Rick Perry vs World

29 September 2010

Trial lawyer tactics, $38M, startups, debates, and politipinion

1. Juan Lozano, AP:

Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White said Monday that since Gov. Rick Perry refuses to debate him, he'll spend 25 days between now and the Nov. 2 election asking questions he would have posed to his opponent at such a forum.

At a campaign stop in Houston, the city's former mayor posed his first query: whether Perry would accept responsibility for job losses, having 1 million unemployed Texans and having unemployment rates higher than three neighboring states. The 25 days of questions will correspond to Perry's 25-year career as an elected official.

Bill White is using a classic trial lawyer technique...why? Does he really want to remind voters that he used to be a trial lawyer? I have to guess that a trial lawyer friend suggested the idea, and sometimes you just can't escape your background, which is why the candidate thought it was a good idea. I bet the Bill White staffers are shaking their heads.

2. As of now, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, this year's Texas gubernatorial election has cost $38 million spent on airing 56,032 television ads. $3.5 million of that has been Back to Basics, which is a pretty amazing number when you consider how much of the TV spending was from Rick v. Kay.

3. San Antonio Biz Journal:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry plans to visit San Antonio on Tuesday to discuss the state’s participation in an InCube Labs biosciences business incubator that California entrepreneur Mir Imran plans to develop in the Alamo City, say sources familiar with the project in Austin and San Antonio.

Those sources say Perry will announce the state's investment of Texas Emerging Technology Fund money in the San Antonio InCube project.

Nice. Entrepreneurialism is good.

4. White to debate 3rd party candidates:

Libertarian Kathie Glass and Green Party nominee Deb Shafto on Tuesday accepted an invitation from the Houston Chronicle, the state's other large newspapers and Austin television station KLRU to participate in an Oct. 19 debate at the TV station's studios.

Democrat Bill White last month accepted the invitation, which was initially extended just to Perry, the Republican incumbent, and White. KLRU will broadcast the one-hour debate in Austin and make it available to stations around the state. Newspapers also will stream it live on their website.

5. Politipinion strikes again! They say that White did in fact pay payroll taxes, so they call Perry's statement false. This is just silly. Clayton Williams was relentlessly pilloried in 1990 for the same thing that Bill White did in 1995: taking tax credits on losses to cover income, and thus pay no tax. Only Politipinion would rate that claim "false."

Posted by Evan @ 09/29/10 05:55 AM | Comments (1)

28 September 2010

Will Bill White's real approval ratings please stand up (please stand up)?

Burka writes:

The number that jumps out at me is White's favorable/unfavorable. Yesterday, Rasmussen had this number as 42% favorable, 47% unfavorable. Obviously, this would be a disaster for White. Blum & Weprin have White’s favorable/unfavorable number(s) as 45% favorable, 24% unfavorable. This is much more in line with previous polls. At 45/24, White is a viable candidate. At 42/47, he is not. But there is a third dimension to White’s favorable/unfavorable score: 26% of respondents have not heard enough about White to have an opinion.

First of all, when I look at the Blum and Weprin numbers

How do you reconcile the large difference between the Blum & Weprin poll (White approval 45-24) with the upside-down Rasmussen approval numbers (42-47)? Easy. You assume they are both basically true.

B&W asked*, "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Bill White or haven't you heard enough about him to have an opinion?"

Rasmussen asks, "I'm going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression." Rasmussen does not give a "not sure" option, though if people volunteer one then it is scored as such. In Rasmussen's last poll, Bill White scored 21% very favorable, 21% somewhat favorable, 28% somewhat unfavorable, and 19% very unfavorable, with 11% volunteering an unsure option.

So let's go over the reasons why the numbers are different:

1. Options given. As I mentioned, B&W gives just 3 options, and one is "not sure." Ramussen gives 4 options, and doesn't give a not sure. This is the key difference between the two polls, and is way more significant that the more maudlin factors that I will mention later. Given the option to approve of Bill White, 45 did in the Blum&Weprin poll whereas 42% did in the Rasmussen poll. 24% disapproved of White in the B&W poll contrasted to 19% disapproving strongly in the Rasmussen poll. So, we have 45-24 in B&W and 42-19 in Rasmussen.

The key difference is that Rasmussen gave a "somewhat disapprove" option. You know who picked this option? Republican voters who don't pay that much attention to politics in September. They don't really have an opinion of Bill White yet other than that he's a Democrat. The B&W question makes these voters take a firm stand against White, and if they aren't paying close attention, then they are likely to just pick "not sure." But if they are given an option, like in Rasmussen's poll, then they pick "somewhat disapprove."

2. Question ordering. In the B&W poll, they ask the "ballot test" question first, but don't ask about Bill White until the 4th question. In Rasmussen, they ask the "ballot test" question third, and immediately follow it by asking about Bill White. That's a key difference in how much the subconscious emotional reaction dies down. Rasmussen asks about job approval right after respondents hear that Bill White is a Democrat, so non-political junkie Republicans choose "somewhat disapprove."

