Gallup ranks Texas as “competitive”
Inconvenient writing assignments have kept me away from the blog in recent days, so I have a lot of catching up to do. (I have stories in the September issue on the status of Galveston’s recovery from Hurricane Ike one year later and on the prospects for Gail Lowe, the new chair of the State Board of Education, to restore some decorum and sense of public purpose to the board.)
A Gallup survey released yesterday ranked Texas as “competitive.” The results were based upon tracking polls during the first six months of 2009. The number of respondents in Texas was 9,179, and the margin of error was extremely small, +/- 1%. The tally: 42% self-identified as Democrats or independents who leaned Democrat, 40% said they were Republicans or independents who leaned Republican.
Do I believe this? Yes — and no. I have regarded Texas as competitive ever since the 2008 presidential primary, when Democrats outvoted Republicans by more than 2 to 1 (2.8 million D’s, 1.3 million R’s, both parties posting record turnouts). Part of the Democrats’ numerical advantage was accounted for by the fact that their primary was hotly contested between Obama and Clinton, while the Republican contest between McCain and Huckabee was anticlimactic, McCain being all but assured of the GOP nomination at the time. The Democratic primary established that there are plenty of D’s who will turn out if they have a candidate to vote for. And that’s the problem. They don’t have one.
That Texas is competitive (according to Gallup, at least) is not news in the polling world. A similar Gallup poll in 2008 had the same finding, and we know what happened. In the only poll that counts, the one on election day, Texas was not competitive. McCain defeated Obama by 950,000 votes, which amounted to a margin of victory of 55.45% to 43.68%. That is a whupping. John Cornyn breezed to an easy win in his Senate race. No Republican statewide elected official had a close race.
Indeed, Gallup appeared to hedge on its own findings, which found that only four states could be classified as solid Republican:
There is reason to be skeptical about the low number of Republican states. Republican John McCain carried all eight of the so-called competitive states in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, we really need to look no further than Texas, which Gallup polling also found to be competitive in 2008: McCain won the state by 11 points in an election he lost nationally. When Republican U.S. senators faced close battles in places such as Kentucky and North Carolina, Texan John Cornyn was never in serious jeopardy. And, of course, no Democrat has won a statewide race since 1994.
I don’t see any reason to back away from what I have written previously.
1. The state Democratic party has no credibility.
2. Without a public face for the party, it cannot be competitive in statewide races.
3. What makes Texas competitive is that independents have abandoned the Republican party.
4. But, as the UT Poll has established, independents tend to break in favor of Republican on election day.
5. The Democrats cannot even generate turnout. Hispanics aren’t voting.
The best indication of the Democrats’ moribund state is that no one is lining up to run for statewide office. Politicians know which way the wind blows.
Tagged: competitive, gallup poll, texas.
texun says:
Right on all five points, Paul. I suspect that it would be easier to raise Lazarus from the dead than to revive the state party. Miracles required in both instances.
Reply »
Anonymous Liberal Lout says:
I can’t argue with most of your points, Paul. But, there is one obvious thing that needs to be discussed. At some point, some time, some where, some how, the Democratic party will become competitive, again. When, where, and how? I don’t pretend to know.
Will it be a prominent name running and winning a state wide office? Will it be an effective slate of down ballot candidates for all state wide offices (like the courts)?
Or, (and here’s the possibility that has got to have both observers and GOPers nervous), will it be a shot out of the blue when a “no chance” candidate wins a state-wide ballot. Either because of an “Obama halo,” because the GOPers finally jump the shark playing to their base, or because of GOPer fatigue–independents just get tired of all the silliness.
My bet? The Dems will significantly underplay their hand, and delay ascendency for 4-6 years after inevitability.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am
That sounds about right.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Mind sharing the reason the thread on physician owned hospital in the Valley and its tie to Valley pols is no longer posted? Caving in to the heat? Get something wrong?
Reply »
paulburka says:
We got a letter from Doctor’s Hospital claiming that the story had factual errors. In our view, the story did not contain factual errors. The letter did raise certain objections that we addressed without compromising the story in any way. By agreement, the story with revisions will be back on the Web site at noon today.
Reply »
Texas Democrat says:
Burka, sooner or later, the Texas Democrats are going to WIN statewide offices and take back both houses of the Legislature, my money is on 2014.
Some Democrats are going to pressure former Comptroller John Sharp (D) out of the Senate race and into the governor’s race, since Schieffer’s credibility is SHOT.
