Rick Perry vs World

10 February 2010

Gettin linky wid it

* The Hill profiles Dem Congressman Henry Cuellar. One thing about Cuellar: he understands that trade is a good thing. He passes along that former Dallas mayor and current US Trade Rep Ron Kirk thinks they can get the Colombia trade deal passed. I sure hope so, but given that Congressional Democrats have long been the stumbling block to the trade deal with America's strongest Latin American ally...not sure what has changed. It'd be nice to see the shameful treatment of America's allies stop though.

* Cornyn pens an op-ed in the Chron about Obama's slashing of NASA's budget in his proposed budget.

President Barack Obama's proposed budget for the next fiscal year includes very bad news for the Greater Houston area, and for our nation. One year after celebrating its 50th year and the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, NASA has learned that the White House wants it to abandon its historic role in space exploration. The administration has proposed the termination of NASA's Constellation program, our nation's flagship endeavor to return Americans to the moon and beyond. After $9 billion invested over seven years, the president would leave this program adrift and without a mission.

Truthfully though, presidential budgets are largely political theater. Congress pretty regularly ignores them. And cutting NASA spending was just a trick so Obama could say that he actually cut spending on something.

* William McKenzie <3 Bill White.

* KBH in Bryan for breakfast. You'd think Aggieland would be Perryland, wouldn't you?

* The people making fun of Sarah Palin for the notes on her hand remind me of the people making fun of Obama for his teleprompters.

Posted by Evan @ 02/10/10 05:06 PM | Comments (0)

Adjusting your range

This is what I call lazy blogging. This is something I wrote in an email. As such, it's a bit out of context and a bit abrupt -- even with some light editing -- but still worth sticking up in a post, I think.

Just because Medina may have crossed 20%, doesn't mean thatanything can happen. Law of diminishing returns: the people that Medina has right now are the easiest to pick up. You think she can pick up more if either campaign starts disseminating some of the things she has said?

Primary voters are upset, but it's not like they've completely lost their minds. Sure they'll say that they're voting for Medina, but it's alot easier to punch a button in a telephone poll or even put a sign in your yard than it is to vote for someone as a protest vote. Even Ross Perot couldn't stay strong until the end with his protest votes.

Medina is late 2007 Obama on steroids right now in that people are projecting onto her a smorgasbord of contradictory values. (Incidentally, according to the PPP poll, Medina does better among Obama voters than KBH or Perry.) But do you really think that Republicans are going to nominate someone who publically announced that they weren't going to vote for McCain and who won't support the GOP nominee? no way.

the best thing to happen to Perry would be that Medina makes the runoff against him.

Posted by Evan @ 02/10/10 04:31 PM | Comments (0)

PPP releases their general election numbers

These numbers are actually fairly consistent with Rasmussen's, because this is a poll of registered voters, not of likely voters. If it were a poll of likely voters, the spread would be similar to Rasmussen's.

1200 registered voters, 2/4-2/7

Hutchison 45
White 38

Perry 48
White 42

Medina 44
White 38

They have Perry's job approval at 33/50 and KBH's at 40/37. As their poll release notes, "the main reason for each of their declines is reduced popularity among GOP voters..."

Partisan ID in the poll
36 Dem
40 GOP
24 Ind/Other

That's on the low side of the acceptable spectrum, but definitely within it. Which is more or less what you'd expect from a Democratic polling firm.

Full crosstabs.

Posted by Evan @ 02/10/10 11:43 AM | Comments (0)

09 February 2010

Sometimes the media believes their own hype

Paul Burka writes a post that makes me struggle for descriptors. It's entitled (w/caps) WATCH OUT FOR MEDINA! Which may be all you really need to know. Nonetheless, let's take it from the top, shall we? (Edit: Just so we're clear, Burka is reacting to this poll.)

Anything can happen now. Medina's support has grown by 50% since the Rasmussen poll even though she does not have money to spend on TV. That means she is gaining on word of mouth. I thought she would be doing well to get to 20%. She shot through that barrier without slowing down.

One poll with a relatively small sample size does not a fact make. Is she probably gaining? Yes, but everything Burka wrote is drawing cement conclusions from a straw foundation. It might be true, but let's not overdo it.

Medina isn't gaining on word of mouth, she's gaining on the fact that the media has showered her with favorable coverage.

