Democrats have had eyes on this seat ever since the 2016 election returns came in. They ran a candidate with no political experience against a nine-term, conservative Republican incumbent who had never faced a significant challenger in this formerly ruby-red seat. The Democrat won.
This is the story of Texas’s 7th congressional district, where Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher defeated incumbent John Culberson by almost five percentage points on Election Day. Democrats had looked to the seat as one of their best pickup opportunities since it is in a majority-minority district that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Fortunately for Democrats, an increase in turnout and a centrist campaign focused on local Houstonian issues combined to create the conditions for a Fletcher victory in this tossup district.
A Wave in Numbers
The 7th congressional district looks quite like the district that inspired the term “gerrymander.” It comprises communities across the western Houston suburbs starting from relatively more diverse areas in the south like Meyerland, Sharpstown, and Almeda before moving north to the much more affluent neighborhoods of Bellaire, West University, and River Oaks. It then takes a turn west to incorporate the fairly well-off Spring Branch-Memorial area and parts of Katy before going north to include the rapidly-growing suburbs in what used to be the Katy Prairie. Finally, it takes a jog east to take in Cy-Fair and Jersey Village. This strange district shape means that it represents many different communities. Because some of these communities have little in common with each other, however, candidates have to work harder to ensure across-the-board support and turn out voters.
Fortunately for Fletcher, however, the 7th district had a very high turnout. According to Harris County voting data, turnout in this district reached almost 60 percent of registered voters, rivaling turnout in recent presidential years; both 2012 and 2016, for example, saw a turnout of around 67 percent. For comparison, previous midterm elections have seen drastically lower turnout: in 2010, only about 45 percent of registered voters turned out, while in 2014, a dismal 39 percent of registered voters showed up to the polls. Since conventional wisdom holds that higher turnout favors Democrats, the relatively high turnout in this year’s midterms almost certainly benefited Fletcher, especially considering an increase in voter registrations.
With the help of this high turnout, Fletcher outperformed Culberson across the board geographically: according to an HPR analysis of precinct-level voting data, Culberson lost votes (both as an absolute number and as a percentage) compared to 2016 in almost every single precinct, indicating that either Republicans stayed home or Fletcher converted voters who supported Culberson in 2016.
Moreover, most of the precincts that Fletcher flipped were located in two key areas, namely the fairly affluent and well-educated West University/Bellaire area and the western Katy Prairie suburbs. Fletcher also gained ground in the West University/Bellaire precincts she did not flip. These results suggest that Fletcher successfully courted well-educated and affluent voters who supported both Culberson and Clinton in the 2016 election, a crucial demographic for Fletcher’s campaign. Additionally, her success in the Katy Prairie suburbs, which flooded during Hurricane Harvey as a result of the opening of Barker Reservoir, indicates that her focus on issues like flooding paid off.
Lastly, Fletcher solidified Democrats’ lead in traditionally Democratic areas such as Sharpstown and Almeda, giving credence to the conventional wisdom that turning out one’s own supporters helps to win elections. Relatedly, the excitement surrounding Beto O’Rourke’s ultimately unsuccessful run for Texas’ Senate seat, which also brought progressives and liberals to the polls to vote for him, helped Fletcher: a strong candidate at the top of the ticket created a strong coattails effect. In short, high turnout benefited the Fletcher campaign, as turnout among traditionally Democratic groups bolstered a successful effort to tap traditionally Republican constituencies.
A Centrist Campaign Current
A focus on a broad variety of issues catalyzed this support from both traditional Democratic bases and Republican converts. Although President Trump remained a central theme of many races in a remarkably nationalized election, Fletcher focused on local issues like flooding and transportation, as well as the Democratic mainstay issue of healthcare. Fletcher hit Culberson with an ad attacking his record on flooding throughout his tenure in Congress, even though Culberson emphasized his role in securing funding for Harvey recovery. Certainly, hurricane relief and flood prevention were crucial issues in this race. Fletcher also attacked Culberson on his opposition to expansion for Houston’s public transportation system and indicated that she might serve on the House Transportation Committee to secure more funding for it. In the end, these issues resonated with voters, especially in the suburbs and areas hit hardest by the flooding after Hurricane Harvey.
Fitting the general Democratic theme of this election, Fletcher also ran multiple ads attacking Culberson for his positions on healthcare, especially on prescription drug prices and pre-existing conditions. These ads smartly played into voter interest in the issue; a Pew Research survey indicated that around three-quarters of voters cited healthcare as a very important issue in deciding their votes. Overall, Fletcher won support by harping on Culberson’s opposition to Obamacare, which is more popular now than when it was enacted, and the issue of healthcare in general.
Above all, Fletcher emphasized her willingness to work across the aisle to get things done. In all of her ads, she talked about how she would work with Republicans and decried the current unproductive state of Congress. To ward off charges that she was under the thumb of Nancy Pelosi, Fletcher said that she would not automatically vote for Pelosi for speaker, instead preferring to meet with all the candidates before making a decision. This centrist platform evidently appealed to moderate Republican voters, especially well-educated, white Republican women — a key demographic that Democrats have targeted nationwide.
National Ripples
What implications does this race have for Democrats running across the nation? First, it indicates that Democrats should not limit themselves to one set of policy ideas in trying to persuade voters. Unabashedly progressive policies often turn away cross-party supporters, limiting candidates’ chances in the case of a poor get-out-the-vote effort, but running on just a centrist platform without any liberal ideas can leave the base unexcited. As a result, Democrats should combine centrist and progressive ideas in their platforms; as Fletcher demonstrated, it pays to appeal to the other side of the aisle with centrist messaging and policies while still turning out the base with some liberal ideas and a strong get-out-the-vote operation.
Second, candidate selection matters. In 2012, 2014 and 2016, James Cargas ran as the Democratic candidate, but proved unable to capture the zeitgeist of the district: he did not excite Democratic constituencies to turn out, failed to appeal to moderate Republicans, and gained little name recognition. As a result, he lost rather predictably, not putting up a strong challenge to Culberson. In contrast, the 2016 presidential election energized Fletcher and others to run for the seat, and Fletcher mounted a fierce and motivated campaign to win a close district. When Democrats run strong candidates like Fletcher across the country, their chances of winning improve markedly.
Certainly, Republicans will have their eyes on this seat in 2020, and in two years this seat will be up for grabs once again. For now, though, a strong campaign from Lizzie Pannill Fletcher successfully turned a ruby-red district blue.
Image Credit: Flickr/Phil Roeder