Now remember what happened in Georgia, nobody gave Sonny Perdue (R) a chance at winning the governorship in 2002 against then-Governor Roy Barnes (D), but Perdue won the election in a major upset and the Republicans went on to take back both houses of the General Assembly and both Senate seats, plus winning back a couple of down-ballot statewide offices in 2006.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
John Sharp for Governor? The last thing John Sharp wants is to run against Perry a third time.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Sharp has said that he has around $5 million to put into a U.S. Senate raise. There is no way he has the capacity to raise the kind of money needed for a governor’s race. He has the staying power for the short campaign in a special election, but not for an 8-month governor’s race.
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) says:
Burka, sooner or later, the Texas Democrats are going to WIN statewide offices and take back both houses of the Legislature, my money is on 2014.
There are some talented and charismatic young Dems out there in the weeds somewhere, working in local government most likely. They are the ones who will win these races in 2012, 14, or beyond.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why is Shieffer’s credibility shot?
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It’s not. As a conservative leaning independent, I will vote for him. I would stay home before I would vote for either Perry or KBH … or any Dem who thinks Obama is on the right track.
I think those like me want an independent thinker in the Blue Dog mold … maybe someone who will run with ethics and campaign reform as part of his platform. Someone who is not part of the Austin crowd and does not owe a bunch of favors. I think Schieffer is a fit.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Here’s hoping you have the opportunity to stay home, JJ. I’m tired of Republicans in so-called “independent” clothing.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
That’s the thinking that will keep the D’s sucking hind tit, Anonymous. Thinkers like you are holding back the Democratic party and ruining the Republican party.
Maybe you’re just masochistic.
Anonymous says:
Texas is number 3 (behind California and New York) on stimulus dollars paid in. What did Perry do wrong?? Surely there’s a way he could have prevented that!! We need to be right in line with our state’s ranking on uninsured, health care, public ed, etc. He’s screwing up the state!!
Reply »
bigmactex says:
The bloodletting in the upcoming Perry – Hutchison internecine primary will result in a boon for the Democrats. Perry should retire gracefully after a long stint as governor and Hutchison, with all her seniority, should stay put in Washington. Instead they are putting self interest above the duties to those citizens that elected them in order to not only sate their egos but to the ancillary benefit of the Democrats. A pox on them both!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I would like to see the thread on the crooked elected folks getting paid off by the physicians in the Valley posted back up on this site. I would like to see it in your magazine. I would like to see it on billboards. Thought it was going to be back up at noon today.
Reply »
Garvin says:
One has to think that at some point Hispanics and young folks will have had enough of the Texas GOP. If Perry wins again that may be the trigger. Short term and long term a Perry win is a good thing for the Dems as independents tire of reactionary neocon rhetoric and tea party ranting. Throw in the A&M debacle and declining media respect for Perry and 2012 and 2016 may be payback time.
Reply »
trowaman says:
Well, let’s check out the TX Democratic Party.
Farm team: St. Rep. Anchia, St. Rep. Strama, St. Rep. St. Sen. Davis, Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia, and Dallas County DA Craig Watkins are the best “up and comers.” Most will surely run statewide someday, just not anytime soon. Look for them to be parts of the class that take over in 2014 when things begin to flip.
Field Efforts: Last statewide candidate to run field was before I paid attention to politics. Bill White seems to be investing in this. So for the first time in >10 years, there’s something to grow on.
Current Candidates: Bill White just achieved political “maturity” after 6 years in charge of Houston. He’s got a shot. Besides him we’re left with the established figures of Kirk Watson, John Sharp, etc. People who have been around before and are simply holding the fort down until the state and party are ready. There is Chet Edwards and Jim Turner, but it’ll take redistricting and a sure bet for Chet to run and Turner . . . man, I don’t know what he’s doing, but the “idealistic” base is likely to just ignore him as they are doing with Schieffer now (granted Schieffer has greater reason to be blown off).
Urban vs. Rural
Democrats are on offense in HD-105 (Irving), HD-144 (Pasadena) and HD-138 (SW Houston). Urban areas. Republicans are going after HD-3 (Paris), HD-11 (Crockett), and other East Texas seats. See a pattern? Potential candidates for statewide office will want to wait until they can rely on a more regional campaign (only competiting in the Urban counties and Valley) versus spreading out as wide as possible.
Summary:
Dems are making progress in the urban areas, which are growing, just the potential winning candidates (many of whom used some impressive field campaigns to win) are waiting for the infrastructure to be put in place for statewide wins.
