The Texan Podcast - Texas Runoff Postmortem: Smoke Filled Room Ep. 4

Episode Date: June 11, 2024

In episode 4 of The Texan's "Smoke Filled Room" podcast, Senior Editor McKenzie DiLullo and Senior Reporter Brad Johnson discuss the aftermath of the 2024 Texas runoff election.The two discuss surprises, winning factors, and predictions for the Texas House speakership — not to mention the surprise announcements from not one, but two major political players that interrupt this episode.Subscribe to The Texan for full access to all of our articles, newsletters, and podcasts: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/

I just, I think it's partially how we're wired as human beings. We stick with the devil we know rather than the devil we don't know usually. Yeah, absolutely. Well, speaking of the devil you know or the devil you don't know, my microphone looks like it's possessed. So if you're watching on YouTube, my apologies for this red orb that is my microphone. It's Daniel's fault if anybody asks. Daniel, what are you doing

well howdy folks and welcome to another edition of smoke-filled room i'm here with brad johnson welcome brad back to the pod i am contractually obligated to be here. Every time you do that. We will say, you know... No, it's good, you know. It's been a crazy week. And, well, I guess when this thing goes out, it'll be a few weeks ago. But this is right after the runoffs. And, you know, a lot happened.

So, I guess we're going to talk about it. Yeah, we're chatting while it's still fresh. And I will say, too too that Brad is basically gone from being in San Antonio to having like a day and a half off or really kind of two days, maybe possible. No, really a day and a half because you were still working Sunday

to going straight to Beaumont for all the craziness and runoff results in House District 21. So Brad, before we jumped on here like i just would like a nap so brad hopefully by the time this goes out you will take a nap i would hope so otherwise it means i'm going to be up for two weeks straight um nothing's ever easy with you is it anyways let's go ahead and get into this so we are today just going to walk through a post-mortem of the runoffs.

The primaries, we did a very similar episode for Smofold Room going through the results of the primaries. And we're doing that for the runoffs. Lots to talk about. And we just recorded our weekly roundup for runoff week. So there's a lot in our brains that we didn't even talk about on the weekly roundup that we want to talk about here. I know Brad felt the same way. there's just so much to get into so right off the bat brad can you give us a a rundown of who won which races and where we are post runoff yeah so i'll just run through them all real quick and then we'll we'll touch on various ones um you, some more than others, obviously. But of the 15 or so really high-profile legislative races in state legislative races, the results went Senate District 15, Molly Cook, who is technically an incumbent.

She just won the special election about a month ago um same two candidates she edged out state rep Jarvis Johnson by a very small number of votes I can't recall the exact number off the top of my head but 77 right now 77 wow yeah one of those races that was just so close and um yeah so that one i mean there may be a recount i mean obviously by the time this thing goes out we will have known whether there was a recount or not but um yeah so there's that one then in the other big senate district race was the Republican one. Brent Hagenbue, the Patrick-endorsed, Trump-endorsed, Abbott-endorsed candidate, defeated J.C. Arbro. And that was pretty handily. The margin there was pretty wide.

Then you have in the House, Gary Van Deaver, incumbent, defeated Chris Spencer, the challenger, in House District 1. In HG12, Trey Wharton defeated Ben Bias. Wharton was the Abbott-backed candidate there. Then you have House District 21, the big one. Speaker Dade Phelan defeated David Covey by 366 votes. HD 29, another open seat. Jeff Berry defeated Alex Kamkar. Kamkar there was the Abbott-backed candidate.

In HD 30, another open seat. Jeff Bonite lost to A.J. Lauderback. There, Bonite was the Abbott back candidate in that race. HD33 Katrina Pearson defeated State Rep Justin Holland. HD44 State Rep John Kemple lost to Alan Schoolcraft.

HD58 Helen Kerwin defeated State Rep Dwayne Burns. Three incumbents right in a row there all went down. And soon to be four here with State Rep. Frederick Frazier losing to Carissa Richardson pretty handily. HD64, Lynn Stuckey in the second matchup in two years between he and Andy Hopper.

Andy Hopper won, defeated Lynn Stuckey there, and that one went final fairly quickly, if I remember right, on election night. In HD80, you had Cecilia Castellano defeat Rosie Cuellar, who I believe is Henry Cuellar's sister, for the Democratic nomination there. Castellano will now face Don McLaughlin in that seat that's currently held that Republicans hope to flip. That's the Tracy King seat.

In HD91, Stephanie Click, incumbent, lost to David Lowe. Another rematch from 2022 just like the Stucky race. In this one, the challenger came out ahead again. Also. Then you have HD97, Cheryl Bean, who very, very narrowly missed avoiding a runoff in the primary.

I mean, it was like 0.4 percentage points, I think. She ended up losing to John McQueenie, who finished a very distant second place in the primary. After the primary, when the runoff started, Abbott came off the sidelines and endorsed McQueenie. So that's, oh, I missed one, of course. The HD 146, Sean Theory, another incumbent, goes down. Democrat, this is a Democratic primary to lauren ashley simmons yeah and that's the rundown a huge deal watching all of these incumbents in many ways go down and we'll get into that more later talking about how this relates back to the primary

brad let's go through biggest surprise biggest takeaway biggest win we'll name something for each of these then move on to some bigger um themes but biggest surprise for you after runoff night uh mine was the bean mcqueenie race i kind of just alluded to it with how close bean was to actually avoiding a runoff in the first place um you know mcqueenie came out of seemingly nowhere and i tweeted on i think the night before i was looking through finance reports and saw there was a lot of money coming in for mcqueenie from various groups and including texas defense pack i think we talked about them before on a previous podcast but that's the miriam adelson uh group that came in kind of at the last minute

to fill this void las vegas created by las vegas sands yep to fill this void created by charles butts and his public education pack just kind of withdrawing from the runoff they were really big players in the primary well they weren't in the runoff and this opened the door for somebody to try and go on, I guess, incumbent defense, although it wasn't very successful, though they did help McQueenie get across the line. And anyway, I tweeted on Monday night, this is either going to be the biggest turnaround I've ever seen in a race or it's going to be the biggest waste of money. Well, it turns out it was the biggest turnaround, and McQueenie will, in all likelihood, it's a very heavy R district, all likelihood will succeed Craig Goldman, who is now on his way to Congress

