cents per mile, a driver pays an effective $2.50 tax per gallon for a toll road. Going conservative with both figures (ten cents per mile and 20 miles per gallon), the effective tax is roughly $2 per gallon.

That makes a state gasoline tax of $1.20 per gallon (a dollar increase based on the current rate) seem cheap by comparison.

If the Legislature was to increase the gasoline tax from 20 cents to 40 cents per gallon – remember this would be an effective increase of only 13 cents, since the tax would need to be 27 cents to bring in the same number of inflation-adjusted dollars today as compared to 1991 – that would generate at least $1.5 billion in new highway construction money every biennium (13 cents x 100 million x 2 x 60%). In the next twenty five years the State would have about $20 billion for new highway construction.

If the tax was increased 80 cents, so that it was one dollar per gallon, the amount collected would be a total of $4.6 billion per year (77 cents of new money x 100 million x 60%), assuming the Laffer curve does not apply. In twenty five years, that would be over $115 billion – a lot of roads!

Will this become an issue in the gubernatorial election or during interim hearings at the Legislature? That’s a good question.

Personally, I have yet to decide which policy option is best. But, if someone wants to close the sale with me on toll roads, right now I am going to need a little more convincing.


Please send any comments to cowboypolitics@yahoo.com.

posted by Mark at 2:11 PM | 0 comments

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Ten Things I Think

Below are a few random thoughts from the week. The format is inspired by Sports Illustrated NFL writer Peter King’s “Ten Things I think I think” in his Monday Morning Quarterback column.

Only six thoughts for this week; I guess I need to think more.


1) I think Rep. Richard Raymond will go into a runoff with former Webb County Judge Mercurio Martinez for the House District 42 seat. Raymond got 49.84% of the vote and is right now wishing that they rounded up in elections. Martinez came in with 32.29%, more than 4,000 votes below Raymond. We will now wait to see if Raymond can convince the majority of the people in Laredo who voted against him Tuesday and think he shouldn’t return to Austin that they are wrong. Can you say “nasty election?”


2) I think Rep. Glen Hager looks to be in good shape for the Senate District 18 seat that the retiring Sen. Ken Armbrister is leaving. Hager won the Republican primary with almost as many votes (19,934 out of 36,295) as were cast for both candidates seeking the Democratic nomination combined (21,221). Looks like that two-thirds rule in the Senate is about to become awfully important.


3) I think Rep. Carter Casteel is still determining her course of action after a close loss to Nathan Macias in House District 73, while Rep. Charlie Geren in Tarrant County is feeling vindicated that he fended off another well-funded candidate who received plenty of money from Dr. James Leininger of San Antonio. If you were confused about their feelings towards Dr. Leininger, a few quotes from a Dallas Morning News story should put those to rest.

Casteel said it is “sad for our future if one person can actually buy an election in Texas,” while Geren added that his win “sends the message to Dr. Leininger that District 99 is not for sale. The people up here did not want me to whore for him.”

A question for Ms. Casteel: Does this mean that in an election where a candidate has 100 contributors, that those 100 contributors bought the election? Or as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy put it during oral arguments before the Court on February 28 in a campaign contribution limits case: "Let's . . . simply accept the proposition that money buys access. It's a common-sense conclusion. I tend to think that money does buy access. But what follows from that? Isn't the answer that voters can see what's going on and throw the incumbents out?"

And for Mr. Geren: Are the people of District 99 comfortable with you whoring for anyone?

Don’t feel too badly for them, though. They are “enormously popular in the House.” Granted this appears on the Dallas Morning News website in the same story with a link titled “School finance just got tougher,” which goes on to explain that most all elected officials involved now appear forced to find a solution. And I always thought that deadlines made compromise easier.


4) I think Austin City Councilman Brewster McCracken is starting to think he is Robert Moses resurrected.

Who cares about city politics you say? Usually, I would agree with that. However, the City Council recently adopted interim development regulations for some new single-family residential construction and remodels for homes in subdivisions that that were established before drainage regulations were changed in 1974 to better handle flooding and water runoff. For all of you non-city planners that basically means older Austin neighborhoods closer into town.

Why are they doing this? Are you familiar with the term “McMansion”? Well, several Austin homeowners are and they don’t like them. Ever driven through that old neighborhood and seen the house that just doesn’t seem to fit either because of its size or its style? Many longtime Austin residents don’t appreciate the new homes (some because of aesthetics and some because it means their appraisal and property taxes increase) and have sought resolution through the City Council. After all, if you live in Austin, you turn to government for help. Some of the opponents argue that the new or remodeled, larger homes have water usage that is taxing the older drainage systems.

The Council has appointed a task force to study the issue and make recommendations for a permanent ordinance to be adopted this summer. Funny thing is that they didn’t put a drainage expert or two on the task force. Interesting.

Ok, so what’s the connection to state politics and why should you care about this? Remember Governor Rick Perry’s proposal to limit the rate of increase in home appraisals? This seems like the perfect answer to this problem, right? At least it would address the issue of suddenly higher taxes when someone has done nothing directly to alter the value of his home.

