As we approach the next election cycle, the Texas Liberty Journal remains dedicated to providing our readers with comprehensive and insightful coverage of the political landscape. Our commitment is to ensure that you are well-informed about the key players and pivotal races that will shape the future of our great state. This election season promises a dynamic and diverse lineup of candidates, each bringing their unique perspectives and policy priorities to the forefront. Our analysis will cover every U.S. House District in Texas, offering a detailed look at the competitive spirit driving these races.

In the upcoming months, we will delve into the vibrant competition unfolding across the state, highlighting the intense battles between incumbents and challengers, as well as introducing you to fresh faces entering the political arena.

Through our detailed coverage, we aim to provide context and clarity on the issues at stake, the candidates’ platforms, and the potential impact of these elections on both state and national levels. Stay tuned to the Texas Liberty Journal for in-depth reporting and analysis, as we navigate this crucial election season together.

District	Republican	Democrat	Other
U.S. House Texas District 1	Nathaniel Moran (i)
U.S. House Texas District 2	Daniel Crenshaw (i)	Peter Filler	Chuck Benton
U.S. House Texas District 3	Keith Self (i)	Sandeep Srivastava	Christopher Claytor
U.S. House Texas District 4	Pat Fallon (i)	Simon Cardell	Mark Boler
U.S. House Texas District 5	Lance Gooden (i)	Ruth Torres
U.S. House Texas District 6	Jake Ellzey (i)	John Love III
U.S. House Texas District 7	Caroline Kane	Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (i)
U.S. House Texas District 8	Morgan Luttrell (i)	Laura Jones
U.S. House Texas District 9		Al Green (i)
U.S. House Texas District 10	Michael McCaul (i)	Theresa Boisseau	Bill Kelsey
U.S. House Texas District 11	August Pfluger (i)	Wacey Alpha Cody
U.S. House Texas District 12	Craig Goldman	Trey Hunt
U.S. House Texas District 13	Ronny L. Jackson (i)		Mike Kolls
U.S. House Texas District 14	Randy Weber (i)	Rhonda Hart
U.S. House Texas District 15	Monica De La Cruz (i)	Michelle Vallejo	Arthur DiBianca
U.S. House Texas District 16	Irene Armendariz-Jackson	Veronica Escobar (i)
U.S. House Texas District 17	Pete Sessions (i)	Mark Lorenzen	Clyde Garland
U.S. House Texas District 18	Lana Centonze	Sheila Jackson Lee (i)
U.S. House Texas District 19			Bernard Johnson
U.S. House Texas District 20		Joaquin Castro (i)	Pat Dixon
U.S. House Texas District 21	Chip Roy (i)	Kristin Hook	Bob King
U.S. House Texas District 22	Troy Nehls	Marquette Greene-Scott	Saer Khan
U.S. House Texas District 23	Tony Gonzales (i)	Santos Limon
U.S. House Texas District 24	Beth Van Duyne (i)	Sam Eppler
U.S. House Texas District 25	Roger Williams
U.S. House Texas District 26	Brandon Gill	Ernest Lineberger III	Phil Gray
U.S. House Texas District 27	Michael Cloud (i)	Tanya Lloyd
U.S. House Texas District 28	Jay Furman	Henry Cuellar (i)	Bailey Cole
U.S. House Texas District 29	Alan Garza	Sylvia Garcia (i)
U.S. House Texas District 30		Jasmine Crockett (i)	Ken Ashby
U.S. House Texas District 31	John Carter (i)	Stuart Whitlow	Caleb Ferrell
U.S. House Texas District 32	Darrell Day	Julie Johnson	Kevin Hale
U.S. House Texas District 33	Patrick Gillespie	Marc Veasey
U.S. House Texas District 34	Mayra Flores	Vicente Gonzalez Jr. (i)	Brent Lewis
U.S. House Texas District 35	Steven Wright	Greg Casar	Clark Patterson
U.S. House Texas District 36	Brian Babin (i)	Dayna Steele
U.S. House Texas District 37	Lloyd Doggett	Lloyd Doggett (i)	Girish Altekar
U.S. House Texas District 38	Wesley Hunt (i)	Melissa McDonough	Chad Abbey

In a recent statement, Joe Biden has highlighted concerns from sixteen esteemed economists, all Nobel Prize winners, warning that a second term for Donald Trump could lead to increased inflation. The letter signed by these economists outlines their concerns about the economic ramifications of a Trump presidency.