after winning the Texas 12 race, but that one also was a very close finish, I think, under 100 votes as well. So a lot of those this time, you kind of get that with these runoffs, with how few people turn out. But that one was pretty shocking, I'd say. Yeah. So I'd say my biggest surprise would be Van Deaver and his survival after all the votes were counted. He was up against Chris Spencer, who by all accounts and by all considerations was one of the most formidable and well-funded challengers to one of these incumbents, specifically on the school choice issue of the cycle. That was really where this race was hinged on specifically on the school choice issue this cycle. That was really where this race was hinged on, was the school choice issue. And we saw a lot of money funneled into Chris Spencer in an attempt to take Van Deaver down. And Van Deaver has been within the

public education leadership group of the House for many sessions now and is very vocally anti-school choice now. Also, at the same time, I think there are a lot of conversations behind closed doors this last legislative session that saw he was willing to have conversations, but he still receives a lot of the ire of these school choice groups. And so we'll, I was very surprised to see Spencer lose and not just lose, but lose by like 1500 votes, I want to say, which is a significant margin in a runoff where you have a few thousand voters coming out um very notable what are we going to say brian um yeah first of all like if if vandiver wasn't a

vehement opponent of school choice esa's vouchers, vouchers, whatever you want to call it. He is now. After this primary, I don't think he has any appetite for playing ball with the governor with how much the governor went after him. We saw a lot of chafing in the primary and the runoff over messaging,

specifically the governor hitting a lot of these incumbents on the border when they all voted for him or voted with him on that issue for all the border funding increases. And on the other side, you had some of these members, Van Deaver included, shaping his messaging on school choice and vouchers, the vote in November, the vote against to strip ESAs, packaging it as in opposition to illegal immigrants getting taxpayer dollars when, you know, that was not a justification made at the time at least that i remember so you have both sides warping messaging in these campaigns and like you know that's going to happen but it very much you know rubbed people the wrong way and van diever among them you know i i don't think he's going to be willing to just let the governor through if he has anything to say about it which i'll say too that that is in part i, it's not that Van Deaver has any,

isn't the wrong for feeling that way after a race like this, but that's also how politics works, right? To this point, if you're campaigning against somebody and the border is the number one, number two, number three issue in that district, that's what you're going to exploit. That's what you're going to aim at. And that's how you're going to target somebody, even if you're targeting them specifically, because they voted against a school choice measure that you were throwing all your political capital behind. Right. So that's how it works. But not to say that that is not something that folks get angry about on both sides, but I'd say in most races, you know, whoever's up against whoever else, both sides are guilty of this kind of rhetoric. And I think exactly what you said with the

spin on the, you know, school choice dollars going to illegal immigrants is an absolute example of that. I mean, it's just, it's campaigns responding to internal polling they get, you know, on what, what's an effective message and how to, how to spin certain issues so that it's a message is more persuasive one way or the other. They all do it. It's not going to stop. But yeah, I can imagine why that would be very frustrating to see in either direction totally totally and that's where just like i was saying and you're saying if you pull the district and property taxes the border and school choice in whatever order are the top three you know issues for that district just because you're the governor and school choice is your pet project right now

and you're you know you've lined up all your political capital to make this passage happen does not mean you're just going to campaign on that issue you're going to find other ways to hit people on whatever issue it might be and you're going to pay for those hits and we saw that in this race you see that in others um i think very notably as well this house district is rural and that makes a huge difference for the school choice argument. I think that there's an argument to be made that if Van Deaver was plopped in a more suburban district that he would not have survived. I think that's certainly an argument to make. So this was a big surprise for me. Also not, but it was still a very big surprise in that Spencer was

an incredibly well-supported and well-funded and well-regarded challenger in the district with a history there and a lot of involvement so a very good draft pick for those you know up against Van Deaver and Van Deaver was still able to hold out at the end of the day I was gonna say look at the other incumbents that lost. They were in suburban areas. Yeah. And Vandiver wasn't. Yeah. Tough, tough night.

Okay, so then biggest takeaway. Brad, what do you got? The money. The money talks. In almost all of these races, Vandiver, I think, being the exception, the losers were outspent by a lot of money. Now, if you just look at finance reports from the candidates, Justin Holland is a prolific fundraiser himself. He, on a singular basis, out-raised Katrina Pearson, but that doesn't include Club for Growth coming in with the $4.4 million they dumped into these runoffs. Then you add Governor Abbott and his spending.

In 1933, that was only in the runoff. He didn't jump into that race beforehand. But in all these races that Abbott jumped in, there was the there was the Yas money, uh, $6 million. Who's Yas? Then, uh, you know, Jeff Yas is the,

um, the billionaire who he's pro school choice. That's his big issue. Um, I think he's like on the board of the Cato Institute. He owns stock and I believe Tik TOK. He's a tech, I think a tech guy. Uh, uh that's where he gets his money

but um his big issue is school choice and he put a bunch of money in to um to these races and he along with abbott who has his own massive war chest were quite successful at it and so then you look at the speakers race which we'll dive more into in a bit. He raised a ton of money, and at least from the looks of it right now, was able to outspend Covey. Now that's an anomaly, because none of these other members could come close to that.

But the speaker had the fundraising chops to do that and outpace those trying to take him out it also helps i think that you know abbott wasn't putting his own money into this and against the speaker he was staying out of that but you know money money is is mileage on this stuff on this campaign issue you know it's if you don't have any money you have no way to get your message out to voters generally i mean not in any meaningful way totally and i'd say that that money goes further in a runoff too where you have um more opportunity to like if you get 500 voters out in a runoff, that is a huge, huge deal. And not to say it isn't in a primary,

but that you have a smaller base of people who are willing to come out and vote in a primary or in a runoff. And so money can go a lot further if it's used well, block walking, any sort of get out the vote, GOTV efforts can go a lot further in a runoff. And so if you're well-fundedV efforts can go a lot further in a runoff. And so if you're well funded, and you can really push the envelope in a runoff, it just serves you even more so and you aren't competing with all the other local races, you aren't competing with all the other,

you know, the sheriff, the county commissioners, it's not the same. There are fewer races on the ballot. It's a spotlight is on your campaign for better and for worse. And if you spend your money well, it just can affect the race in ways that is compounded compared to the primary, which it's still a very big deal in the primary, but there's not as much noise, right? It's a much more streamlined process. Absolutely. I'd say my biggest takeaway is we saw a lot of the same themes in the primary continue into the runoff. I think that was a big question. A lot of folks had was, okay, are we going to see a lot of incumbency difficulty?