It takes a lot to recover from starting with nothing.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
No, JJ, it’s your kind of conservative, knee-jerk, reactionary thinking that holds the whole country back. Tell me one thing that Obama has done that has had a direct, negative impact on you personally. Don’t tell me deficit spending, trade deficit, etc. And don’t talk about anything that was done during GWB’s administration or the things Obama had to do to deal with the mess he was left.I want something that has affected you directly in YOUR pocketbook ALREADY…or some other government service that’s not working only since Obama became president. When you get done being silent because you can’t think of anything, try a new way of thinking for awhile before you go mouthing off about imaginary future “problems” that haven’t even touched you.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
August 6th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Did you notice in my post that I refer to Obama has being on the “wrong track”? That denotes future problems, Anonymous.
Our/my current woes are a combination of factors, most of which were caused by the Bush admin’s turning a blind eye to goings-on on Wall Street with regards to hedging and derivatives, and Schummer/Frank/Dodd action/inaction with regards to Fannie and Freddie.
I think that Obama and his administration are (1) leading us into uncharted waters, and (2) are not qualified to do so (In other words, I don’t think they know what they are doing), and (3) I believe my children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences instead of our just biting the bullet now, taking our lumps and paying for our own mistakes.
It would appear that many think as I do. Many more each day. I applaud you for being so loyal and hanging on to the rail of that sinking ship. This being said, there are many people who are loyal that lack commonsense.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
If you’re worried about your children and grandchildren, try spending more on public education…but then we’ve already had that debate and you’re in favor of the status quo over spending more without proof of success before it’s even possible to demonstrate.
Reply »
asmith says:
I agree with Trowaman. The Dems now win in all of the urban counties save Tarrant, and are now beginning to win the old suburbs between the cities and the outer suburbs. The Republicans will likely continue to win the east texas seats once incumbents retire. The urban strategy isn’t enough when you get killed in the outer suburban counties plus the rural white areas.
I could see a 1961 scenario happen with Bill White, if Sharp drops out.
Dems need to find candidates that voters in Dallas, Round Rock, and Lufkin can get behind, not just Dallas.
I don’t expect the majority of voters in Texas to like the current prez, after all they didn’t vote for him. JJ, what would McCain do differently? He’d continue the supply side policies of Bush.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
P.S. “Many think as I do.” Yes, and they gave us George W. Bush for 8 years. You and Schieffer need to go over and have a beer with HIM.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I love the responses from all you hold the line Dem’s here in the state. It’s the reason you have no stroke, and will continue to have none. Rad left and rad right policies and thinking are passe and going the way of the albatross. Centuries down the road someone will uncover you and find a petrified corpse with its mouth wide open as if projecting a contorted scream, fists clinched and veins popping out on its neck.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Project much, John?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
August 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I’m thinking President of the United States isn’t exactly “no stroke” John. Go have one of your own.
Reply »
Glenn Smith says:
Standing with you on the 2nd floor of the Capitol back in the ’80s, when the GOP had such stars as Bill Meier, John Leedom, Beau Boulter, I listened to you, Paul, explain to me how despite their shortcomings, the GOP would rise. You were so hopeful. You were their cheerleader.
So now the times they are a-changin’. And your attitude is remarkably different. It almost seems that your heart was in the rise of the Republicans, but that you can’t really cotton to the thought of a Democratic ascendancy. I mean, one might suspect bias in your analysis.
By the way, Democrats currently have a competitive race for the U.S. Senate and a respected candidate for governor. Just keeping you posted on developments.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
August 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I assume that Mr. Smith is attempting to be ironic (or misleading) when he suggests that I was praising the likes of Meir, Leedom, and Boulter. The Republicans did have some outstanding senators in the the late eighties and early nineties — Cyndi Krier, Bob McFarland, to name a couple — but the reason that the Republicans were ascendant had more to do with demographic change (in particular, the rise of the suburbs) than with any individual stars. Democrats today are in the same situation — promising individuals, promising trends, but no indication that they can turn these developments into votes. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know. It took a George W. Bush to put the Republicans over the top in 1994, and it will take someone who is popular and well known, as Bush was, to put the Democrats over the top. I am no more of a cheerleader for Democrats today than I was a cheerleader for Republicans in the late eighties. I think it is important for the Democrats to be in a position to challenge the majority party. But the idea that I was somehow more in favor of R’s 20 years ago than I am for the D’s today is completely off base.
Reply »