Beyond Bush: Texas Republicans in an Obama Era
by David Benzion · 12/31/2008 7:10 amEditors note: This post was originally published December 4, 2008. It is being republished for the convenience of KSEV radio listeners this morning.
Given my 12-year long, revolving-door career in media & politics, it is sometimes difficult for me to remember who knows me from which world–so by way of disclosure, I’ll remind everyone again that in addition to my on-line and on-air activities, I make my actual living as the Senior Research Analyst at Hill Research Consultants of The Woodlands, a political/strategic polling firm.
Typically, this is where I add the caveat that the nonsense that regularly appears here on LST has nothing to do with my employer or clients… but in this case, that isn’t true, and instead I’m proud to announce the public release (and LST Exclusive Scoop, if only by minutes!) of HRC’s ground-breaking statewide survey of 636 Texas voters, “Beyond Bush: Texas Republicans in an Obama Era.”
[NOTE: Before you print, be advised--the action-packed, profoundly-insightful PowerPoint presentation at the front is only 42 slides long, but the entire PDF file runs a full 179 pages.]*
Back during my blog-post series of “Pre-election confessions of a political hack” I noted that most of the time the public doesn’t ever get to see the type of in-depth, truly professional surveys that are privately commissioned by political campaigns and special-interest groups.
This is the exception. My boss–the wise and beneficent Dr. David Hill–decided to eat the survey’s costs and throw open the books to the world because there is something important that needs to be said; as we write…
November 4th, 2008 represented the first time in 16 years that a candidate named “Bush” didn’t appear on the statewide Texas ballot.
In the aftermath of a historic rebuke by voters of GOP-rule, Republicans across the country are attempting to answer the questions of “What went wrong?” and “Where do we go from here?”
HRC is particularly concerned that Texas may be on a similar path as that recently taken by voters in Colorado 2000:
- Colorado is clearly defined as a “Red State”—home to James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family,” a large military-retiree community, Tom Tancredo and the free-spirit of the West;
- 2002-06: Democrats make steady gains, to the point that by…
- 2008: The Governor’s Mansion; both chambers of the Colorado legislature; a majority of the congressional delegation and both US senators are Democrats.
It can happen; the time to ring the alarm bell, if necessary, is now.
Now is also the time to throw open the conversation to all of you, the conservative/Republican grassroots.
We have work to do… the good news is, it can be done.
Let’s begin.
*[Thanks to BigJolly and friend-o-LST Ken Blair for their technical assistance in the posting of this report; Matt Bramanti, not so much.]
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
100 Responses to “Beyond Bush: Texas Republicans in an Obama Era”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
There will be total silence while everyone reads 179 pages of spine tingling suspense and page turning surprises. Pencils are being sharpened, note books filled with titilating comments. The discussion will be in depth, witty and fascinating as always.
I will do some real work. sigh
DB
What do you mean by that ? You’re telling me David Hill and your clients don’t like hamburgers and salacious, lubricious gossip ? How un-American !
It may seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to some people, but it appears to me that the essence of it all can be summarized by the comments of KSEV’s guru of insight, Edd Hendee, with a fairly simple statement: When Republicans act like Democrats, people just vote for Democrats.
If one is inclined to argue the point, first consider the most obvious and most recent glaring example, John McCain. The good Senator McCain spent so much time “reaching across the aisle” that he forgot where he started. (And no, that was not an “old” joke.) Why was Palin so popular? Because she had a background of true Conservative principles and actions. Look nationwide, look at Texas, and particular Houston-area elections. With a few exceptions, most of the “Moderate” Republicans found themselves unemployed, but the Republicans who had a demonstrated record of standing on principle and working for Conservative ideology got re-elected (or elected). Even the good Senator Cornyn, faced with a truly undesireable opponent, managed to make enough of the right noises to get re-elected. (Of course, we haven’t heard much from him since Nov4th.)
Here’s a proposal for all politicans: Select a position, stand firm on it, and let the voters judge performance and make what they perceive to be the best choice.
my (somewhat radical) 2¢,
– Ken
#3 Ken Kelley
Many, good, solidly conservative judges lost down ballot because of blunders, both collective and individual, of Republicans higher up the food chain. It is not enough to take an individual stand. You can get slaughtered by the collateral damage from the missteps of your fellow candidates and your party.
