Wednesday, March 08, 2006

My two cents about DeLay's 'victory' yesterday

I know Rick wrote about this earlier, but I wanted to add my two cents...

In 2004, in the general election, DeLay received 55% of the vote. Yesterday, in a low turnout, only-the-faithful-voting primary election, he got 62%, only slightly better than where he was among all voters, Democrats included, a year and a half ago.

I don't believe any spin on this race coming out of DeLay's camp. DeLay is in Trouble, with a capital T.


  • I don't understand what you mean by your coined term "only the faithful voting" primary. Are we over looking that a primary, by definition, is only supported by the faithful (ie self identified active democrat/republican voters).

    And 62% of the vote is in fact a pretty solid victory in any election plus the guy has the name rec that comes with 20years of being a representative. But I digress....

    Heres the election results in greater detail:

    2006 Primary
    Tom Campbell 9,937 29.97%
    Tom DeLay 20,558 62.00%
    Total Cast: 33,160 100.0%

    *Note Delay won by getting nearly 2 of every 3 votes cast. Also note that he received over 20,500 votes alone, with his closest challenger recieving nearly 10,000 -- Now lets look at the previous primary election, where DeLay had no competion, to show Tuesday's turnout was not to be considered low by any means.

    2004 Primary
    Tom DeLay 15,490 [= Total cast]

    *Note: Here the numbers reflect that a) Delay would have beat his toughest 'o6 competition, Campbell, with the numbers of the 'o4 election where he had nay a challenger. This virtually means he could have won in his sleep (or say while being completly out of the district all together in Dc @ a fundraiser for his benefit) with the support he shares in this district.

    The turnout was not low or to be considered "only the faithful" (in terms of voting solely for delay; Im still trying to figure this one out). The numbers shows that Delay himself was able to turn out more than 25% more voters than he enjoyed in the the 'o4 election. Campbell nearly missed collecting 2/3 of all the number of total votes cast in 'o4. For those keeping score, combined -- they doubled the figures of 'o4 totals. Thats not even bothering to show the numbers of the other 2 candidates in the 'o6 race. So cant say it was low, or what ever point you were trying to reassure yourself with.

    In sum, I'm not going to be as hasty to say that hes in trouble until hes gone for good.

    Link to election results used in this response:

    By Anonymous Cautiously_pesimistic_Ind, at 12:48 AM  

  • Let's look at this another way. In the 2004 primary, about 10,000 people voted in the Democratic primary and about 16,000 voted in the Republican primary.

    This year over 33,000 people voted in the Republican primary and only 2,000 people voted in the Democratic primary.

    In Texas, anyone can vote in either primary. If I was a Democrat in Delay's district and I didn't want to go to the Senate District or State Convention and had no resolutions I wanted to submit, I would probably vote in the Republican primary to make sure that Delay - who has a lot of baggage - is the Republican candidate and not some unknown clean slate candidate that has almost the exact same stand on the issues as Delay.

    In my opinion there was widespread crossover voting in this district. IN the previous primary Delay got over 80% of the primary vote. Delay's 64% looks even closer in this light. I would suspect that a lot of that 64% will disappear in the general election.

    By Blogger Tami, at 10:10 AM  

  • Those numbers are going down further! We waited on purpose!

    Check this out!

    Tom DeLay showed up with Senske the (Lawyer) the Head of Lutheran Social Services to thwarth a Congressional Investigation on June 6, 2004! * Evidence of Massive Fraud was presented and FALSIFIED DEAD CHILDREN REPORTS!!!

    We now know why it was covered up!

    Check this out! Independent Insurance PAC money in 1997!

    In 1998 Legislation passed to take out LIFE INSURANCE on FOSTER CARE CHILDREN! They didn't put it in the FOSTER CARE LEGISLATION it would have been noticed! IT was put toward end of this under OPTION C.

    Then upped 500% higher limits on the CHILDREN starting in 1999! SEE!

    Now why are group foster homes with political connections taking life insurance out on children in state care?

    Isn't the State the fiduciary?

    IF STATE PAYS BILLS why does group foster home get the money? Where is the Insurable Interest ???? Isn't this ILLEGAL?

    Republican backed and sponsored! PL 105-311.

    DO YOU WANT FAKE FATALITY REPORTS starting in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, on the poor DEAD CHILDREN posted!

    Don't worry the Corrrupters have a whole NETWORK!


    Print and save and distribute ASAP! TELL THE PUBLIC!

    VOTE ON UNELECTION DAY! Lets see them get elected off DEAD CHILDREN COVERED UP!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:29 AM  

  • Here is your Abramoff Delay and Foster Care connection. Oh, the Lutherans went to Russia too!

    SEE Told you!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:32 AM  

  • Here is your Russian Communist connection too!


    * Lutheran Social Services (Senske) the LAWYER, showed up with TOM DELAY on June 6, 2004, to thwarth a Congressional Investigation into the MASSIVE FOSTER CARE FRAUD/and FAKE FOSTER CARE FATALITY REPORTS turned into Congress!

    Well I guess the public won't find out and he will get reelected!

    Here is how fund raising works!

    DEAD CHILD STYLE! Well, it has been working for them so far DEAD CHILD STYLE.........LIFE INSURANCE MONEYSTYLE! Guess they got away with it!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:43 AM  

  • Those who (Defend Corruption)Back Must Pack!!

    Those who Back Must Pack!

    Vote on Unelection Day!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:05 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home