I can’t believe the Dewhurst campaign resorted to the old internal poll gimmick. Accrording to the Statesman, Mike Baselice has written a memo indicating why Dewhurst will defeat Ted Cruz in the runoff for U.S. senator:

Recent internal campaign polling found that Dewhurst has a 65 percent favorable rating compared to 40 percent for Cruz, Baselice wrote. And Dewhurst is heavily preferred by voters who backed former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, the third-place finisher.

With 85 percent of the precincts reporting, Dewhurst was leading with about 45 percent of the vote while Cruz had nearly 34 percent. Baselice said that number bodes will for Dewhurst.

“While we should expect a normal post-election tightening of numbers, history demonstrates why Dewhurst is in a strong position to become U.S. Senator: every Republican candidate with over 43 percent going into a statewide runoff during the last 20 years has gone on to win,” Baselice wrote.

Well, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twenty times, shame on me. The Dewhurst campaign has made too many claims about why a Dewhurst victory was inevitable without backing them up. The only poll that matters is the one that will be taken on July 31.

That Dewhurst has a higher favorable rating than Cruz might have been important several months ago. It’s not important any more. And the argument that every Republican candidate with over 43 percent going into a statewide runoff during the last 20 years has gone on to win cuts no ice with me either. It’s like saying that the sun is a two-to-0ne favorite to shine on a clear day. But what if it is a cloudy day?

Doesn’t the Dewhurst camp realize that this ploy is not going to persuade anybody of anything, except that there is panic in the Dewhurst camp?

I think the Dewhurst team made some bad decisions down the stretch. One was the anti-Cruz amnesty ad. It had no credibility, and it was gratuitously mean. Another was aligning himself with Rick Perry. Maybe Baselice ought to be polling what Perry’s favorables and unfavorables are these days, and just exactly what the governor’s endorsement is worth. I daresay a Perry endorsement for Dewhurst is break-even at best. Do they think everyone has forgotten the presidential race?

Nor do I think it was wise to run an attack ad against Leppert right before the primary in an effort to drive down Leppert’s vote total. Dewhurst needs Leppert’s endorsement in the run-off.

Having the lead is an asset in this race, and Dewhurst has it. But shenanigans like this will only serve to further undercut his credibility.

If there was one refrain I heard from the Dewhurst camp, it was that they wanted to win without a runoff. But they didn’t make it. From the start of the evening, it was pretty clear that Dewhurst was going to fall short. The closest he got was 47.3%. Hours earlier, Cruz had said that if there is a runoff in the Senate race, he would win. Why? Because the voters who would return to the polls after a two-month layoff would be those who are the most engaged in the ideological causes Cruz cares about.

Straus’s margin of victory was of landslide proportions. Despite having more than $100,000 spent against him, and a blizzard of negative mailers, he cruised to a decisive victory over Matt Beebe.

But the big story of the election is the carnage that befell Straus’s chairs. Vicki Truitt, Tuffy Hamilton, and Rob Eissler lost. All three defeats were self-inflicted. Truitt had accumulated too much baggage; Hamilton was lazy and overconfident; and Eissler was slow to engage or to spend money. Two other Straus chairs, Sid Miller and Chuck Hopson, now find themselves in runoffs–never a comfortable position for an incumbent. Miller blew a huge lead and was lucky to recover sufficiently to make a runoff. Hopson, a dogged, never-say-die campaigner, was the one Straus hand who overperformed. He almost won a race outright against a strong candidate from the biggest county in the district. In several cases, the losers have no one to blame except themselves.

Members of the Straus team are going to be unsettled by what happened. This election reminded me of 2006, when Craddick lost five seats to Democrats, and that was the beginning of the end. The troops have to know that somebody is in charge. It’s not good enough to say that the losses were self-inflicted by candidates who ran poor campaign. It’s up to the leader to know who is running  poor campaigns and to do something about it. That didn’t happen.

There will be immense repercussions from these races. Straus is weakened, make no mistake. Another speaker’s race is already under way. The runoffs are going to be crucial; the anti-Straus forces are organized and well funded, and the Straus team must do a better job of handling these races.  They have to know who is for them and who is against them, and what kind of races they are running. One thing in their favor, as they see it, is that their allies did well in races for open seats, but several face runoffs.

It is hard to know what Straus’s ultimate objective is. Does he really want to serve a third term as speaker? Do his ambitions lie elsewhere, such as a congressional seat? He could probably succeed Lamar Smith in Congress without breaking a sweat, but serving in Congress is one of the lousiest jobs in politics. If he runs for another term as speaker, he will have to face the likelihood that he will be leading a divided House. It is highly unlikely that he could run for statewide office and win. There is too much built-in opposition in his path — some of it due to ideology, some of it due to religion. It is unfortunate for Straus that the state and his party have swung so far to the right in recent years that there is almost no impulse to govern in the Republican party. Straus would like to govern, but in the present political climate, it’s not possible.