In my opinion, it is a slightly more accurate reflection of the approval numbers when the question is immediately after the ballot test. In the ballot box, partisan emotions are as high as they ever are, so a question that replicates that is more likely to be accurate. In the B&W poll, respondents had the 2nd and 3rd question to cool down before deciding on whether not knowing much about Bill White (except that he is a Democrat) puts them in the "somewhat disapproving" or "not sure" camp.

3. Wording. This is way less important than the other two, but the Rasmussen wording of the ballot test question puts a bit more emphasis on the partisanship of the candidates, where the BW poll mentions the parties a bit more off-handedly.

Just to be clear: I'm not criticizing either the B&W poll or the Rasmussen poll. They tell us different things and give us data points to draw our own conclusions.

My conclusions would be that a good number of the people who picked "not sure" in the B&W poll are Republicans or Republican-leaners. Perry's campaign hasn't yet convinced them that Bill White deserves a firm "disapprove." That requires too much commitment when they don't know much about White yet (eg, 11% of the Rasmussen volunteered that they were unsure about White even though they weren't given the option in the script). However, when pushed, a large majority of those give a "somewhat disapprove" based largely on White's party.

White does have an opening still, if he can find a message that really resonates. He's not very well-known, which is why 41% of the B&W sample didn't give an opinion. Perry is under 50% in a red state in a very Republican year, which is good for White. On the other hand, that's also the problem: White is running in an anti-Obama election in a red state. When people know that Bill White is a Democrat, then the numbers skew towards 42-47.

* I'm going to assume that this DMN page is a close approximation of the script and order.

Posted by Evan @ 09/28/10 10:40 PM | Comments (1)

Rick Perry for Gubernatorial Majority Leader, part 2

I was joking when I titled a post early this month, "Rick Perry for Gubernatorial Majority Leader," but apparently I was closer to the truth than I thought.

[Perry's] work to develop an anti-Washington coalition of governors matches efforts of some other Republican presidential hopefuls trying to sway the national agenda and wrest the White House from Democratic President Barack Obama.

Perry told The News he's interested in organizing his counterparts in other states, "and hopefully there will be a substantial number of governors elected who share our fiscal conservative philosophy and our great belief in the 10th Amendment that the states need to compete against each other and not be dictated by one-size-fits-all, Washington, D.C., policy."

"At the end of the day, I think it's going to take those governors from all across the country, standing together, pushing back on Washington, D.C.," Perry said. "That's what I'm really interested in helping organize and being a part of."

quoted from the DMN, though I remain unclear as to whether Perry has proposed an organization or if he was simply riffing on philosophical changes in gubernatorial mansions across the nations. I've certainly missed it if details have been mentioned.

Posted by Evan @ 09/28/10 07:57 PM | Comments (0)

Trial Lawyer millions funding Bill White attack ads?

Paul Burka writes about how the Democratic Governors Association is spending $700k per week on ads on top of a $2 million contribution to Bill White. His headline is "DGA targets Perry."

Dan Balz's story today says that White and Perry are running "about even" in the Houston area but that Perry holds a "solid lead" in the Dallas area. Dallas County has turned Democratic for the past four years, but the suburban collar counties–Collin, Denton, Rockwall, Kaufman, Ellis–are a Democratic graveyard. [Evan note: link to WaPo added.]

I don't get what the DGA sees in this race, except that things may be so bad for the Democrats in governor's races that they are looking for longshots to come in. But all of the indicators in this race are bad

The DGA probably doesn't see anything in this race. The DGA is a 527, headed by Tom Daschle's kid and unregulated by the FEC, that can accept unlimited contributions and pass them through to the campaign.

So is the DGA targeting Perry? Maybe...but likely not because there are much smarter places for the DGA to spend its money (FL, CA, OH, MA, PA, IL, MD, etc off the top of my head). It is much more likely that an uber-rich political donor is using the DGA to temporarily conceal the source of the money. That way, the media won't report who is funding the attacks, just that the DGA is spending money. Not only does it more or less conceal the source of the funds, but it leads political reporters who aren't paying attention (what's up WaPo?) to write about how the DGA is targeting the campaign, thus creating the illusion that DGA thinks the race is winnable.

Who would have a motive to try to conceal their identity for at least a few weeks? Well, one person has spent quite alot of money on attacking Rick Perry in order to help Bill White: Steve Mostyn. Donors generally don't want to become the issue in the campaign, especially when their contributions get into the multi-million range. I'm just speculating, but if I were betting, I'd bet that Steve Mostyn made a sizable contribution to the Democratic Governors Association. If you go check the data on the biggest contributors to the DGA up until the beginning of September, you will find that the Mostyn Law Firm is one of the largest DGA contributors (the first 5 are all unions). I could certainly be wrong, but it seems likely to be a good guess.

By the way, I seem to recall Texas Dem partybloggers complaining for the last 4 years when Bob Perry donated $1M to the RGA, yet they seem to be strangely silent this time around. I look forward to seeing if they are equally outraged this time.

Posted by Evan @ 09/28/10 06:32 PM | Comments (1)

Cornyn and Sessions to stay as campaign chairs?