I have been telling friends for a couple of weeks now that if Medina can raise $2 million by February 16, she will be governor. What this poll tells me is that Texans are sick and tired of Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison and their career politician credentials and their negative campaigns. Medina is Sarah Palin with smarts and without the winks.

That bolded part is just crazy. Let's suppose that somehow KBH collapses and Medina squeeks into a runoff. I don't see it as likely by any means, but let's hypothesize. He really thinks that Medina will beat Perry in a runoff? A woman who talks about nullification and "globalist agendas"? Really? That blows my mind. Paul, I think you should spend more time with some Republican primary voters so that you understand that they aren't crazy.

But ok, let's continue our hypothetical: can Medina beat Bill White? NO! I'd rather have Medina than White, don't get me wrong, but White would beat her.

Furthermore, money has nothing to do with it. If anything, if Medina raised $2m, I think there's a substantial chance she'd run ads that would ruin her "I'm not a politician" rep and lose her the protest votes she's got now. According to the PPP poll, she's got 40% favorable, 9% unfav and the rest unknown. But that 40% favorable is probably the softest favorable number I've ever seen! No one knows anything about her yet, even people who are saying they currently have favorable views.

Also, Sarah Palin to Medina is probably the oddest analogy I've ever heard. Palin is within the mainstream of her party; Medina isn't. Palin was a touted Mayor in her state; Medina is the former Republican chair of a 40,000 person county. Palin had significant backing when she ran for governor, Medina doesn't. Palin signed on to McCain's presidential bid; Medina backed Paul and publically refused to vote for McCain.

Consider Perry's dilemma. The conventional wisdom was that there was no way anyone could get to his right. Hutchison tried and failed miserably. Medina got there, because she is genuine. Now what does Perry do? Does he attack her? Very risky. Does he ignore her? This is Plan B territory; I seriously doubt that the Perry campaign has a stop-Medina strategy. All his Hutchison-bashing accomplished was to weaken KBH to the point where Medina may have enough momentum to make the runoff. Amazing! How can anyone not love this stuff?

What dilemma? Perry would surely like to avoid a runoff, but I think he'd rather have a runoff with Medina than with KBH. Medina would make Perry look centrist in a runoff that he would surely win. Perry wouldn't mind that heading into the general election with Bill White.

I actually was going to write a post about tactics when I originally saw the Medina poll, but I'll hold off on writing it here.

Let's backup for a second.

Candidates A and B have spent $15 to 20 million attacking each other over a relatively compressed timeframe. They are doing so in a state that was born with a frontier individualism and which then re-emerged after Reconstruction deeply ingrained in the state's fiber a distrust of politicians. Meanwhile, in the rest of the nation, Americans are angry at politicians. The economy is bad, and incumbent politicians do not seem to be paying attention. People want to "throw the bums out."

Candidate C is an outsider. Candidate C is running as an outsider, while Candidates A and B have held political office for the last two decades. Candidate C attaches herself to a movement which is small, but has a very dedicated core. What they lack in number, they make up for in noise and are fully ready to start an echo chamber. Candidate C presents herself fairly well at 2 debates, where Candidates A and B ignore her in order to attack each other. Now Candidate C receives glowing coverage from the state's media (who is tired of both A and B).

Are we really surprised if Medina can get to 20% in a mere poll? It's easier to press a button on a telephone poll as a protest vote than as an actual vote. But now the media has to stop writing fawning puff pieces, candidates A and B might have reasons to attack, and people will get an actual idea of who Debra Medina is. As I've already said, Debra Medina 2010 = Ron Paul 2008.

Posted by Evan @ 02/09/10 04:38 PM | Comments (0)

PPP: White 49, Shami 19

PPP (D), 2/4-2/7, 400 likely Dem primary voters
Margin of Error

White 49
Shami 19

I'd caution that Dem primary polling in Texas has not been very reliable in the last decade. The sample here was only 32% Hispanic, which I assume is a signficant underweighting. For example, they had 2006 Lt Guv nominee Alvarado at 5% and Aguado at 2%. I'd be willing to bet that they poll over 7% cumulatively.

Edit: My expectation is that they poll at multiples of 7% cumulatively, just to be clearer.