The letter reads:

We the undersigned are deeply concerned about the risks of a second Trump administration for the U.S. economy.

Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty. For a country like the U.S., which is embedded in deep relationships with other countries, conforming to international norms and having normal and stable relationships with other countries is also an imperative. Donald Trump and the vagaries of his actions and policies threaten this stability and the U.S.’s standing in the world.

While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden’s economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump’s. In his first four years as President, Joe Biden signed into law major investments in the U.S. economy, including in infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and climate. Together, these investments are likely to increase productivity and economic growth while lowering long-term inflationary pressures and facilitating the clean energy transition.

During Joe Biden’s presidency we have also seen a remarkably strong and equitable labor market recovery — enabled by his pandemic stimulus. An additional four years of Joe Biden’s presidency would allow him to continue supporting an inclusive U.S. economic recovery.

Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast. There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets. Nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute, predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.

The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come. We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.

Signed,

The Signatories: Who Are These Economists?

1. George A. Akerlof (2001)

• Background: American economist, university professor at Georgetown University, and Koshland Professor of Economics Emeritus at UC Berkeley.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for contributions to the understanding of markets with asymmetric information. Husband of Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

2. Sir Angus Deaton (2015)

• Background: British-American economist, Dwight D. Eisenhower Professor of Economics and International Affairs Emeritus at Princeton University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for analysis of consumption, poverty, and welfare.

3. Claudia Goldin (2023)

• Background: American economic historian and labor economist, Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for advancing understanding of women’s labor market outcomes.

4. Sir Oliver Hart (2016)

• Background: British-born American economist, Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor at Harvard University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for contributions to contract theory.

5. Eric S. Maskin (2007)

• Background: American economist and mathematician, Adams University Professor at Harvard University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for foundational work on mechanism design theory.

6. Daniel L. McFadden (2000)

• Background: American economist and econometrician, Presidential Professor of Health Economics at USC.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for development of methods for analyzing discrete choice behavior.

7. Paul R. Milgrom (2020)

• Background: American economist, known for auction theory, co-creator of the no-trade theorem.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for improvements to auction theory.

8. Roger B. Myerson (2007)

• Background: American economist, professor at the University of Chicago.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for work on mechanism design theory.

9. Edmund S. Phelps (2006)

• Background: American economist, founder of Columbia’s Center on Capitalism and Society.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for demonstrating the golden rule savings rate.

10. Paul M. Romer (2018)

• Background: American economist, University Professor in Economics at Boston College.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for contributions to endogenous growth theory.

11. Alvin E. Roth (2012)

• Background: American economist, Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for work on market design and experimental economics.

12. William F. Sharpe (1990)

• Background: American economist, STANCO 25 Professor of Finance Emeritus at Stanford University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for contributions to financial economics, creator of the Sharpe ratio.

13. Robert J. Shiller (2013)

• Background: American economist, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for empirical analysis of asset prices.

14. Christopher A. Sims (2011)

• Background: American econometrician and macroeconomist, John J.F. Sherrerd ’52 University Professor of Economics at Princeton University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy.

15. Joseph E. Stiglitz (2001)

• Background: American economist, University Professor at Columbia University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for research on information asymmetry.

16. Robert B. Wilson (2020)

• Background: American economist, Adams Distinguished Professor of Management, Emeritus at Stanford University.
• Notable Work: Nobel Prize for contributions to auction theory.

Analysis

Despite their credentials, it’s noteworthy that many of these Nobel laureates were awarded for their work in specialized areas such as game theory, rather than macroeconomic policy or inflation forecasting. This raises questions about their expertise in predicting inflation outcomes from policy decisions.

In their letter, they emphasize concerns over Trump’s approach to fiscal responsibility and international relations. They argue that Biden’s economic agenda, marked by significant investments in infrastructure and manufacturing, is better suited to maintaining economic stability and controlling inflation.

The concerns raised by these Nobel-winning economists suggest that the upcoming election could have significant economic repercussions. However, the relevance of their specialized fields to the broader economic issues at hand, particularly inflation, should be carefully considered. As the election draws near, voters must weigh these expert opinions alongside their own views and experiences.