Maybe some opportunistic politician or candidate will seize the issue. Or some enterprising young attorney may devise some kind of just compensation claim. I have heard of crazier legal theories. Someone needs to do something to remind these people that economic growth and private property rights are a good thing.


5a) I think Robert Samuelson is great when it comes to economics but doesn’t know as much about diplomacy and politics. The esteemed economics columnist for The Washington Post, wrote on Wednesday that the United States should build a wall along our border with Mexico. Like a true economist, he makes several rational arguments in favor of the move.

5b) I think the Dubai Ports World deal being scrutinized by Congress could affect the public’s eagerness for politicians to address illegal immigration next.


6) I think I would have liked to have seen Dennis Prager’s column given as a speech at the Academy Awards. It couldn’t hurt. What are people going to do, stop seeing movies? Oh, you mean that’s already happening?

6b) I think Peggy Noonan wrote something this week on the same topic. See the last two paragraphs especially.

* * * *

Finally, one note on my March 9 column: Tarrant County had problems calculating votes, so the numbers I mentioned for the Grusendorf-Patrick race were wrong. Patrick still won by the same percentage, but the numbers were originally double counted. So my theory about Grusendorf not having a high enough maximum turnout was wrong. His turnout was below his previous primary totals in the district. His problem was that he simply got beat.

Have a great weekend!


Please send comments to cowboypolitics@yahoo.com

posted by Mark at 4:40 PM | 0 comments

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

The Education Lobby Dances with Joy

The chairman of the Texas House Public Education Committee, Rep. Kent Grusendorf, was defeated in the Republican primary in Arlington on Tuesday. Rep. Grusendorf lost to Dr. Diane Patrick in a highly-contested race in Tarrant County. The contest drew plenty of media coverage and money, as those opposing the recent school finance and education reform proposals in the Legislature tried to paint the race as a referendum on how the majority Republican House has handled the issue.

Rep. Grusendorf has been a big supporter of some controversial education policy proposals such as public school choice, incentive pay for teachers, and basing funding methods for certain education programs on hard dollar figures instead of weighted amounts, all things that made for big confrontations between him and most of the public education lobby.

He faced a candidate with a strong education background in Dr. Diane Patrick. She is a university professor, former school teacher, former member of the Arlington School Board, and former member of the State Board of Education. Dr. Patrick emphasized the Legislature’s failure to fix school finance after five special sessions on the topic in the last three years. While her specifics regarding major policy positions were somewhat lacking, she emphasized her experience and her desire for strong local control of education. And frankly, she wanted everyone to know that she was not the incumbent.

Dr. Patrick was the main recipient of funds from a new political action committee formed in 2005 named Texas Parent PAC. The group was organized in reaction to the Legislature’s inability to approve a new school finance plan while property taxes have soared (along with home values) in the last few years and the state share of education dollars has shrunk. Critics of the group have charged that its members are more concerned with supporting the local education administrations and less concerned with needed statewide education reforms.

All of the major education lobby associations gave to Dr Patrick’s campaign to the tune of over $20,000; Mike Moses and Jim Nelson, former Texas Education Agency commissioners, donated $500 a piece; Bill Grusendorf, uncle to Kent Grusendorf, gave her $100; Dallas public education advocate Albert Huddleston donated $10,000; but the big contributor by far was grocery store chain HEB chief executive Charles Butt with over $125,000 -- more than half of which was donated in early March, making one wonder if a late February poll spelled doom for Grusendorf.

Rep. Grusendorf was certainly not lacking in money. He received contributions from about every major statewide association PAC (at least ones who tend to lean towards more conservative government) and several big name Republican donors. He also got help from Governor Rick Perry’s political fund and former Governor Bill Clements ($200).

The Dallas Morning News quoted University of Texas-Arlington professor Allan Saxe with his analysis on the impact of school finance in the Grusendorf-Patrick race: “Grusendorf was caught in a political meat grinder, in that the Legislature couldn't come up with a plan. Some of it was unfair because some of it wasn't his fault. He became a very convenient target because of his chairmanship. [Her message] was plain and direct, and his was more difficult and complex. He had to explain why the crisis wasn't fixed.”

Rep. Grusendorf mentioned after the race that he was not able to get enough of the “hard-core Republicans out to vote” and that his loss might have been due to many voters “who don't normally vote in our primary.” Looking at the Republican primary election results for the district through 1996 , the 20,000 votes in this race was about double the highest previous total, but Grusendorf received almost 9,000 votes in 2000 when George W. Bush was seeking the Republican Presidential nomination.

It’s curious that Grusendorf and his consultants did not expect a high turnout -- or maybe they did and figured 9,000 would be about his best showing? -- considering his opponent’s experience and strategy and the high turnout in mid-February for the special election of a House seat in West Austin, an area where school finance and property taxes have been a huge issue for a few years.

The main question before the legislature and everyone interested in the upcoming special session(s) seems to be how this loss will impact Speaker Tom Craddick’s aggressiveness to push education reforms. Usually, Craddick relentlessly pursues his goals and let’s the results take care of themselves. It’s possible that the loss of one of his top supporters may change that approach. But ironically, it may further embolden Rep. Grusendorf to achieve his goals since this will be his swan song.