Now what?

Texans for Lawsuit Reform invested a ton of money in Elizabeth Ames Jones, their handpicked candidate to defeat state senator Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio. But Ames Jones failed to make the runoff, leaving physician Donna Campbell to oppose Wentworth. Jones is well known in San Antonio, in contrast to Campbell. Now TLR must introduce their new stalking horse to the district. Campbell is best known as having come close to knocking Lloyd Doggett out of Congress in 2010. The question is, what will it take for TLR to introduce Campbell to the voters in SD-25? Unlike Ames Jones (and Wentworth), Campbell is not well known in San Antonio. Meanwhile, all those folks in SD-25 who thought the negative ads might end when Ames Jones didn’t make the runoff are going to have to suffer through another round.

Couldn’t Hughes wait until the election was over before the speaker’s race began?

The July 31 runoffs now loom large, as they will be battles between the Straus- and anti-Straus factions of the Republican party in the House. The party is undergoing a purification, driven by Perry’s endorsements and alliances, with the aim of taking the party away from the members and handing it over to the interest groups–Texans for Lawsuit Reform; Empower Texans/Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, TPPF, the right to life organizations, the home schoolers, the tea parties. (I just wrote this, minutes ago, in a previous post from a few minutes ago, about a narrative that might emerge from this election; see “Endangered Species List”).

These are the House incumbents whom I believe are in trouble as election day approaches:

Sid Miller — He blew a huge lead and now appears to be headed for a runoff. Incumbents seldom fare well in runoffs.

Jim Landtroop — Same story, second verse. An incumbent in a runoff.

Barbara Nash — Another member of the “incumbent in a runoff” club, with a district that is 80% new voters

Vicki Truitt — She is being challenged by Giovanni Capriglione, who ran a tough race against her in 2010. Truitt probably faces the biggest uphill climb of any incumbent

“Tuffy” Hamilton — Hamilton and James White are two flawed candidates; can Hamilton overcome TLR’s money and Perry’s endorsement of White?

Leo Berman — illness has limited his ability to campaign

Wayne Christian — the Texas Medical Association and Texas Association of Realtors PACs went all-0ut to defeat him; even so, early polling showed him doing well. High turnout in Harrison County (Marshall) could mean trouble.

Chuck Hopson — faces a strong opponent from the largest county (Nacogdoches) in the district. Going to be close–but Hopson’s races always are

Rob Eissler — late starter, slow to get engaged, but has finally pulled ahead

Lance Gooden — how much will losing his mayor’s endorsement affect his race?

David Simpson — conventional wisdom is that he defeats Tommy Merritt

Borris Miles — a re-re-rematch against Al Edwards in a race neither deserves to win

* * * *

The big picture here is whether a narrative will emerge from the results tonight, as one did in 2010. Then it was the destruction of the Democratic party. Is this year’s narrative going to be the takeover of the Republican party by the interest groups — Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Empower Texans, TPPF, the pro-life groups, the home schoolers, the tea parties? Or will it be a second round of purification piled on top of last year’s tea party sweep? The answer probably won’t become clear until the runoff elections on July 31.

Close races are the norm in redistricting years because candidates must communicate with large numbers of people they have never represented before. They don’t know their constituents and vice versa. The most effective campaign tool is direct mail, and candidates may not know what their opponents are saying about them and have no way to respond, especially at the last minute. We’re going to see some surprised candidates on Tuesday night.

The Tribune has the numbers:

Dewhurst 46%

Cruz 29%

Leppert 15%

James 3%

I was not a believer in the recent UT/Tribune poll that showed Dewhurst’s lead down to single digits (40% to 31%). I don’t believe that the race has ever been this close. The PPP numbers seem much closer to the mark: a hefty double-digit lead (+17) for Dewhurst.

At 46%, however, Dewhurst is in danger of being forced into a runoff by Cruz and/0r Leppert. He has two months, until July 31, to find the four percentage points that will enable him to avoid a runoff in what is likely to be a low turnout scenario in which most of the voters are from the Republican base.

As I see the race, Dewhurst still has the advantage, but Cruz has a lot of time to narrow the gap — two months. Remember the long lapse in the Sibley-Birdwell race that gave Birdwell ample time to overcome Sibley’s lead. Dewhurst is going to have to keep up a relentless attack on Cruz if he is going to prevent the challenger from forcing a runoff. Already, Dewhurst has had millions of dollars spent against him by conservative groups from Washington, and more will be coming. This is a national race now.

