Polling for Texas: Guv & Senate 2006

Ugly results (via Rasmussen). Numbers for now, some analysis/thought later in the evening:

Guv:
Perry - 40%
Strayhorn - 21%
Bell - 14%
Friedman - 12%

Senate:
KBH - 64%
Radnofsky - 25%

UPDATE: A few quick thoughts on the polling: First, behold Lady Foghorn's peak. The poll couldn't have been timed any better to correllate with Strayhorn's pseudo-switch. There's some verbage in Rasmussen's report that I'm a bit too drained to analyze: "Strayhorn attracts 21% of the vote (including 17% of Republicans)." Umm, if she's polling 17% of the GOP and let's say the GOP represents 50% (for the sake of argument) ... that accounts for about 8% of Strayhorn's 21 points, meaning the other 13 are coming out of Kinky & Chris' numbers (as well as the undecided pool). Certainly, the numbers of those two have taken a hit, so I dunno ... maybe that math checks out. But shouldn't that give rise to a bit of encouragement on the Dem side? I just have a hard time believing that the already diehard 25% that Chris and Radnofsky have been polling with minimal name ID are going to stick around with someone who still basically disagrees with us on the big issues.

The biggest cause for concern comes from the polling in the Senate race and that carries over to the Guv numbers. KBH polling at 64% this far out? Sorry, I'm not buying that. I mean, at the end of the day, if nothing in the campaign went BAR's way and everything went KBH's way, I can squint and foresee a scenario by which Kay wins by something like that margin. Gramm managed just such feats back in the day, so it's not outside the range of possibility. But I have a hard time believing a poll that shows a Senator who's shunned the limelight polling at 64% ... I'm dying to see some name ID numbers on this poll. What I'm inclined to believe is that Rasmussen is pushing some leaners over to one side or the other and thereby inflating the name ID factor. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't but as a theory it sure seems to explain a bit of what's going on with these numbers.

Back to the Guv race for a sec, I think there's a number of ways to slice the vote calculus now that there's two indies in the hunt. Thus far, I'm inclined to agree with those who argue that the biggest victim of Strayhorn's is Kinky. The open question, however, is what happens to Democratic voters. I'd love to report that I get a great vibe from Democrats in my line of work out in campaign land. But right now, there seems to be a big ol question mark over a lot of people's heads when it comes to the statewide slate. Chalk it up to what you will. I'm of the opinion that there's a good deal of defeatism in the hearts and minds of a few Dems and that much of what I see, read, and hear are Democrats trying to excuse a loss before it happens so they don't feel invested in a campaign they don't see winning. Clearly, that ain't my style. I've said it once, I'll say it again: Give me the fighters and I'll fight with 'em. Win or lose, you either believe the stuff you fight for or you don't.

So what happens between now and election day is still something of a jump ball that might make for a good thesis on Game Theory. Is there some point in the "polling primaries" by which Dems look at the shape of things and realize that, if they come home, they win? Is there some point that Democratic voters just give up but still want to just force a change by any means necessary? I can paint a picture whereby either happens. But right now, the biggest hurdle for anyone is going to be chipping away at Perry's 40% base. And it's worth remembering that of those 17% GOP voters in Grandma's camp ... I don't see them as incapable of going back to Perry under a lot of circumstances.

If you go back to the 1992 Presidentials, there were a number of polls that showed Perot with a decent shot of winning prior to the DNC convention (after which Perot pulled out ... temporarily). I think there's a case to make for the psychological hurdle being cleared by which some serious movement happens among voters. Of course, as a Democrat, I feel obligated to point out that it was a Democrat that won that election ;-)

I'm not 100% sure I agree with the premise that Jason paints over at Team Chris on this aspect: Yes, there are three Republicans in this race to one Democrat ... and that should, in theory, be excellent news for us. But this is a change election ... and there's one Rick Perry to three people not named Rick Perry. I think that overrides a lot of partisan consideration in the votecasting. And the presence of a heretofore-more-serious version of an independent candidate makes the vote splitting by the non-Perrys a bit more fatalistic.

There is, of course, a case to make that in this change election, Chris should still be well positioned to make the case that his hands are the cleanest - he's not run a slush fund out of state government to kick back to cronies the way Perry has. He's not hit up Hill Co. partners for political donations before doling out state contracts the way Strayhorn has. And he's not done ... well, let's just call it "half" of what Friedman's done over the course of time ... and that's probably a good thing.

SIDENOTE: What? No Gammage in this equation? Simply stated: no. On a partisan note, I don't think Gammage does any better or any worse than Bell. But on the basis of who can position themselves as the candidate with the cleanest hands at a time when lobbyists and contractors are ratting out Congressmen and Governors/State legislators are acceeding to the wishes of both the lobbyists and congressmen ... I'm not sure how it really behooves us to have as our nominee someone who's going to get hammered on his questionable involvement with convicted former-Attorney General Dan Morales (last seen endorsing Rick Perry, by the way). I'm dying to see some polling numbers for our primary, but thus far, Gammage hasn't impressed me with anything from his record.