PPP poll: Could it be a Perry/Medina runoff?

By now you probably have heard, Public Policy Polling released results that seem to give Debra Medina a much higher chance of radically affecting the Republican gubernatorial primary - so much so that, if the trend is real and continues, she could push Hutchison out of contention and force a runoff - a Perry/Medina runoff. The PPP only polled 423 likely Republican primary voters, but the margin of error accounts for what we're seeing on a larger scale in other polls, and I don't think what we're seeing in the PPP results is outside the realm of possibility.

So. Could it be? Great question. And the bigger question, surely, is that if Debra Medina were to pull this off, will the Republican Party unite behind her?

Personally, I think the poll shows one important thing - Hutchison's negative campaigning is not really helping her or hurting Perry. Instead, the anti-Perry rhetoric is making undecideds who aren't predisposed toward supporting Perry take a hard look at Medina, whose rhetoric has been conservative and consistent (if not a wee bit on the radical side). I say this doesn't hurt Perry because poll after poll, he comes in pretty consistently - his support is holding steady. I don't think most of the votes Medina and Hutchison are jockeying for were ever Perry's. It's just a matter of how Medina and Hutchison split the remaining vote, and will either of them draw a significant number of new Republican primary voters to push a runoff (or win outright).

The Anybody-But-Perry vote is unpredictable, and the PPP poll shows that it is still up in the air. All we can do is speculate. And, of course, vote, beginning next Tuesday.

(Given that liberal Bill White is the likely Democrat nominee in November, I really really hope we can all put our differences behind us. A smart Republican friend of mine is fond of saying that we get three days to lick our wounds and mourn our primary loss, and then we link arms and move forward - I think that's more than generous. And I want to make it clear now - I will support WHOMEVER comes out of the Republican primary)

Read more...

Is the Bicycle Boulevard Project in trouble?

Gosh, I hope so.

The Travis County Sheriff's office claims that the letter Sheriff Greg Hamilton wrote to Police Chief Art Acevedo is not proof that the sheriff is against the Bicycle Boulevard Project, which is planned to run from 3rd Street to MLK, Jr. Blvd. But the sheriff is reminding people, that's a dangerous area.

Full story over at KVUE. Meanwhile, some of us hope that the sheriff's concerns do torpedo the plan - we're just asking for more accidents and more traffic issues in Austin.

Read more...

Lago Vista Republicans endorse in primary

The North Shore Republican Club in Lago Vista has released 2010 primary endorsements. Those are:

U.S. Representative, District 21: Lamar Smith

Governor: Rick Perry

Railroad Commisioner: Victor Carrillo

Justice Supreme Court Place 3: Rick Green

Justice Supreme Court Place 5: Eva Guzman

State Board of Education, District 10: Brian Russell

Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 4: Scott King Field

Read more...

More Educrat PAC endorsements

Some updates on Texas Parent PAC primary endorsements. There is not a running list anywhere that I can find; I found the information below from other blogs like Off the Kuff, candidates' websites, and Ethics Commission reports. Hard to say if and when they'll announce more endorsements. I previously wrote briefly about their endorsement of Thomas Ratliff for SBOE Place 9.

Richard "Link" Linkenauger - In addition to the Texas Parent PAC endorsement (presumably because he is in favor of throwing money at education), Linkenauger has received the endorsement of several local government officials in HD 2 and is advocating for local option tax increases. Linkenauger is running against proven conservative incumbent Rep. Dan Flynn.

Tim Tuggey - Tuggey is running for SBOE Place 5 against incumbent Ken Mercer, and has come under fire from Republicans for donations to prominent liberal Democrats. Parent PAC's endorsement here, in addition to their support of Ratliff, raises a question about the PAC's connections to the electronic textbook lobby. More digging on this is necessary, but it is clear from the PAC's record of endorsements what kind of candidate they'd be looking for in the SBOE.

Rebecca Osborne - This is Cynthia Dunbar's open seat, SBOE Place 10, and a three-way primary between Osborne, Marsha Farney, and Brian Russell. Osborne received $1000 from the Parent PAC on 1/12/10, according to Texas Ethics Commission filings - so far, the only other candidate to receive money from the PAC is Thomas Ratliff over in SBOE 9.

I'll try to update this list, in a new post, as information becomes available.

Read more...

Why aren't primary ballot props binding?

I had a comment from Michael earlier, stating the following:

"And that being said, that is the problem for the Republican Party. More poles [sic], please contribute, but no proposal for a Texas Constitutional Amendment. That is why so many party and ex-party members are so un-enthused and looking for independents not the party for a hope of change. If the party were serious they would have this at the poles as a petition to put this on the election ballot. We see no bold action only rhetoric. No contract with America only fingers in the wind of popular opinion."

I think that some clarification is in order.

First of all, the primary election is simply a process by which Republicans and Democrats choose their candidates for the general elections held in November. When we choose a candidate in the primary, we are not electing that candidate, we are simply putting their name forward in nomination for the party's place on the November ballot.

What goes on the March primary ballots is important mostly for the parties. But both parties have mechanisms for creating and amending their platforms that are separate from the primary election - that's what happens at the conventions, starting at the precinct level and going up to the state convention. In terms of having petitions - issues that can be brought forward for elections by petitions are very small in number, and this is in the law. City charter issues come to mind. But take the Texas Constitution - in order to change it in any way, a bill must go through the Texas Legislature and be brought to the voters through that process. Same goes for the U.S. Constitution. A republic is meant to handle things in this way - it's what your elected officials are for. And I can't help but recommend that a concerned citizen with a petition for a local grievance would do best by showing up at precinct conventions, club meetings, and the like to speak out and gain support for a petition.

There is a misconception here, I think, about the role the party actually plays in setting an agenda. We want, and need, a conservative platform from which candidates can gain the basis for positions on issues that are not expressly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution or other governing documents. The ballot propositions on the primary ballot allow the Republican party to gauge very specific interest in certain issues - with critical numbers of primary voters, who represent the grassroots of the party, supporting or not supporting the issues on the ballot, it is much more clear not only to the committees forming the platform but also the candidates chosen what the major issues are in the districts they are chosen to represent.

It is totally up to the candidates the voters choose as the party's representatives in the primary process to set an agenda. The Contract with America pushed by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich wasn't a party platform plank but a legislative agenda totally separate from voters' decision-making processes (elections). If you want a specific agenda pushed or opposed, you need to choose candidates who will do that.

The party's function is to provide a jumping-off point for its elected officials' agendas, and an organizational structure by which those candidates are elected.

I am a little disturbed by something lately. Independent grassroots activists who disparage the party seem to want a monolithic entity to enact their causes and beliefs - not seeing that their continued separation from the party structure means they throw away the best mechanism for promoting their agenda. The message that we don't need top-down organization is a good one - but you still need SOME organization, and it only works if the grassroots, the people, actually involve themselves in the process at every step. Apathy, and unchanneled anger, don't work and never have.

If you have an issue you want addressed by the government - well, these are YOUR elected officials we're talking about, whether or not you voted for them. Call them, show up at their offices and speak with their staffs, make sure you are speaking out about what it is you want. And get to know the process for petitioning, and for getting your legislators to introduce legislation.

And if you want the Republican Party to know whether or not the issues in the March 2 ballot propositions matter to you, show up and VOTE in the Republican Primary!

Read more...