Are we going to see the Abbott endorsement, the Paxton of it all? Like, is that going to matter in these runoffs? Who's going to come out and vote? Who's the more dedicated voter base? And by and large, I'd say a lot of that, the same themes we saw in the primary were continued into the runoff, specifically in that we saw a lot of incumbents go down. We have the guarantee of a lot more freshman members who are potentially and for sure aligned with the contract of Texas folks. We have a lot of those people coming into the legislature and continuing to run off. There certainly are exceptions to that.

The Speaker being one, Van Deaver being one. We had exceptions in the primary too, though. We had the Lambert. Darby Lambert. So I think that's... But regardless, I think we saw those themes continue into the runoff. And it will be... I think you had the tweet that night

specifically relating to the speaker returning to the legislature um just of how crazy this next session will be i won't quote you exactly it's not appropriate for this podcast but it is it's a big deja vu all over again you just said that on the the weekly roundup podcast we just recorded. It's true. But Brad's most engaged tweet ever was riddled with one expletive. But regardless, I think it showed that the voters, the voter that voted in the primary that cared about taking some incumbents down and whatever capacity that is or for whatever reason that might be came out for the runoff as well. I think it was 15 incumbents that went down across the primary and runoff. That's a ton.

And we're going to have a lot of turnover in the House. And we had a ton of retirements before we even got to the primary, right? There were a ton of folks who just bowed out and said, I'm not returning to the legislature. I don't want to even deal with this. And for whatever reason that might be, of course, the statements say, you know, I'm going to go home and spend more time with my family. And that's great. And I'm sure that's true for a lot of these members. But we saw a lot of members opt not even to run a campaign to attempt to return to the legislature. The political winds were tough even in the fall and over the summer, and we saw that firsthand. So anyways, I think that we need to do the math and count how many freshman members there will be, because aside from the 15, you say, incumbents that went down, there are going to be a lot of freshmen even returning um or coming into the legislature because they took an open seat

and um aligned politically with a lot of these political wins that are at um at the backs of members right now so um okay biggest win i mean it's obvious and I think we've got the same answer here, right? It's Phelan, HG21, to be the first incumbent that finished second in a primary to win the proceeding runoff in 30 years. You know, that's a feat in and of itself. And, of course, like, you know, he's a sitting speaker. This shouldn't be an upset, right? It shouldn't, but it was. And the reason it was is the insane political year that happened previously. And, you know, the school choice fight, of course,

the impeachment, of course, just the general turmoil between the chambers, the bubbling issue of Democratic chairs. I don't know where that's going to go in next session. It depends on a lot of things, but it's not going away as an issue for especially Republican activists. We just saw the GOP, the RPT elect a new chair, and every one of the candidates, if I remember correctly, was against the appointment of Democratic chairs. Now, they don't really have anything to say about it. It's going to be the speaker and the members who elect the speaker, but it's still an issue. And if appointments are made again, we're going to be having this discussion again in the next primary in 26. But it has to be feeling.

I mean, polling had him between nine points down and within the margin of error going into this thing. And he managed to eke out a win. And it was very slim, but it's still a win. And that's all that matters in this winner-take-all politics. So just the turnaround. You know, I was talking to some involved in this on election night, and they were saying, this is on Phelan's side, that Covey's team ran a perfect campaign in the primary. And I'm sure we'll find out more as things go on.

You know, we're talking Thursday after the runoff. But one thing I heard was that Covey's team kind of let their foot off the gas, or at least it seemed like that to Phelan's team. They didn't emphasize the Trump endorsement as much as they had in the primary. Obviously, hindsight's 20-20, but that seems like a mistake, at least right as we stand now. If Covey wins wins it doesn't matter we're not talking about this we're talking about how massive of a of a change of a sea change this is with a sitting speaker going down but that's not what happened and if covey's team ran you know a flawless a perfect primary then it's probably the case that Phelan's team ran,

if not an entirely perfect and nearly perfect runoff. And I don't know, I, it's going to be a case study for years to come and, and what the heck happened and how consultants can learn from this down the road in candidates, but overall, just, it was shocking, and I was at the feeling event, just the sigh of relief that was let out when they realized that they had eked across the finish line, you know, that it was palpable. It's been a long road for all these candidates. I mean, imagine running in this contentious primary where arrows are being slung every which way. It's got to take a toll. So, yeah, definitely has to be feeling,

and he better thank his lucky stars for Jefferson County and them turning out. Well, I remember we were at convention over the weekend, and you were starting to see early voting numbers for Jefferson. And I think you ran over, and you were like, oh my gosh, look at this, because that immediately was concerning for the Cuffee camp and a really good sign for the Phelan camp, right? You have your home county coming out in droves in a runoff where, again, a small number of voters can make a really, really, really big difference. And seeing those numbers coming from Jefferson was, I think, the first hint at what might be coming down the line for the Phelan camp. I think there I agree it's the biggest win. I agree Phelan returning to the legislature for the Phelan camp. I think there, I agree, it's the biggest win. I agree Phelan returning to the legislature is the biggest win. And we'll get more into the

speaker's race in a little bit, because we have a lot to say about that. But I think there are kind of two schools of thought. And I think they're represented by you and by me, respectively, that I think your school of thought and correct me on any mischaracterization I might be making, but is the speaker in this year when so many political wins are against him in every way, shape and form, and he is facing a well-funded Trump endorsed candidate who represents so much of what the political momentum of the moment is really behind, right? And so him eking out a win in this political climate is a big deal. With the money that's coming in, with being pushed to a runoff, with being the first or the second incumbent to finish second in a primary

to succeed in a runoff, what's the stat there? It's the first one since I think like 92 or 93. So it's been a long time since an incumbent who finishes second in a primary that was pushed to a runoff succeeds in the runoff at the end of the day and returns to the legislature. So that's a big deal, right? That's, that's kind of your school of thought is there was so much going against the speaker and it's remarkable that he even made it out. Yeah. And I think that's borne out by the slim

margin by which he won totally i think the other school of thought which i i kind of subscribe to a little bit more is he's an incumbent speaker it's exceptional that he was even pushed to a runoff in the first place and that is um something we've not seen in a very long time read rob's newsletter president times to get some more info on that. But it is a big, big deal that an incumbent speaker would even be pushed to a runoff in the first place. And he got a win by a few hundred votes at the end of the day in a runoff.