I listened to Dewhurst’s radio spot accusing Cruz of being involved with two organizations that support amnesty. The ad would be more effective if it identified the organizations. As it stands, it doesn’t have much credibility. As others have pointed out, Dewhurst is also calling Cruz a trial lawyer. This is not credible either. A trial lawyer, in the language of politics, refers to a personal injury lawyer. Cruz handles business litigation, such as the one involving China for which Dewhurst has been taking Cruz to task. We’re headed for a pretty dismal 60 days if this is the level of rhetoric we’re going to hear in the runoff (assuming there is one).

* * * *

PPP’s writeup on the race is very interesting, and it shows that Dewhurst is in a strong position:

Dewhurst’s 17 point lead represents a reversal of the direction the race had been heading in. Dewhurst started out with a 29 point lead in our polling last September but by January that had declined to 18 points and on our last poll, a month ago, it was down to 12. But Cruz has only gained 3 points over the last four weeks, while Dewhurst has seen an 8 point bump in his support.

Even if Dewhurst does get stopped short of 50%, his prospects in a runoff election look pretty promising. He would lead Cruz 59-34 in a head to head, mostly because Leppert voters prefer Dewhurst over Cruz by a 77-13 margin.

Dewhurst’s prospects look good whether his victory comes on Tuesday or later. But there is one finding in the poll that suggests some possibility for things to be closer than expected. 49% of Cruz’s voters are ‘very excited’ about casting their ballots on Tuesday, while only 27% of Dewhurst’s are. With voters who are ‘very excited’ about turning out, Cruz actually has a 42-37 advantage. That pro-Cruz enthusiasm gap won’t be enough to put him in first place on Tuesday but if he does force  a runoff it could give him a fighting chance in a low turnout election further down the line.

Dewhurst has neutralized Tea Party voters, holding a narrow 39-38 advantage over Cruz with them. Meanwhile he’s winning non-Tea Party Republicans by a 30 point margin at 53-23.

Dewhurst has done everything he needed to do in this race. Neutralizing tea party voters is huge. Having an overwhelming advantage among Leppert supporters is huge. But there isn’t anything he can do about the enthusiasm gap. He’s not the type of personality who generates enthusiasm.

There doesn’t seem to be much love lost between the governor and the state’s soon-to-be senior U.S. Senator John Cornyn. When Perry was contemplating a race for president in 2011, Cornyn’s comment was a lukewarm, “The field is already pretty full. There have been a lot of people working at it for a number of years.”

Now Cornyn is widely presumed to be interested in a major Senate leadership post–most likely, whip–if Republicans regain majority control of the Senate. Currently, Cornyn is a member of the GOP leadership team as vice-chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. The post of whip will be vacant, as John Kyl of Arizona is retiring from the Senate.

U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz likewise has shown little enthusiasm for Cornyn’s ambition to move up the Senate leadership ladder. Cruz has shown more interest in internal Senate politics–in particular, efforts by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina to seek the position of whip for himself or to get an ideological conservative elected to the post–than in helping to elevate a fellow Texan to a position from which he can use his influence to better his home state. In the Texas Senate race, DeMint is a strong supporter of Cruz, who has ducked the issue of whether he would support Cornyn, saying it would be “presumptive” of him to take a position at this point in time.

Perry, meanwhile, remains mum about the fight. He and Cornyn are not close, Cornyn having been aligned with George W. Bush and not Perry during their formative years in Texas politics, and of course both men are former Rove clients. When Perry ran for governor in 2010, Cornyn was asked about how much credit Perry deserved for Texas’ economic strength during the nationwide economic downturn. “He’s entitled to some credit, but not alone,” Cornyn said.

Now Perry is backing Dewhurst in the Senate race, while Cruz has aligned himself with DeMint and his Senate Conservatives PAC. Meanwhile, the Cornyn-Perry disc0rd simmers. After Perry halted his presidential campaign last spring, Cornyn, speaking on a conference call with reporters, said, “[Perry] should get back to work governing Texas.  That’s stood him in good stead and given him high approval ratings, and I think that’s the best thing he could do — if he were interested in my advice.”

It will be a travesty if Cruz wins the Senate race and votes for a non-Texan as whip in preference to Cornyn.

This number comes from pollster Mike Baselice, based on high turnouts in Harris County. I’m surprised, because I thought there would be a lot of apathy in the absence of a presidential race. This level of participation would be good for David Dewhurst, because it would indicate that a lot of people who don’t usually vote in primaries are coming out, as opposed to a smaller turnout, which would indicate that most of the voters are frequent primary voters.