I realize I am not part of the official survey - but I would eagerly await the Republican party asking my opinion of where they left me. I am looking for a candidate (and party) that openly, strongly, convincingly supports the following:
- Christianity, in it’s original form - not what we have morphed it into
- Tolerance means I love the sinner, but hate the sin. Not have to accept the sin.
- Life begins at conception - and all that implies
- Life is sacred and should be protected
- American, where you are innocent until proven guilty. Which means the IRS and CPS have to be reigned in
- Honor, values, and integrity have meaning beyond the election
- Leadership is something more than accepting the payout from special interests
Find me a candidate that meets the above criteria and I would not only vote for them, but help them both with finances and time to get elected.
Ken, I agree with you. Basically, the Democrats ran this year on what I call the CocaCola philosophy; “it’s the real thing”.
No one is going to vote for a Democrat Lite when they can vote for the real thing. The policy of “going along to get along” has been disasterous for Republicans. The party that claimed fiscal responbility spent like drunken Democrats with an unlimited credit card and no payment date. When real Republicans like Jeb Hensarling asked for a one year moritorium on pork barrell projects, he was laughed out of chambers.
Until Republicans start being true Republicans again, the bleeding will not stop. One other problem: when Democrats find themselves in trouble, they rally the wagons, take to the Capitol steps and tell Americans how right they are and how wrong Republicans are. Republicans stand silent and never attack back or better yet, initiate the attack. We have been too busy playing defense to play offense.
Republicans need to get loud. They need to start demanding that people like William (DollarBill) Jefferson be held accountable. They need to show that when one of them does something wrong, that person is purged while Democrats defend the offender.
Why vote for a Republican when they act like a Democrat?
Lord help us…. I’m tired of holding my nose and voting. Conservatives need to be conservatives in the same way that lions do not act like lemurs.
This is the comment I posted this morning in Open Comments. I had not read the report until David posted it, but it is relevant here:
[In response to tedtam's #6 comment]
#6 tedtam
I replied:
Ronald Reagan created the largest tent in American political history by inviting everyone who was interested to the party. He figured that once the guests were in his domain, he could convince them to agree with him on at least some principles and ideals. By the force of his personal warmth and sincerity, Reagan made people want to agree with him, even if they couldn’t do so on all points. When he was questioned about support from members of groups not traditionally conservative, Reagan would say, “They agree with me, not I with them and I welcome any endorsement of our policies.”
It is not about compromising one’s values - it is about selling the value of one’s ideals and making them accessible to those who might normally knee-jerk reject them. Purity tests for membership are the death knell of any political movement.
I’m going to suggest we experiment with this thread and try to focus comments on actual things written in the report.
10
Brilliant!!!!
#10 db
Why would we want to start doing that now?
One thing I found interesting is that the “emerging republicans” appear to be much more focused on lowering taxes (actual & tangible; not just slowing rate of growth) than “enduring republicans”. There’s hope.
Looks like in order to win, republicans are going to have to be much less strident on the “social conservatism”. I am not saying to abandon it; I am saying the way to win there is to win hearts & minds by “planting seeds”, not with a baseball bat.
#11 shannon
It’s why he’s the boss & you’re an unpaid lackey.
#10 Bossman
Okay, I’ll give it a shot. Please explain this.
In order to reach the ‘critical middle’, you have this statement on p.38 (part 2 of Strategic Recommendations):
Then, on p.41 (part 5 of Strategic Recommendations), the report states:
I’m confused. How do we frame the issue of appraisal creep so that it ‘counts’?
On the day that Kay Bailey announces an exploratory committee for governor, you redact the favorable/unfavorable results for her, Perry and Dewhurst?
What’s up with that?
RE: My Comment #9
See page 18 of the HRC report:
Texas voters perceived Republicans compared to Democrats:
Racist - 33% to 9%
Arrogant - 43% to 15%
Corrupt - 32% to 9%
Angry - 35% to 21%
Open & Welcoming - 14% to 47%
That is no big tent - it’s not even a pup tent.