And of course the political wins were against him, of course, but you're the incumbent speaker. It is a huge deal that you were this in battle that you made it to a runoff in the first place. And Covey coming in with the momentum that he did in the primary. And I'd be curious to know what the Covey camp would say about their runoff strategy. If that's what feelings camp is saying, if they would be like, yeah,

we kind of did let our foot off the gas or if they have a different perspective, but I think it's, it's a huge deal that the speaker made it to a runoff period, and really indicative of his strength as a leader in the in the legislature. So I'll be very curious to know how this translates. We'll get into this later in the speaker's race and his momentum. And, you know, we're seeing a lot of folks say he has a chance of returning to the gavel, to the dais and speakers dais, whereas we did not think that was the case at all. If he was going to be pushed to a runoff in the first place, like regardless of whether he won or lost at the end of the day, if he was just pushed to a runoff at all. But those are kind of the two schools of thought. And I'll be, I think we'll, as time goes on and we get more data,

really be able to tell what happened here and how exceptional it was. But regardless, I think it's exceptional that Covey was able to push the incumbent speaker to a runoff. I think it's exceptional that the speaker was able to overcome what he did to return to the legislature in a runoff where he finished second. That is like a death sentence most of the time for somebody who is an incumbent and was pushed to run off. So wild. I don't think they're mutually exclusive, those two. But yeah, I mean, it's about emphasis where you place it, right?

Totally. And two things can be true at different points in time or at the same point in time. Yeah, I agree. And that's where I'm like, both are exceptional, right? They both are. I just subscribe a little bit more to the other one and you subscribe a little bit more to the, you know, other side. And it's, I think both are fair. I think there's truth to both. But the emphasis, like you were saying, I think is where the disagreement is between camps. And we're seeing that happen on social media right now. You know how people are framing this and talking about it. It's wild to watch the aftermath. Talk about two entirely different world views. We see that on social media constantly,

people just talking past each other, not even operating on the same plane. Well, certainly happening here. And both sides have points to make. Phelan won, first of all. That's to the victor go the spoils. So that right there is absolutely a valid talking point. And yeah, his chances of retaining the speakership are a lot higher than a lot of people have said.

On the other hand, by pushing him to a runoff and making it so competitive, a lot of money that would have gone otherwise to various candidates, various incumbents, didn't go there. That's a very valid point. That is very much true, and who knows if that would have changed things. We can't know a counterfactual, but based on two years ago when the speaker didn't have a challenge he won all of his races that he was you know head-to-head with take the you know the defend texas liberty crowd that's what they were called then they rebranded to west fort worth management or texans United for conservative majority. But there's other things at play here, of course.

But the money, as I said in my takeaway, the money is king here. And it would have had an effect. Whether it would have changed things entirely, that's a different question. But it absolutely made incumbents more vulnerable to ouster yeah absolutely and that's where i think that criticism of feeling where you know i think that's circling behind the scenes and the more moderate sides of the gop is a this vote on school choice should have never happened like Like, as speaker, you should have never allowed this to happen. And then seeing, okay, Phelan be faced with his own challenger,

and a lot of these anti-school choice, you know, anti-voucher candidates go down in the primary. Like, that criticism is circling. And that's where I think it will translate in some ways to the the speaker's race but how much right like how much does that actually matter um do people are people impressed with the speaker you know one in the in the runoff or are they like man he's in battle let's go after him and i think there are i think those are both happening um and i think we have evidence that both those things are happening and um certainly the wagons are circling and people are getting ready to anyway we're already getting ahead of

ourselves and talking about the speakers race but people are and we'll get into it circling and saying um okay the speaker's vulnerable let's get out yeah well you know you mentioned the school choice vote and that is related to you hear a lot about the speaker quote quote, cutting up his members, forcing them to take difficult votes. That's what you're referring to with the school choice vote. You know, there were some that wanted him to fall on the sword and prevent that from coming up despite the governor and lieutenant governor just hitting him over the head every day with it. Governor behind the scenes, lieutenant governor very much publicly um but

the other the other side of that is you have a bunch of members also who voted for phelan as speaker who were angry that it would have been very angry that it wouldn't come up for a vote they wanted it on the floor it's the burden of leadership, right? Right. I mean, the lieutenant governor is lucky that he doesn't have to constantly, basically check the temperature of the room in order to keep his seat. You know, he's elected by, on a statewide ballot, the speaker doesn't have that luxury. He has to keep his majority happy. And that requires a lot of behind the scenes deal making and negotiating letting one side win here letting the other side win here you know it's

the approach phelan took on school choice especially was hands off he said you know basically and he said this all the way leading up to and through the legislative session i know where my members are on this and even though he didn't say it incredibly explicitly it was they're not going to pass this you know democrats aren't going to pass this a segment of the republicans are not going to pass this and that sure enough that's what happened so like he knew where his members were it's just a segment of the Republicans are not going to pass this. And sure enough, that's what happened. So he knew where his members were.

It's just those who want the policy wanted him to push the envelope on it. And he can do that. That's going to harm him one way or the other in terms of his governing majority in the in the house and you know that's that's what you sign up for is as a speaker it's not an easy choice one way or the other but um i mean i guess them's the breaks yeah and that's you know i think where the criticism comes in is okay be ready be ready to lead, right? Be ready to make those hard decisions. And I think a lot of folks have said, we want an administrative speaker, one that says, okay, this is the will of the body, or this bill has enough co-authors to make it to the floor, let's make it happen. And others say, we want you to shield us from tough votes and, you know, ones that might not be favorable in our districts. And so what kind of leader does the House want? Do they want one that's administrative, that just basically bangs the gavel and says, we got the votes, this is the rules, this is how this goes. We have a rule book for this. We have, you know, chamber etiquette. We have co-authors that can get a bill to the floor. We have a lot of support. Even if I don't

support the legislation, let's get it to the floor. Most of y'all do. Or do they want a speaker that in some way or another siphons off tough issues from consideration by members? And that's a huge disagreement and I don't know, kind of this philosophical approach of how a speaker can handle a chamber. So we'll see how that goes. But before we really jump into any of the other races here, which we have a lot to talk about, and we'll talk more about the speakers race in a little bit, but I want to delve into the Abbott and Paxton of it all, which was the big storyline in the primaries. In your mind, I know you put out some information about this, you tweeted it out, but what's the takeaway from the Abbott and Paxton of it all on runoff night?

Well, in the primary... Oh, s***. Holy s***. Slauson just put out a thing. She's running for speaker. She did it just now? Okay, so while we're recording here, we're sitting. We're on minute 42 of this recording. And Brad lets out an expletive. In typical Brad fashion.

