Bill White for Senate?
Well, this one takes the cake ... George Strong is reporting another mailer causing an uproar. This time, its one by the Harris County GOP claiming that if elected mayor, Bill White will be running for the Senate in 2006.
Strong points out that the last time a Houston mayor ran statewide was ... never. Allow me to quibble one bit with that polite brushoff:
The limitation that does inhibit it, however, is this:
Winning in the big city gives you a modicum of name ID ... moreso for the mayor, obviously. But it also boxes you into the defender of the bastion of sin and iniquity that many suburbanites have previously sought to flee from. Ron Kirk had solid support from GOP voters in Dallas, for instance. But in 2002, there were more of them that came out to vote and suddenly, there were also a good portion of ex-supporters that cast their ballot to suggest that they might *only* vote for Ron Kirk as mayor.
All that said, I think Bill White has positioned himself very favorably for a statewide run which he may yet still harbor dreams of. But in order to accomplish that dream, he'll have to deliver here in Houston. That's the trap that Lee Brown could never escape. A run in 2006, though? That's kinda tough ... let's call it the Michael Berry career path. Get elected to one office and immediately begin campaigning for the next one. 2008, maybe ... White would have had four years under his belt as mayor and could/should have some measurable signs of progress by then. Still though ... what's Bill White's organization looking like in Austin or El Paso?
Strong's final predictions for the At Large races are up, also:
Controller - Parker over Tatro: 57-43
AL #3 - Gibbs over Brown: 51-49
AL #4 - Keller over Green 52-48
Strong's point about lower than normal results in early voting in African American precincts could spell danger for Green and also keep White's number under 60% (Strong predicts 59%). His scenario would also lead to 9 of the 15 votes on council being GOP and up to 8 of the councilmembers being women if Martinez wins in Kuff's District H.
I'm sticking with my hunch that Green has a prayer, but given the closeness of Strong's call and the fact that I think for either of the newbies to win it will happen with 51% or less, there's not a lot separating us in our guesstimates. For the record, I'll claim he's a bit on the high side on Parker's total. I'll go with 55% on her and call the mayor's race at 57%-43%. I'm tempted to scout a few areas of strong McConn support tomorrow. Any updates I get will naturally be posted live on this site (as opposed to being done so on tape-delay).
Comments
Quite a long time ago, Kuff and I were wondering over coffee about the Dems and their inability to field a mayoral candidate here with statewide potential. I never thought Brown was that guy because of his age. But Bill White may well be that guy. I like your point about the typical turnout in a city election, but it's still the largest city in Texas, and a city Al Gore won. You (I?) would just think it could be central to a Dem's statewide run, especially a Dem who can self-finance (and one who isn't the disaster known as Tony Sanchez, which White shouldn't be after success at City Hall). Interesting stuff.
Posted by: kevin whited | December 6, 2003 09:38 AM
I think the inhibitor of turnout is something that affects every mayor: Kirk, Watson, and White. The lesson there is that you cannot take even a healthy reelection number as an indicator of crossover appeal outside of city limits and perhaps not even the existing crossover vote in a partisan election. The key to overcome that is to start building your base outside of the existing area. Paul Bettancourt is doing just that in building some statewide name ID, I believe.
But I'd agree with the argument that if Kirk can do it, if Watson can do it, then by all means White would be at least just as good for a statewide run.
Obviously, any suggestion on the GOP side of this is designed to limit the crossover vote and keep teh GOP sheep herded together away from one of ours.
I honestly think that had Kathy Whitmire won reelection in 91, she might well have been a candidate in 94. I suspected that some of the Whitmire-for-statewide pressure had occurred in 1990, however. No clue on where her mind was on the issue of running, though. Needless to say, she would have been a far cry better than Nikki Van Hightower.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | December 6, 2003 03:38 PM