CQ floats the possibility that Sen. Cornyn and Rep. Sessions will stay for another two year cycle as heads of the NRSC and NRCC, respectively.

For Republicans, there appears to be a strong possibility that the current chairmen of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee will stay in those roles for another two years.

The NRSC job is obviously Cornyn's job if he wants it. No GOP senators would even run against him if the GOP picks up nearly as many seats as they probably will

But it's less clear whether there will be turnover at the top of the NRCC. It all depends on whether Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) wants to move up the leadership ladder after Election Day.

Rumors have already cropped up in GOP circles that Sessions might have ambitions to become Majority Whip if, as many suspect, Republicans take the majority in November. It's a leadership move that might be viewed as well-deserved if Sessions does engineer a 39-seat-plus gain for the GOP this fall. Sessions is also the second Republican in line on the House Rules Committee and could have his eye on leading that panel.

A House Majority Whip from Texas....sounds familiar.

Campaign committee chairs are judged by how many seats they win or lose in a particular cycle, but most of it is out of their control. The job is mostly fundraising and candidate recruitment. In this cycle, those things have both been pretty easy on the Republican side. No encouragement was needed in lots of candidate recruitment once Obama started spending trillions and trying to pass ObamaCare. Plus, the striking weakness of Michael Steele as RNC Chair has shifted alot of would-be RNC donations to the NRCC/NRSC/RGA. Especially to the RGA, as Haley Barbour has a certain heft. [Sorry, couldn't help myself.]

With all that said, Sessions and Cornyn have both done pretty decent jobs. It certainly doesn't hurt Texas if they stay around for another cycle -- and 2012 will feature a much more favorable terrain of Senate seats for Republicans than 2010 (which is mostly in blue states). Cornyn might want to be careful and start paying attention to his constituent service though.

Posted by Evan @ 09/28/10 04:27 PM | Comments (0)

27 September 2010

Texas +4

It is not news that Texas is likely to pick up +4 congressional seats in the next reapportionment. That's a massive gain at a time when Florida's gain of 2 seats is the only gain above 1 seat. New York and Ohio are scheduled to lose 2 seats.

How many people in the Lege are thinking about going to Washington?

Posted by Evan @ 09/27/10 04:33 PM | Comments (1)

24 September 2010

Rasmussen September poll: Perry 48, White 42

Rasmussen 9/22, 500 LVs, +/- 4.5%

Perry 48
White 42
Other 3
Not Sure 6

Positive movement for White.

Posted by Evan @ 09/24/10 11:04 AM | Comments (0)

16 September 2010

Burning money

I quote from CQ, but really it's just because I wanted to comment on Cornyn burning 42k in NRSC money in Delaware:

Republican National Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) weighed in Wednesday, announcing that his campaign committee would give O'Donnell $42,000, the maximum allowable direct donation. But Cornyn did not commit to any independent expenditures on her behalf, which will likely be sorely needed in the expensive Philadelphia media market.

$42k is something of a drop in the bucket, but there are alot of marginal Senate races this year where a compelling last minute independent ad could actually make a difference. There is zero chance that O'Donnell wins in Delaware, for both ideological and character flaw reasons. Considering that O'Donnell pays herself a salary out of campaign contributions, one has to wonder what Cornyn was thinking.

Perhaps all politics is local, tea party-style?

Posted by Evan @ 09/16/10 02:25 PM | Comments (1)

CQ: "Is this an anti-incumbent year? Not so far"

CQ looks at the 2010 cycle and states the obvious: it's not anti-incumbency which is fueling election results.

Countless stories and hours of cable television have been filled with analysis describing this year's elections as tantamount to an anti-incumbent wave.

But as the primaries come to a close, it's clear that instead of throwing the bums out, voters have let the vast majority of incumbents move on to the general election.

"Most of the anger is driven at Democrats because they're in power," he added. "Some is driven at Republicans when voters conclude that a particular candidate is too close to Democrats."

The Texas media largely still is getting this wrong.

Posted by Evan @ 09/16/10 07:16 AM | Comments (0)

538: Bill White has 14% chance to win, down from 17%

Nate Silver now has Bill White with just a 14% chance to win in November, down from 17% the last time he pressed 'enter' on his computer's Monte Carlo simulations.

What is interesting is that most of the polling inputs to Silver's model have changed. The last time Silver published his models' findings, he had White with a 17% chance to win. However, most of that was based off of Rasmussen polls. This time, Silver is largely using the TT internet poll, PPP, and Zogby, with just a soupcon of Rasmussen thrown in for flavoring.

If you think Rasmussen is a better 2010 pollster than all of the above (as I do), then Silver's model would probably push White down into the single digits.

Posted by Evan @ 09/16/10 06:49 AM | Comments (0)

[Previous 10 Entries] [Next 10 Entries]

SITE MENU

+ Rick Perry vs World
+ About Me

+ Archives

+ Email:
perryvsworld* at *gmail dot com

ADVERTISING

SYNDICATION

DISCLAIMER

Rick Perry vs. World is powered by Nucleus.

Site design and Nucleus customization by Kevin Whited.