And basically announces to me and to the Twittersphere that Shelby Slauson has not entered the race for the Texas House Speaker. So we already were going to talk about her op-ed. We already know we're going to talk about Oliverson, who's another candidate declared for the speakership. His reaction to Phelan's win when we got into the speakers race later. We're going to jump into it right now. Brad, first reaction to Representative Sosson jumping in the speaker's race well we knew it was going to happen at some

point i think based on the op-ed you referenced uh she came out on monday before the race before the the runoff day and said that um there needs to be a change in leadership, that Phelan cannot become speaker again regardless of what happens in the runoff. And it felt like a precursor to her expecting Phelan to lose and jumping in immediately after. So I had also heard that she along with another candidate who has yet to announce if they announce they were

planning on announcing on Wednesday after the runoff once Phelan had lost obviously that didn't happen that we just talked about in this podcast but she is deciding to jump in Phelan had lost. Obviously, that didn't happen that we just talked about in this podcast, but she is deciding to jump in anyway, and she talks in her letter to Republican caucus members that in so many words, the Speaker can barely protect himself.

How can he protect members? We can't be having a Speaker cut up or divide members. and ultimately she says she is signed on to some set of reforms to the House, whether that's contract with Texas or something new or different, don't know, but essentially the House needs to be reformed. And obviously we've seen multiple individuals take that position both in their campaigns and just in their capacity as members. It's not surprising that she jumped in, I don't think. This has been rumored for a while. She's been making calls. Others have been making calls for her behind the scenes, gauging the temperature on things uh it just so happens that

she is now the second or the third person to be in the race alongside oliverson who has already jumped in and of course the incumbent phelan who did not lose his runoff so um an interesting development i'd say i wish it didn't come while we were doing this dang podcast but hey that's what happens that's what happens i will say oliver just reacted i welcome another reformer into the race for speaker of the texas house and applaud shelby slosson for her honest appraisal of the status quo and optimism for the future the movement is growing. It's a paradigm shift.

So interesting to watch. And that's pretty, like, Oliverson's tone is pretty much consistent with what we've seen so far. Pretty cordial. Yeah. But very interesting. At the end of Slauson's letter, which is a three-page letter, I think. So she goes into a lot here. It's a very long letter.

She says, be always sure you're right then go ahead said davy crockett i am and we must very interesting and resolute from slosson so um fascinating really really fascinating and i think the it's certainly calculated move like you said she's been eyeing this for a long time. We've known this. But watching the speaker win his election, which by accounts of many was a long shot, has certainly changed the landscape that these candidates are entering, right? I mean, we have a huge difference in how I think a lot of these people eyeing the speakership are going to be approaching the race. And I'm sure this cuts down his, his winning cuts down the field at least a little bit.

Who's been, who'd be willing to throw their, their hat in the ring. Well, you know, something with both Slauson and Oliverson, you know, they, they're in that quadrant of members, at least Oliverson kind of, and I'll explain, they're in that quadrant of members, at least Oliverson kind of, and I'll explain why. They're in that quadrant of members that did not vote for impeachment and voted for school choice. I don't know exactly how many that is off the top of my head, but it's not, like two dozen, roughly. Oliverson, of course, was the only member absent during the impeachment vote. Various individuals have various takes on that. You know, he said that he was at home for his son's graduation. I've heard others say that was the night before. Regardless, he did not vote for impeachment.

And so that gives him a bit of a jumping off point along with slosson here too like there's a lot of talk in the building about you know showing where those votes overlap who fell where and the alternative to feeling comes from within that quadrant i don't know if that's entirely the case maybe maybe not um but the reason that the that thinking is there is whoever the next person is going to have to get along with Dan Patrick to some degree. I don't know if that's entirely just limited to those members who fall within that quadrant. But, you know, Slauson and Oliverson as well, you know, they, at least until they started moving against the Speaker, they were part of leadership or at least adjacent to it. You know, Oliverston was the chairman.

Which is notable. Right. Absolutely. That shows how vulnerable Phelan has become. You know, we saw him almost lose his re-election and now you're seeing members of of leadership or uh not on the outs members make moves against him politically and so uh you know slosson was seen as a kind of a rising star in the house she carried um the heartbeat bill in the senate in 21 as a freshman or not in the senate from the senate in the house as a freshman

uh we're gonna see what kind of momentum she can gain from this you know the the votes members get behind the scenes tell you a lot about their appeal from their colleagues. And we'll see where the chips fall. But, yeah, now we have a three-person race. And I'm sure by the time this goes out, we'll have another one probably. Another one or two. I want to say also, Oliverson responded to Phelan's win on tuesday night and said i'm planning to take this vote to the floor um basically saying i'm not backing down just

because phelan won his election and eked out uh you know of the runoff so you know resolute statement from from oliverson they're definitely willing to and we're seeing you know typically a speaker candidate going against an incumbent speaker has to have that approach, right? You got to take it to the floor, make it happen, you know, try and stir it up a little bit. But Oliverson certainly is prepared to do that. I'm curious, Brad, if you think, I need to ask you this, what in your mind do you see the dynamic being at play if a bunch of anti-feeling candidates enter the race for speaker they're going to divide up the vote of those willing to vote against the speakership will a bunch drop out and then one candidate makes it to the floor and you kind of see the factions align or will there

be three four five six candidates uh up for a vote on that first vote in session. I don't think you'll see more than two or three on the floor. I think you will see after the caucus vote, the Republican caucus vote, members will drop out. Now, Oliverson is stating outright that he will take it to the floor. So that right i i guess you know take him at his word there right um things can change a lot of things can change and probably will but um i think it's safe to assume at the moment that there's going to be at least one candidate against the speaker on the floor as there was last session with with tinderholt right um representative tony tinderholt challenged the speaker and and i think the vote was a lot to

three um it was very very lopsided but odds are you have with all these wins in the in the primary for that faction of the party you have just right off the bat a larger base of support for whoever the anti-feeling candidate is so they're operating from a stronger position at the moment than they would have been two years ago or last year at the beginning of session you know so um i think it it comes down a lot's gonna come down to course, can Phelan shore up his support within the Republican House conference. There's a lot of confidence right now that he can. I don't know that's going to happen, but the math is pretty much on his side to get to 76. Because at least at the moment, Democrats are not going to support anyone but Phelan.

