Bang for the Buck



The table below includes the total spending and dollars per vote for the twenty-two challenged incumbent Republican Texas House members and their challengers:
District
Incumbent
Total Spent
$ per Vote
Challenger
Total Spent
$ per Vote
1
George Lavender
 $     108,987.20
 $      13.80
Gary VanDeaver
 $      39,770.23
 $       4.23
4
Lance Gooden
 $     289,284.97
 $      34.57
Stuart Spitzer
 $      92,308.82
 $    10.96
6
Matt Schaeffer
 $     268,248.20
 $      27.13
Skip Ogle
 $   268,601.42
 $    42.61
8
Byron Cook
 $     213,347.69
 $      34.57
Bobby Vickery
 $      14,754.14
 $       2.42
11
Travis Clardy
 $     127,855.42
 $        9.79
Tony Sevilla
 $        3,740.90
 $       1.50
12
Kyle Kacal
 $        41,934.80
 $        5.60
Timothy Delasandro
 $      29,072.74
 $    12.49
18
John Otto
 $     158,379.55
 $      18.53
Terry Holcomb
 $        9,103.28
 $       1.73
55
Ralph Sheffield
 $     216,783.09
 $      50.44
Molly S. White
 $      19,437.64
 $       3.90
59
J.D. Sheffield
 $     242,855.41
 $      25.87
Danny Pelton
 $      26,092.20
 $       5.44




Howard Ray
 $      12,802.34
 $    10.45
60
Jim Keffer
 $     750,181.31
 $      52.98
Cullen Crisp
 $   111,802.84
 $    10.17
64
Myra Crownover
 $     100,309.00
 $      16.72
Read King
 $      27,914.60
 $       5.65
71
Susan King
 $                88.46
 $        0.01
Issac M. Castro
 $      13,070.35
 $       2.62
72
Drew Darby
 $     190,836.47
 $      16.31
Shannon Thomason
 $        4,085.17
 $       1.35
83
Charles Perry
 $     156,439.09
 $      11.45
Steve Massengale
 $   127,981.70
 $    25.37
92
Jonathan Strickland
 $     330,718.97
 $      43.45
Andy Cargile
 $   162,954.14
 $    39.73
94
Diane Patrick
 $        89,788.02
 $      14.92
Tony Tinderholt
 $      34,948.77
 $       4.67
102
Stefani Carter
 $     329,741.00
 $      94.67
Adryana Boyne
 $      43,471.99
 $    88.90




Sam Brown
 $   171,639.98
 $    59.51




Linda Koop
 $   141,292.04
 $    38.75
105
Linda Harper Brown
 $     287,437.23
 $      92.78
Rodney Anderson
 $   109,749.30
 $    31.76
112
Angie Chen Button
 $     257,307.93
 $      56.73
Jared Patterson
 $      48,203.48
 $    12.48
115
Bennett Ratliff
 $        84,245.70
 $      20.67
Matt Rinaldi
 $      31,982.56
 $       7.68
134
Sarah Davis
 $     126,818.33
 $      15.75
Bonnie Parker
 $      24,771.31
 $       7.52
150
Debbie Riddle
 $        43,377.56
 $        5.55
Tony Noun
 $   133,103.26
 $    50.86

The incumbents averaged $200,680.25 in total spending and $30.10 in dollars spent per vote. The challengers averaged $68,106.21 in total spending and $19.31 in dollars spent per vote. Among the incumbents, Stefani Carter, who was forced into a runoff by Linda Koop, spent the most dollars per vote at $94.57. Among the challengers, Adryana Boyne spent the most dollars per vote at $88.90 in her failed effort to unseat Stefanie Carter. The race for the Republican nomination in House District 102 was among the most expensive contests among the challenged Republican House incumbents. However, Jim Keffer, who spent $750,181.31, and his opponent, Cullen Crips, who spent $111,802.84, took those honors for House District 60. All of the House challengers who won were outspent by the incumbents in both total spending and in dollars per vote.

Comments

  1. MauibradApril 22, 2014 at 1:17 AM

    Check it out, Mr. Haag: http://txredistricting.org/post/83485633267/the-new-suit-over-the-texas-senate-map-an-explainer

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more