Posted by Evan @ 02/09/10 11:52 AM | Comments (0)

PPP: Perry +11

Democratic polling firm PPP released a poll today showing Perry leading by 11.

PPP (D), 2/4-2/7
423 LVs, +/- 4.8% margin of error

Perry 39
KBH 28
Medina 24

According to their poll, among self-identified conservatives:

Perry 42
Medina 25
Hutchison 23

They asked Medina supporters who their second choice was, and it split 43-39 Perry, so Medina is drawing pretty evenly from Perry and KBH in this poll.

Posted by Evan @ 02/09/10 11:47 AM | Comments (0)

Power in the TDP

A few weeks ago, Roll Call reported on the interconnected Washington fundraising groups that all go through Matt Angle. You might remember him as the guy who spearheaded the push to take down Tom DeLay...at the same time that he was using DeLay-style fundraising tactics.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars that will ultimately end up funding state, federal and local campaigns for Texas Democrats this year will first churn through a nondescript row house on Capitol Hill that serves as headquarters for a tight network of organizations dedicated to electing Democrats in the Lone Star State.

At the center of the operation is Matt Angle, the former chief of staff for ex-Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), who can reach into the checkbook of an organization he runs and make a donation to another organization he runs, pay rent to himself as a landlord, hire himself as a consultant, and employ a handful of friends, party activists and longtime Frost allies.

For example: According to state and federal campaign records, the Lone Star Fund (Treasurer Matt Angle) pays rent to E St. Properties for use of the Capitol Hill row house (owned by Matt Angle), pays Angle & Associates Inc. for consulting services (about $100,000 between 2004 and 2007) and has donated about $20,000 to the Texas Democratic Trust (Treasurer Matt Angle). The Texas Democratic Trust since 2005 has paid Angle & Associates more than $1.2 million for consulting services, travel reimbursements and rent, and it pays retainers as much as $7,000 a month to a variety of political consultants and researchers who also work for the Texas Democratic Party, the Lone Star Trust or other affiliated organizations.

The trust is also a major supporter of the Texas Democratic Party. As of last June, the trust had donated more than $3.7 million to the Democratic Party and another $800,000 to the Democratic research and organizing entity Texas Progress Council.

Go read the whole thing. I quoted an extended passage solely to argue that you should read the whole thing.

Angle has essentially become the center of the Texas Democratic Party, as you can tell from this article. He convinced much of the trial lawyers to donate through the organizations that he created. He basically controls the Texas Democratic Party since he holds the pursestrings through $3.7M that those groups have donated to the party. Using the same pool of money, he can recruit candidates with promises of campaign funding.

To wit, the recruitment of lt gov candidate Linda Chavez-Thompson:

Party leaders gathered in Austin last month to brainstorm on promising candidates for the lieutenant governor's race. They had initially approached state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, but she said she declined.

Someone suggested Chavez-Thompson, and before long, her friends and associates began a full-court press to persuade her.

Strategists dropped by her home and made their case. Pollsters broke down the numbers for her. Prominent politicians such as former state Comptroller John Sharp and state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, urged her to run.

Immediately after the filing deadline, Angle's organization endorsed Chavez-Thompson.

I've heard from some upset Democrats, because they view Chavez-Thompson's recruitment as having echoes of 2002's "Dream Team" AND hanging Ronnie Earle out to dry.

Posted by Evan @ 02/09/10 11:36 AM | Comments (0)

Stick a fork in Shami

I think it's an open question as to whether Farouk Shami can be one of the factors that force a runoff in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, but I can't see any way that he ends up with the nomination. I think that was fairly likely all along, but I think we can feel pretty certain about it now.

I reviewed his campaign ads, and they're ok. But they don't exactly strike me as the sort of ads that win a Democratic primary. If anything they seemed aimed at the general more than the primary.

Nor does the fact that he's only in favor of legalized abortion in the first trimester, and repeated it a few times in last night's debate. Perhaps the bigger problem was that he didn't even seem to realize that Democratic primary voters aren't going to like that. And in fact, that seemed to happen a few times in last night's debate. And criticizing Democrats here and there isn't likely to be an effective tactic either.

Combine that with the campaign gaffes, and let's just make it official: he's not going to win the nomination. Running for office is hard and it's a skill he hasn't mastered.

Posted by Evan @ 02/09/10 10:59 AM | Comments (0)