In a stunning display of disregard for the principles they claim to uphold, five Texas Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have betrayed their constituents by voting in favor of a ‘stopgap’ spending bill that does nothing but kick the can down the road. The recent passage of the short-term funding extension, also known as the continuing resolution (CR), raises serious questions about the commitment of these representatives to responsible governance.

The CR, which passed with a narrow margin, is nothing short of a legislative cop-out. Instead of addressing the core issues and fulfilling their duty to pass the necessary spending bills for the fiscal year 2024, these Republicans chose the path of least resistance, allowing the government to limp along with temporary measures until March.

One must question the wisdom of this decision, especially when considering the bill’s implications. The CR, passed 314 to 108, extends funding deadlines to March 1 and March 8. It was pushed forward by House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, despite the reservations of House Republicans.

Congress has been passing CRs to avoid government shutdowns since the end of September, failing to pass 12 annual spending bills for the 2024 fiscal year. The stopgap bill was passed before funding would have been cut off for agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department and Transportation Department on Friday. The rest of the government, including the Defense and State Departments, had a deadline of February 2.

The $1.66 trillion piece of legislation will punt the fight over government spending into early March, after being signed into law by President Joe Biden. It’s worth noting that this was not a bipartisan effort to address fundamental budget issues; rather, it was a last-minute scramble to avert a government shutdown.

These Texas Republicans, including John Carter, Dan Crenshaw, Monica De La Cruz, Jake Ellzey, and the retiring Kay Granger, voted in favor of a bill that not only fails to provide stability and predictability for the nation’s finances, but gives away all leverage to accomplish conservative goals of stopping the flood of illegal aliens into the country. The CR perpetuates a cycle of short-term fixes, disregarding the need for comprehensive and responsible budgeting.

Among the five Texas Republicans who shamefully voted for this bill, all but one are facing primary challenges that deserve attention. Let’s shine a light on the individuals who failed to stand up for their constituents and opted for a temporary solution over principled governance. As we head into primary season, voters must carefully consider whether these representatives truly reflect their values and priorities. The choices made in Washington impact every Texan, and it’s time to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.

1. John Carter (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 31): With five opponents in his primary – William Abel, John Anderson, Abhiram Garapati, Mack Latimer, and Mike Williams – Carter’s support for the CR raises concerns about his commitment to conservative values. Voters must question whether he is the right representative to champion their interests.
2. Dan Crenshaw (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 2): The ‘One-eyed McCain’ is facing a challenge from Jameson Ellis. Crenshaw’s vote for the stopgap bill does not align with the principles he claims to defend. Ellis and the voters of District 2 deserve a representative who will fight for their interests, not one who takes the easy way out.
3. Monica De La Cruz (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 15): De La Cruz, who is running against Vangela Churchill, has demonstrated a lack of commitment to the constituents of District 15. Churchill and voters deserve a representative who will prioritize their needs over political expediency.
4. Jake Ellzey (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 6): Ellzey, facing challenges from James Buford and Clifford Wiley, has disappointed voters by supporting a temporary fix instead of advocating for a comprehensive solution. District 6 needs a representative who will tackle the tough issues head-on.
5. Kay Granger (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 12): As a lame duck representative retiring from Congress, Granger’s vote for the CR leaves a stain on her legacy. Voters should question the wisdom of her decision, especially considering her imminent departure.

This stopgap spending bill is not a solution; it’s the same, “lucy and the football” tactic that establishment Republicans have been playing on the People for a long time. Forever promising to take action, then at the last minute pulling the ball away. The fact that these Texas Republicans chose to align themselves with a bill that fails to address the fundamental issues of the Republican party is a betrayal of the trust placed in them by their constituents… and their constituents have had enough.

As we head into primary season, voters must carefully consider whether these representatives truly reflect their values and priorities. The choices made in Washington impact every Texan, and it’s time to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.

The Texas Liberty Journal stands firmly against such political maneuvering at the expense of responsible governance. It is our hope that voters in these districts will make their voices heard in the upcoming primaries, demanding representatives who will genuinely advocate for their interests, not just when it’s convenient.