By all means, do not expect Speaker Craddick to invite any of the teachers’ and public education groups over for a nice dinner any time soon; but, do expect many of his fellow Republicans in the House to start whispering in his ear “Well, my school district superintendent(s) think . . . ,” a little more frequently than they have been.


Please send comments to cowboypolitics@yahoo.com

posted by Mark at 3:49 PM | 0 comments

Monday, March 06, 2006

Primaries? Ho hum.

In case you do not keep up with Texas political news, The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in the Texas Congressional redistricting case.

This could be considered somewhat quick work for the Supreme Court in that the redistricting plan was not adopted by the Legislature until September 2003.

(And let’s not forget, this was one day after Anna Nicole Smith appeared in the same building. Who says we Texans don’t have style?)

Maybe you have had enough of the Texas Congressional redistricting case and would like to actually think about what will happen in Austin this late spring or early summer regarding school finance and taxes? If so, you might have a problem because the most exciting political news we get may indeed come from the US Supreme Court. There or Sugarland regarding Tom DeLay.

Why, you ask? After all, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled the current school finance system unconstitutional and given the Legislature until June 1 to resolve the issue. Let’s consider it.

Most of the legislative campaign battles take place in primary elections, which will happen tomorrow, Tuesday, March 7th.

Governor Rick Perry has already stated his intention to call a special session on school finance to address the Court’s ruling sometime in April or May after the party primaries and any runoffs.

So unless the legislature comes up with a patchwork, temporary funding plan and/or the Supreme Court extends its deadline, then in November voters will be stuck with voting to keep their incumbent (unless he or she is retiring -- that’s quite a few this year -- and presuming he or she is not beaten in the primaries, which is suspected to be few, if any), switching parties, or staying at home.

If opposing candidates can gain enough traction on issues (in this case, education and taxes), then staying at home will be a rare choice. People vote based on issues, and if some key issues gain traction then they will be forced to pick sides. Right now, it appears those possible issues would favor those not currently in office.

The BIG question becomes: Are there any issues on which opposition candidates (in both the primary and the general election) can gain traction? Regarding the primary elections, there have been efforts to make some of the Republican primaries a battle between the hard-right education reformers and the middle-of-the-road education pragmatists (think policy purists vs. public education managers). This battle is real, but it is not widespread.

At most this is the main issue in 20-30 legislative races – only 20% of the House at best. Is it the stuff that produces big change? No.

Then what’s all the excitement about? Good question.

The answer is mainly the unpredictability of the future. No one knows with certainty what will happen between the primary elections and the general election in November? But we can easily speculate.

* Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and Speaker Tom Craddick meet in the same hemisphere, the legislature agrees to a new school finance plan, and the governor approves it. Case closed -- bringing all smiles on the Republican side. They go home to talk about the taxes they lowered (and not the ones raised or amended) and hope that people will still love them in November. No big issue for the opposition, unless . . . we will get to that later.

* The special sessions crash and burn and any kind of plan that does come out of the legislature is one ugly looking step-child which either makes no one happy or is something of a victory for the Democrats. Here arrives opportunity for an issue.

The key will be whether anyone can use that opportunity.

The Republicans have an advantage here in that the Democrats have no good statewide candidates to promote a cohesive plan and create momentum. However, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn may be able to create enough grassroots support to make the gubernatorial election interesting. Once any issue gains traction there, it will automatically spill over into any contested legislative races.

For this to happen, Mrs. Strayhorn had better hope the media environment for her (and her fellow office-seekers) improves from the past six months. After all, would you like to have faced hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Iraq, US Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the University of Texas football team chasing a national championship, the Winter Olympics, and the mainstream media’s biweekly/monthly nonstop coverage of the latest Bush administration “mistake” all while trying to get the ear of the electorate?

* This next scenario could play out under either situation described above:

If a terrorist attack happens at or near the Mexican border or a terrorist attack in the United States is linked to weak border security with Mexico, then the electorate will react negatively towards the Republican Party mainly because of President Bush’s real or perceived lack of concern for the issue. Governor Perry has been supporting efforts to strengthen border security for the last several months, but voters might hold him responsible since he has been in office since 2001.

It is hard to accurately predict the ramifications of such an event (which could also be increased violence tied to drug smuggling) but there is no doubt that it would have a big influence on Texas politics.

So until a special session on school finance and taxes occurs, most voters will be sitting by and watching and possibly not caring too much. In the meantime here are a few things to look for next Tuesday and Wednesday as primary election results become clear.

If any current House committee chairmen lose, that will be a sign that voter angst is high (at least in certain districts,) and could bubble over in November.

If any incumbents lose, look for any geographic diversity and similarity among the districts. That diversity could give clues about the potential for a bigger change in November, and any similarities could be significant when it comes to certain issues that will be promoted in the November campaigns.

Please send comments to cowboypolitics@yahoo.com

posted by Mark at 2:50 PM | 0 comments