Polling For Texas: January Zogby

Let's be honest,,,,

What I find interesting is that Gammage polls as well as Bell does after Gammage only having been in the race about a month.... Bell's been running for a year and still only scores within the MOE (margin of error).

Same with fundraising..... Bell had 3 months, Gammage didn't even start till after mid-Nov --right in the middle of the holiday season.

There's spin, and then there's half-truths.....

Yes, well ... with Dean Rindy of the Gammage Campaign calling Chris Bell a "weak candidate," shouldn't one expect a superior showing on the part of Gammage even now? Besides, the fundraising isn't proportional to the amount of months each candidate's been on the trail this past quarter ... Chris outraised him 5-to-1, not 3-to-1.

It's hard to justify your own campaign sending out the first attack of the primary, calling your opponent a "weak candidate" if you can't muster better polling numbers at the outset. If Jim Turner had said the same thing, he'd at least have a case to make. But, for now, all Gammage is effectively saying is: "Trust me, I'll be a better candidate than Chris ... eventually ... somehow."

In other words: there's spin, there's half-truths, and then there's wholecloth invention of unsupportable facts. Gammage (via Rindy) called out Chris as weak and now ought to really be concerned that he's polling even weaker.

(Greg Note: Disregard comments on Turner's polling numbers. I was looking at one of the crosstabs instead of the overall numbers, which are updated in the post itself)

62% want change.

I believe this race will come down to Whats Her Name Today and the Democratic candidate. REALLY!

62% of the voters realize Perry is dogmeat when it comes to leadership in this state. He cant even lead his party in school finance reform.

Once they pull their heads out of their back ends, and realize what he has really done to their pocket book, they will dump him.

What her naame vs Bell/Gammage.

Mark my words.....

Well, Greg.... perhaps Rindy has a mind of his own.... or are we all supposed to be 'toe the line' kinds of Democrats.

Bob Gammage has never called Bell a 'weak' candidate (that was Charles Schoecting back in the summer ....) so maybe Rindy was quoting the state party chair?)

I'd say that after a year of campaigning, a candidate that only polls 2% better than the brand-new challenger .... well...., may not be as strong a candidate as we need to make a run a winning the Governor's office.

Just saying..........

So the cure for an out-of-party power with no existing strong leadership in place for way too many years is to nominate someone with LESS name ID and WORSE poll numbers?

I'm just not comprehending that sort of logic.

Let me quote Kelly Fero:

"Kelly Fero, an Austin-based Democratic strategist, said Gammage could give the party a boost.

?If you?re looking for a seasoned candidate who knows the issues backwards and forwards, has an outstanding public-service record already, has been at the heart of major battles facing Texas, whose integrity is unchallenged, who knows how to run a statewide race, then you can?t do any better than Bob Gammage,? Fero said.

Name ID is an issue for them both, or haven't you seen the WOAI poll out of SA that shows that 67% of Texans have no idea who Chris Bell is. That's pretty comparable with the 70% who'd not heard of Gammage.

Poll numbers.... yes, indeed, I know what worth (and how worthless) poll numbers can be....

What I continue to wonder is: If Chris (AFTER CAMPAIGNING FOR A YEAR) is not doing any better than a (let's be generous) 6 week old campaign by Gammage, then what has Chris been doing to help build the party?

I don't dislike Chris Bell, I just find him.... ineffectual.

Let's give it a little time to play out. Claiming that Chris is "doing much better' seems to be whistling in the dark......

Curious. You place quotes around "doing much better" as if those were words I used. Feel free to explain that one.

As for Fero. I like him and have respect for him. I disagreed with him when he lifted John Culberson quotes against Chris Bell (while attacking him for John Sharp's trial balloon of a campaign). And I'll be fighting on the same side of him for Hubert Vo's campaign in SW Houston. But that doesn't mean his opinion matters on this any more than yours or mine. He's spinning and I'm not buying.

When we all wake up and realize that the lot our party is in requires a distinct, reformist message, I think we move forward as a party. Gammage doesn't offer that ... it's a matter of record. Chris does ... again, as a matter of record. I'm really not sure what I need to see "play out" in order to read from their records and know which one I feel offers the best path forward. Will Gammage "play out" something that explains why he quit his office with two years to go and let his party down in 1994? I'm all ears on that one ... and that's the biggest hangup I have with Gammage. If you've got (or Kelly for that matter) info that the rest of the world doesn't then by all means, let us know.

