Presidential Gravity

As is usual with presidential primary races, the speculation over who will get each party's nomination is rampant, and usually wild. Speculation concerning what it all means is less popular, because that kind of crystal-ball gazing incorporates a ridiculous stack of unlikely assumptions. That being said, I would like to point out what the Houston Chronicle's Clay Robison opines as the only thing approaching certainty: if Senator Clinton wins the nomination, life gets difficult for some of the new Democratic members of the Texas House.

The idea is this, and it makes perfect political sense: the Democratic freshmen won in a non-presidential year. This means that turnout was lower, and so too was interest across the board. Robison cites three freshmen in particular — Garcia, Vaught, and Heflin — as being vulnerable, having won by relatively slim margins in traditionally Republican districts. According to Robison, a Clinton nomination would motivate Republicans to turn out in larger, more dedicated numbers, all but guaranteeing that the Democratic caucus would suffer losses in vulnerable districts.

Is he right? I think so. The Clinton name is an incredible motivator in Republican circles; rarely have I seen someone so polarizing as the Senator from New York. Having the Clinton name at the top of the ticket would make for a markedly different experience than in 2006, where Republicans at the top of the ticket were either marginalized by a crowded field (Perry) or challenged by an opponent with a low motivation/polarization factor (Hutchison). Increased turnout combined with the undisputed Democratic boogeyman does in fact seem like it would create problems for down-ballot Democrats.

It is also important to note how some of the alternative Democratic choices would play. A Joe Biden candidacy would be far less motivating for the GOP than Clinton, although his nomination is unlikely; Bill Richardson could move the Hispanic vote in Texas in a way we haven't seen yet, but again, he is not a likely choice, although I would slot him higher than Biden. Among the top-tier candidates, John Edwards is an obvious choice as opposed to Hillary. Edwards is southern, has tons of name ID, and won't suffer from the same sort of media burnout that Obama will have to weather. Edwards will also not be as prime a target for Clinton's ad money and message as Obama will, and thus is likely to take less damage.

Robison's article is more Craddick-centric than I am communicating here, and he makes important points about the Republican leadership in Texas. It hasn't been good times for them, and that combined with general dissatisfaction with Republican rule is definitely a factor that can work against the GOP, secure the vulnerable Democratic seats, and even earn good campaigns another three seats or so in November 2008. But all of that could potentially be washed away with Clinton as the nominee for president. She will play very differently all across the US, and here in Texas, at least, the GOP reaction to her is one you can count on.