And that doesn't mean necessarily that he's going to, I don't know if he'll first go to them. I don't think he will. He'll first try and shore up his Republican numbers because you need 52 in caucus at the moment. We'll see if this is affected by the November elections, if Republicans lose seats. But you need 52 to win the nomination for the Republican conference. And then all the members are supposed to go to the floor and vote for that nominee. That's what the rules say. That's, of course, almost never what happens, right?

At least not so simply you know there's there's always a bunch of other dynamics at play democrats are of course part of it and the there's 54 democrats right now in the house maybe that changes some but still that to get to 76 from there, what do you need? 20? Wait. No, no. I'm sorry. 60.

I said the wrong number. Yeah. It's not 54. It's 64. 64. You need what? 10? 12.

12? That's not a lot of Republicans. And depending on what happens, it might be even less. What happens in November. So Democrats are going to have a lot to say on this. And Republican primary voters aren't going to like that. But that's how the House works. And unless you change the way the Speaker is elected, that's always going to be a factor.

Now if Republicans all stick stick together which fat chance of that after this primary but if republicans all stick together they can determine their own speaker and not have an issue with um with a strauss-like coalition but that's always a possibility another question for you why is the speaker now a more formidable candidate for his own position than he was after the primary loss? In March, people were saying, hey, if Phelan even gets to a runoff, he's not going to be speaker again. And now the political winds have changed where he's very much in the conversation. Why did that change? I think time is the biggest explanation. Just the heat of the moment is passed on that. And the speaker won his race, obviously, so that's another part of it. But passions tend to die off over time, a lot of decisions and statements, positions taken in the heat of the moment don't last. And I think you've seen members, even though they saw what happened in the primary come around to,

well, he's not that bad when it comes down to it. I don't agree or disagree with that take, but there's always a natural gravitational pull towards the status quo. It's very difficult to overcome that. And we saw the kind of tectonic shifting force that had to occur in order for all these incumbents to lose in the primary. I mean, you had to have the wildest political year that we've seen in a long, long time, probably since the Sharpstown scandal, in order to drive this turnover in the House. And not retirement-driven turnover, electoral-driven turnover. So I think it's partially how we're wired as human beings.

We stick with the devil we know rather than the devil we don't know usually um that would be my take right now a lot can change but there were a lot of premature and hastily issued pronouncements of phelan's political death. And it just, it didn't happen. Yeah, absolutely. Well, speaking of the devil,

you know, or the devil, you don't know my microphone looks like it's possessed. So if you're watching on YouTube, my apologies for this red orb. That is my microphone. It's Daniel's fault. If anybody asks,

Daniel, what are you doing? Okay. Well, let's move on from the speakership here, Brad, unless you have anything else to add on that part of our pod. I think we beat that dead horse to death. That's what I'm thinking. Okay, we were going to talk about the Abbott and Paxton of it all in the runoff. We got rudely interrupted by a new speaker candidate.

Walk us through the Abbott and Paxton of the runoff. Yeah,ely interrupted by a new speaker candidate walk us through the avid paxton of the runoff yeah thanks for throwing me off representative sloss and really appreciate that anyway and apparently we have a verdict in the trump trial so fun uh fun little timing for us to be on the pod yeah we we picked the worst timing possible. Anyway, so during the primary, I kind of tracked head-to-head Abbott v. Paxton. Of course, it's not exactly scientific. It's just it's the best we have available to track who is a bit more influential than the other in these. And I think overall, you know, in the primary of the record, head-to-head, Abbott was 17-2-6. That's six runoffs.

Paxton was 2-19-4. So that's very lopsided in Abbott's favor. Part of that is Abbott backed a lot of incumbents, specifically the ones who voted for school choice. That just, it's easier to win as an incumbent. It's an advantage. On the other side too, Paxton, when he issued his first endorsements, he jumped the gun on a lot. He backed some less formidable candidates. And, you know, an example of that is in House District 1, Abbott backed Spencer, who jumped in a bit later, but Paxton rushed out the gate to back Dale Holes. Now, I'm sure he has, there are multiple cases here where he has personal relationships with people, such as, you know demore in sd30 the third place finisher there paxton i believe had a personal relationship with her so um like when you when they're friends when you know each other of course you're gonna

jump in there but overall abbott backed more formidable candidates in the primary now we saw that kind of flip on its head in the runoffs when you had the smaller sample size. Paxton came out with a better record. You had Abbott win HD 12, that was Wharton, over Ben Bias. In HD 30, that was Paxton, louder back over Bownight. In the race, other than the speakership that Paxton cared about more than any of the others, HG61, that's his home district, he backed Carissa Richardson, and she beat Frederick Frazier, who Abbott had backed, and then after a while he just kind of, I don't think he disappeared entirely from the race but he didn't

I wasn't seeing him going and stumping constantly for Frazier like he was other candidates and I don't know if that's related to the personal issues related to the sign impersonating a code officer and sign

tampering situation. Yeah, sign wars. But maybe it was. He just wasn't as prevalent there. But Paxton won that one. 64 and 91, these two mirror each other very similarly, very much. Andy Hopper defeated Lynnn stucky in that

race um he abbott endorsed both the incumbents stucky and click in 91 because they voted for school choice paxton opposed both of them paxton won both of them then and this one i forgot to include in my tweets uh 97 that I mentioned McQueenie Abbott backed McQueenie Paxton backed Bean Abbott won that one so in the runoffs Paxton went four and two Abbott went two and four head to head and clearly the attorney general had a good night absolutely and I'm sure he'll take his bag and go home and be happy with it overall. I mean, he clearly had some influence over this. But I'll just go back to my takeaway, the money.

Paxton didn't put any money behind any of these candidates himself. Abbott did. And it goes to show in the broader record record head-to-head record of these two um abbott and school choice along with it wasn't just abbott's money it was club for growth afc victory fund they pumped millions of dollars into these i mean it's i think it's inarguable that abbott had a bigger effect than paxton but that doesn't mean Paxton didn't have his wins. He absolutely did.