Both Democrats, Bell and Gammage, are remarkably weak. For either side to snipe at the other is disingenuous at best. On the one hand, Bell's lead over Gammage is within the margin of error, which is known in the business as "not statistically significant". Still, the difference is persistent enough in the polls to suggest that the Democratic base is around 15%, and Bell's campaign has allowed him to improve upon that base by 2 or 3 points. After six months of campaigning, I would be discouraged.

Gammage has his own problems. He presents issues far better than Bell does, but he came into the race prominently commenting on his fear that Bell could not race the big bucks needed to win in the fall. This fear is borne out by the fact that Kinky Friedman, quite literally a joke candidate, has outraised Bell by more than 4 to 1. So to say that Bell has outraised Gammage by 5 to 1 is significant. It would be fair to say that Gammage needs to put up or shut up, but it would also be fair to observe that he is doing just that. The financial reporting period ended very shortly after Gammage filed, and during Christmas season at that. I suspect the next round of filing will show a substantial improvement. If not, Gammage is dead meat.

In the end, Gammage is a blessing in disguise for Bell, under two conditions: 1) Bell wins, and 2) Bell wins really big, by 2-to-1 or better. If Gammage wins it will be a big deal, but before he got in the race, it was extremely ho-hum. No one was paying any attention to Bell, and would have had no reason to until the fall, and then just long enough to write him off. Now Bell gets a lot more press attention, and best of all, he will get a LOT of street cred for putting down a past master -- as long as he wins and by a substantial margin.

Too bad about Alvarado dropping out. I wasn't a supporter, but I love three- and four-way races. I hope we see a lot more of them in the future, in the general election as well as the primaries. The more electoral participation, the better. Viva La Raza!

Apparently, Greg, Gammage answered all the questions PDittie had for him to his satisfaction and that was one of them. Perhaps you should go read Brains and Eggs.... or ask Perry (who is a self-proclaimed Bell partisan too). Better yet, find some time to go see Bob and ask him yourself. He'll give you a straight answer, just like he did PDittie.

So if that's the biggest problem you have with Gammage -- and it turns out to be a non-issue -- what sort of impact might that have on you?

TD06 ... Um, do you have a link offered for what you describe as PDid having his satisfaction met over the quitting issue? I thought maybe I missed something on his blog, but a search doesn't seem to support your argument. Having spoken directly with the blogger in question on a number of occassions, I'm not sure that your characterization is correct.

Dale,

In normal years, as in - when we were a competitive two-party state, I'd agree that a contested primary is generally good. And in principle, I find them far more productive than coronation processes. But given the lot we've got now, a contested primary pretty much assures that whoever our nominee is, they'll be broke by April. Last I checked, the big check writers are ditching the party, giving up hope, and relegating their own state party to a lot in life somewhat akin to the Idaho Democratic Party.

How it benefits us to come out of April with next to nothing in terms of money and only small donors who have proven to be reluctant themselves to give ... I just don't see the rosey scenario there.

But likewise, I find it neither honest nor accurate to label any serious candidate "remarkably weak" when their showing is symptomatic of the party's situation ... not a cause of it. Maybe we'll just have to wait until everyone gets their wet dream of Bill White running for Gov in 2010 and watch him polling the same 25-30% in a head-to-head matchup before we all realize this.

Weak is weak. Call it what you want, excuse it as you wish.

I am not thinking, as you are, in terms of getting a Democrat elected governor: I am thinking in terms of getting a better governor. Although I am taking a wait and see attitude about who I support, there is no doubt that I want to replace Perry. Perry is incompetent even by the standards of those who agree with his ideology, much less those of us who do not.

In making excuses for Bell and Gammage, you are implicitly suggesting that the only way we can beat Perry is by going outside the Democratic party. Listen to your own logic! How can that leave you supporting Bell, unless you like losing and getting your butt stomped in every election? And don't tell me you would rather get your butt stomped standing on principle, because Bell's only principle is running for office, any office, every office. He's still looking to find a job that he likes, and practicing law clearly does not measure up.

Greg:

Here's Perry's quote:

"I also got some extended face time with Bob Gammage at the banquet's after-party (and got satisfactory answers to all my questions)."

Here's the link: http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2006/01/blue-tsunami-hit-galveston-this-past.html

I don't know if my interpretation is correct, but it certainly seemed pretty clear.

At this point in time, I have not made a decision on who I will support in this race. I like Bell and am very impressed in the way he brought up the Delay ethics issue to the forefront. But, it's way to early to count Gammage out as far as fundraising goes. He entered the race in mid December and he is touring the state this month with Wesely Clark at some of his tour stops. I would expect $$ rolling in from this, I suspect.