Three things in life are certain: Death, taxes, and certain Chron endorsements.
Rep. Sarah Davis
The voters in state House District 134 — a swing district that covers all or parts of River Oaks, Bellaire and Meyerland and includes the Texas Medical Center — face a tough choice in the Nov. 3 election.
Five-term Republican incumbent Rep. Sarah Davis and Democratic challenger Ann Johnson are both well-qualified, skilled communicators whose many talents would serve them well in the Legislature.
We recommend Davis, 44, based on her experience, growth in office and independence.
A rare Texas Republican who supports abortion rights, she has moved from the tea party positions of her first 2010 victory to embrace the Affordable Care Act provisions of Medicaid expansion and coverage of pre-existing conditions as well as bucking her party on other issues.
[…]
Johnson has stressed her policy differences with Davis on immigration and gun control, where the incumbent is more in line with the GOP. Johnson has criticized Davis’ vote to let school districts arm teachers and to require universities to permit guns in campus parking lots and her sponsorship of a “show me your papers” bill to allow local law enforcement officials to ask about immigration status.
Those are not measures supported by the editorial board.
And yet. In the same way that the Chron endorsed Orlando Sanchez for Treasurer in four straight elections, so have they endorsed Sarah Davis consistently since 2012. Look, if you want to believe that Sarah Davis is a force for good for reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality and even expanding Medicaid, I can’t stop you. I happen to think that campus carry and “sanctuary cities” legislation are indelible stains on her record, but you do you. My opinion is that it’s better to maximize the odds of a Democratic House than to depend on a singular Republican savior. Your mileage may vary.
(Where the post title came from.)
Kuff, I enjoy your well researched topics and commentary, but you’ve really distilled things to their essence right here:
“My opinion is that it’s better to maximize the odds of a Democratic House than to depend on a singular Republican savior. Your mileage may vary.”
At this point, it really doesn’t matter WHO the individual candidate is, or how good or how bad that candidate is….people have to vote for their team, because if their team does not have control of the legislative process they won’t like the outcome.
For example, if R’s don’t win the House this year, R’s will have to deal with impeachment 2.0. Another timely hypothetical would be, had D’s won the Senate, there would be no new original intent, conservative judge replacing Ginsberg. It’s strictly team sports here. I think we learned that from the Alabama senate race to replace Sleepy Jeff Sessions. Alabama voters considered the accusations against Judge Moore, and either didn’t vote, or grudgingly voted for Doug Jones, and what resulted? A block vote for all things D……impeachment/opposing judges, etc. Not what the voters of Alabama really wanted from their Senator……
Both sides should learn from this. We hear “vote blue, no matter who,” and team red must do the exact same thing when voting for state and federal congressional seats, as well as more local races, like county commissioners.