Wrong on almost every point
Debra Medina is not, of course, anywhere near as well-known as Rick Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchison, but her years of work within the Republican Party give her credibility with party activists like precinct committee members. These unpaid party volunteers can be very helpful in a low-vote primary, as we seem likely to have March 2nd. And because Ms. Medina will get better known as the election approaches because of the debates and other free media coverage, this gives her a good chance to grow her vote base, especially among the undecided voters who know Perry and Hutchison well, but have not yet decided to support either one.
The whole post was pretty...strange. But the bolded part...really? Rick vs. Kay is going to be low turnout?
The point of Murray's post is that Medina is going to keep rising in the polls. Truthfully, this sounds more like the hoped-for musings of a Democrat (which is what Murray is) than solid political analysis based on theory or empirical evidence.
Edit: I just can't let this part of Murray's post go:
A Perry-Hutchison runoff would be good news for Democrat Bill White, as it would consume millions of dollars in GOP campaign funds, and likely leave the eventual winner in a weaker position to unite the party for the General Election than would be the case if a clear winner emerges on March 2nd.It's hard to argue that a runoff is bad for Bill White, but it helps him alot less than many old-time politicos think.
Does anyone really think that Perry or Hutchison are going to lack for funds if a Democrat (which may be Bill White, but we probably shouldn't yet take it as an absolute given like Murray does) looks like a credible challenger? I can't believe that Murray is really proposing such a thing in a Republican state with no contribution limits.
And the old saw about primaries dividing the party is largely outdated. This was true when there was only 2 months inbetween the primary and the election, but even if there's a runoff, there will be 6 months between the runoff and the general election. Plus, the media cycle has obviously shortened so much that 2 months back then is more like 2 weeks now. It's hard to argue that a runoff is so different in terms of splitting the party from the primary. While what Murray said might have been true 30 years ago, it's not relevant today.
Posted by Evan @ 01/21/10 06:07 PM
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
Comments
Add Comments
No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.