Yeah, absolutely. And I encourage folks, if you're not already following Brad on Twitter, go follow him, go check out that tweet. It's a really interesting head-to-head comparison, and it's notable, too, because Abbott and Paxton were not always on the same or not always on a different side in a lot of these races they were aligned on a lot so um definitely worth going and checking out their record okay um i'm gonna real fast pivot to uh school choice here i mean that was again a huge theme of this primary season that is now over um and abbott very quickly after results

started rolling in on tuesday night came out and said hey we now have the votes to pass school choice cameron abrams has an awesome story about that all at the texan.news go read it if you haven't already um but you know this plays into why this next session is going to be contentious to say the the least. And especially if Phelan maintains a speakership with a House whose makeup has changed so dramatically and is certainly much more amenable to a school choice option than they were before. I think there was a path forward for some sort of school choice offering this last legislative session, albeit it would be far less potent than I think what the governor

wanted, and certainly a long shot away from any sort of universal school choice option. But now that's changed. And the governor was quick to laud the wins of those members he supported. And going into this session, school choice will certainly be an option at the very least, especially if the speakership is in any way shifted away from Phelan. Yeah, and the school choice itself, the final form is going to be interesting to watch. And we saw it, basically for it to pass, the assessment was made, it has to be tied to school funding. And, you

know, there was, the votes were there, as I've said multiple times on this podcast, over the last few months, the votes were there for the original HB1, and I think that was October. Governor didn't, governor didn't approve of that. Obviously, the math has changed, and that's in the governor's favor. But this is still not going to be a standalone school choice bill passing, I don't think. I don't see any way that happens. It's going to have to be tied to school funding. School funding and teacher pay raise increase. So that's not changing it's just the details

really at this point i think how many how much guardrail do you put on this what do those even look like testing requirements i you know name your your issue there that's going to be a factor that's not going away and there are, yeah, they might pull the lever, but behind the scenes they're going to be stressing that I need something like this in, whatever that is. And that's not going to be this just, you know, one-line bill that says there shall be school freedom or I don't know, whatever the most idyllic version of this for one of his proponents

is, it's not going to look like that. It's going to be a very hashed over, pork laden bill, I think. Yeah, but I also think at the same time, we have in the House now a contingency of members who are much more amenable to the idea. And so I think there is an opportunity to get a more sweeping bill or school choice option across the line. Now, how sweeping is the question? And I agree, I don't think we're going to get anything across the line that is not tied to some sort of public school funding, teacher pay raises, whatever that might be. But I do think there's an option for something that's a little bit more substantive than last session. And I think that

in part is due to the, um, the ardency with which these members are coming in, uh, and the support they receive from the governor and their races, right. They are coming in fired up about this issue. And, um, it's not some tangential policy fight that they're like, yeah, okay, we'll get to it. This is why they were elected. And they know that. And so they know that their allies of the governor are coming in on that way, in that way. So it's at the forefront of their minds. It was at the forefront of their election cycle.

So it's different in that regard. We have a lot. We have a lot of members coming in who are in this camp potentially and or very pro-choice or pro-school choice members. So I think there will be a better option for school choice advocates on the table than there was last session. But I don't disagree. There will be a lot of pork in the bill. So it'll really just come down to how much or how sweeping of an option is tied to public school funding. Well, and also, you know, all these members will support, all these new ones will support school choice. But they don't all agree on everything, of course.

Like they're individuals with different opinions about different things. And it's, there's a lot left in the air. And so nothing's decided. We aren't even in the session yet. And that's when things will really begin or at least really speed up on fashioning this bill in some way. Yeah.

I want to take a quick moment and talk about the Senate before we move on here. In terms of something else that caught my eye this election, we have, of course, SD30, J.C. Arbor and Brent Hagenbue going head-to-head in a huge, expensive, big-time race in SD30, Senate District 30, vacated by Drew Springer. And Hagenbue came out on top pretty significantly too, especially after the primary results. It was certainly, you know, a locked in win for Hagenbue. But fascinating in that, you know, Brad, you and

I were both at the Republican convention, and we heard from a lot of grassroots folks in and around SD30, who are very frustrated by a lot of grassroots folks in and around SD 30, who are very frustrated by a lot of the big name endorsements that came in behind Hagenboe specifically frustrated with the allegations that Hagenboe does not reside in the district. Lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, who's been very financially publicly supportive of Hagenboe and his entire race went into a couple of the Senate district caucuses for both SD30 and close by some other Denton County areas.

And was, you know, folks were chanting Jace, Jace, Jace at the Lieutenant Governor as he walked in. And Brad, you interviewed Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick at convention and you asked him about this. And I'd encourage folks, if you've not already gone back and listened to all of our convention interviews to do so, Brad, what was the Lieutenant Governor's response to you when you brought this up to him? Well, he kind of evaded the question a bit. He talked about how Hagenbue is the more qualified candidate, and he said that, you you know i'm sure yarbrough is a fine guy but um he is wrong on xyz policy and yada yada yada um it was it was clearly

you know hearing reports of of what happened in the meeting, voters are—not voters. Some voters, these very involved activists in the Republican Party, are very upset with him for backing Hagenbue. And it's not just because they say he doesn't live in the district. That's a point of contention. But they view him as the more liberal candidate. Dan Patrick says that's nonsense. He's plenty conservative. But that's the view of these grassroots activists here,

and that's why it got so heated. That's why they got so passionate about it, enough to boo the lieutenant governor. But, you know, Patrick did tell them, you know, whoever wins this race, let this is about pushing our Republican ideals in the form of policy next session. And also re-electing Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, electing Donald Trump. That was his pitch to them, and I'm not sure how much it set in on him, but that's, he's very glad this,

that raises over with, I can guarantee you that. Oh, especially considering Patrick is typically of the, you know, big three, the speaker, the like of,

and the governor, the one to be more aligned more frequently with grassroots folks i mean that's kind of his lane he's found for himself um and so for this to be where he uh you know what he's faced with in a race that he cares deeply about is certainly not advantageous to him um okay brad let's let's get to the end here we've gone over a lot and we still could go over so much but i want to talk through what this could mean for next session looking ahead. I've alluded to your tweet. It's a great tweet. Folks, go read that tweet from Brad, but the Patrick, the Phelan, the House, the Senate, what are we looking at in terms of next session and the conflict that could be coming down the pipeline?

I mean, put simply, as it looks right now, everything's dead. The lieutenant governor is not going to back down. The speaker, if he retains the gavel, is not going to back down. They both are rearing for a fight. And the collateral damage to that is all the hopes and dreams legislatively of these members. And a lot of people are recognizing that right now who knows maybe they find a way to bridge the gap though I haven't seen any sign of that look at Dan Patrick's response after the runoff results and he was tearing into feeling uh saying you know it's um he he was pushed to a runoff and that's still a sign of his inefficacy as a speaker and he you know cut up his members and he is

just generally terrible that's that's the general sense that Dan Patrick gives off. It's not a sense. He says it explicitly. But the speaker has responded in kind, and there's just no love lost between these two. And because of how much goes through those two positions, they have to deal with each other. Look at the property tax thing. The standoff last year, that went months because those two do not like each other

and had a very real policy disagreement that turned into a personal feud. Or at least it revved up an already existing personal feud. So, you know, I don't think anybody in the building is very hopeful on much getting done next session. Will a budget even be passed? I mean, probably. That would be a pretty dire situation.

But it's possible. It's possible, you know, if the House wants to reassert itself as another branch in the legislature. I refuse to use the word co-equal because I just hate the context that's used in terms of co-equal branches. They're not co-equal. Okay. But within the legislature, yes, they each have their own responsibilities. And they are, you know, it's a bicameral legislature. But stuff has to go through both chambers.

And if members are really wanting to stick it to the Senate, especially those who may or may not be coming back next cycle, what incentive do they have to play nice, especially after this primary? So you'll probably see school choice pass. What else? I don't know. I don't know. And it's hard because you mentioned the speaker candidates wanting to potentially align themselves or get along with, at the very least Dan Patrick. But we see this happen often where the Speaker of the House, which, you know, we've had a little bit more turnover in recent years in the Speaker's chair than we have in the Lieutenant

Governor's side of the building. And so they've had to, you know, contend with how to relate to or combat the Lieutenant Governor and his leadership of the Senate. But at the same time, if these candidates running for Speaker are saying, hey, I'll work with the Lieutenant Governor, I guarantee you when they're elected, they'll find themselves contending within themselves of how do I make myself an independent leader of my own chamber, right? It's always house versus senate and sometimes that's the more interesting dynamic of play is the house and the senate at odds with each other not republicans not democrats not rural not urban not suburban but the house versus senate dynamic

is what has been um really impactful on what's passed and what's not in the last few years and so finding yourself in the speaker's dio saying hey I'm going to work with the lieutenant governor, getting there and being like, hey, I don't want to be told what to do by the lieutenant governor. I don't want to be at the whim of the lieutenant governor. Could be a very real possibility if we have a new speaker as well, that dynamic being in play. So it'll be interesting to watch.

It would have been interesting to see how long it would have taken for the relationship between Bonnen and Patrick to sour. You know, the one session they were together was the Kumbaya session. Super Bowl session. Super Bowl session. Nothing more can be passed after that if we reach the Super Bowl, right?

Yeah. Well, now they tout 21 in the accomplishments there. So clearly it wasn't that much of a Super Bowl. Or it was a two-peat. But anyway, Dan Patrick is a very opinionated man. He wants things to go the way he wants them. And if he wouldn't be in his spot of massive import and influence that he possesses

if he wasn't that way i don't think and he's a very skilled politician you know he won the property tax standoff he won it and that was bitter and bruising the whole way through yeah but the house and the senate operate very differently and the root cause of that is the proportion that republicans have of the majority you know that the senate has dropped the super majority line multiple times i think twice since I've been here in Texas, five years. That makes it easier for them to advance whatever it is they want policy-wise. In the House, the minority party has a lot more power. And unless serious gains are made

and rules change is implemented, which is something that a lot of members are talking about right now that may may play a role in that absolutely but unless something really fundamental changes the two chambers are not never going to operate the same it's just the numbers don't work that way as they are currently even with all these um flips that intraparty flips that the right-wing faction has made. It's just fundamentally different at the moment. And that's the driver of a lot of this friction between the two chambers.

Along with club- club v club rivalry you know it's when you're in the house you're a house member when you're in the senate you're a senate member even if you have existed in the other one previously it it's just kind of i think natural that way again back to the human nature side of this that just means a lot of stuff's going to die and that's what i think a lot of people are upset about but but some people are going to be really excited about that right they're going to be really excited that bills are dying and that you know some policies aren't passing so this will be a very very interesting session. Yeah. I remember conservative thought used to be generally, you know, legislating is about killing bad things, not about passing good things. Well, now that gains have been made for that side of the party, that opinion is slowly shifting. Now's the time to pass everything we possibly can

which is about what i was going to say was that now that these this side of the party of the gop that would typically be excited about a stalemate a legislative stalemate uh is now seeing their numbers increase that may that sentiment may change a bit. So it'll be interesting to watch that all go down. Opinions change based on convenience. Imagine that. Hey, we're talking about super majorities being diminished over time. I think we can all see this trend. It's natural. It's how it happens. But it certainly is interesting to watch some of these

uh long time rules be changed over time as the makeup of different chambers changes and that's natural but it's very interesting so okay brad well like three different huge news stories have broken while we've been on the pod anything else you want to add before we peace out and get back to work? I guess the only thing I'll touch on is general elections are going to be interesting to watch. Republicans can lose a couple seats. You know, Janie Lopez down in the Valley is going to be one to watch. John Lujan in Bexar County as well.

Both of those are very close seats for Republicans. Lujan's is dead even based on our rating system. Then Republicans are going to hope to flip. There's the king seat that I mentioned, HD80. That is probably going to go Republican, or at least they have the advantage there. Then in the Senate, you've got SD27, Adam Hinojosa. We saw one of the themes this cycle was in these rematches.

Challengers had a lot better chance of winning against the incumbent. Well, Hinojosa ran last time in 22 and lost very narrowly against... I'm totally blanking. LaMantia thank you uh morgan lamantia and uh that's going to be a vulnerable seat for democrats republicans are going to go out that hard and it's possible they flip it it's certainly possible but the general election just overall something to watch how does do republicans actually come together and vote for you know help support the republican party the the candidates there i think they probably will um what's ted cruz's margin you know we talked about that last last episode what's his margin what's trump's margin you know that's going to affect the ratings of all these uh legislative seats down ballot um at least as far as our rating

system goes so that'll be interesting to watch but when when you have tight margins in in either chamber one or a couple seats either way can change a lot over the course of a whole session. Especially when school choice and the speaker's race are on the docket for legislators. I'll add in House District 70, currently held by Mihaela Playsa. Steve Kennard is a Republican running that district, and that is going to be, I want to say it's a d54 district but last cycle it was an even district um 50 50 both ways so that could be an interesting race as well we'll keep an eye on that and we have an interview with canard from our convention uh interviews so definitely go check that one out um yeah but the general is going to be fascinating and i you know i don't see a huge

shift electorally or politically between ours and these in's in the House or the Senate, but it will be very interesting to watch regardless. And like you said, a seat or two can make a big difference in some of these landmark decisions for the legislature this cycle. OK, well, let's get to work, folks. Thank you so much for listening to this episode and we'll catch you in a month.