Heh; this survey was long in planning, and we don’t want to be perceived to be taking sides in that sort of skirmish. Releasing office-holders’ fav/unfav numbers is considered impolite… like asking a rancher how many head of cattle he owns. As a professional courtesy, and to keep people focused on substance, we redacted.
Delivering tax relief in a way that is “real” to “normal” folks to me means something like (a) returning “surplus” money in the form of a rebate check; or at a minimum (b) showing people that they paid X-many dollars in taxes last year, whereas this year they will pay X minus Y many dollars–with “Y” being a significant sum.
Not the thin gruel we’ve been served so far– last year you paid X dollars and this year you would have paid Z dollars, but we “lowered” your taxes by Y dollars so even though you are paying more than last year, we actually saved you money. Now vote for us.
Bull.
#17– Yes, as a general rule, it is always better to NOT be “winning” attributes like racist, arrogant, corrupt, angry, and unwelcoming.
I see you got a well-rounded education at that snooty college up there.
Bossman,
Need a little help with the inner workings of polls. In question # 72, your respondents list their employment status. 27% identify themselves as retired. The 2006 Census report shows that 9.9% of Texans are over 65.
Do polling firms give weight or bias in order to adjust their recommendations for a particular group?
texpat;
I agree the missteps of Republican leadership hurt many other Republicans, even good ones; but in the case of these judges losing their seats, how much would you say is due to the straight ticket Obama/Democrat voting?
27% self-identified as retired… there are some men that retire before 65, many women who had a career but no longer do, etc.
We weight for gender, age and geography, as determined by U.S. Census tract.
retire #6;
Yup. liberals loved Obama and conservatives tolerated McCain.
Thanks for sharing that. It was a good read. Overall, I’d have to say it looks like the Texas republican party is facing a steep uphill climb. But this has been pretty much apparent since summer 2006.
From p38:
When you get to end of job on that, I’ve got this arrogant, angry, old dog that needs to learn a few new tricks. Good luck with that too.
Seriously, if I read it right what you’re getting at is that the party needs to somehow significantly increase its appeal to a majority of critical middle while still turning out (rather than turning off) its faithful base on election day.
David B.
I waded thru more than half of your report. I intend to finish it.
I suspect that I could classify myself as part of the Critical Middle and I have to say your research has hit home. It is a fairly accurate picture of my view of the Republican Party today.
The Republican Party only cares about the Critical Middle at election time and once the votes are cast…..it is “Do I know you?” or worse ridicule. One might as well find a friendlier playground.
I think the Republican Party should become more far right conservative, arrogant, angry, and openly hostile to hispanics and blacks. (Especially in a state where Anglo voters are now a minority) If they maintain that path…the sooner a viable third party can replace it and the Republican Party can go the way of the Whigs and Know-Nothings.
Simple
Simple says
The Democrat Party cares about you all the time?
21 Darren,
Don’t you have the cart before the horse? Most Democrats vote a straight ticket…they always have and Republicans would still win.
The Republicans lost for two reasons. (1) The Democrats had a better turnout.
(2) Not enough folks liked what the Republicans were selling.
Blaming Staight Ticket voting is like losing football players blaming the officials for the loss. A team loses because it does not put enough points on the board by out running, out passing, and out defending the other guys.
Simple
26, Big
At least they give you a big smoochie after you vote and don’t insult you. Point taken! Their lies sound so much better.
Simple
Bossman
I’m confused again (are you surprised?).
In question 2, you ask the respondents what they think the most important issue is facing the state. The overwhelming focus is financial: business, jobs, health care & insurance, cost of living, fuel and taxes.
In question 4, presumably minutes later, when asked what they want their politicians to work on, they answer: reduce crime.
??
What a fascinating survey!
I’m supposed to be doing something important, now I got this knocking around.
I’m particularly enamored with the Outside of our core base, voters have come to believe that Republicans are more interested in ruling Texas than governing it. If that doesn’t sum up a perception of Republicans in my mind, nothing does. (p42)
A few observations of things that jump out at me, obviously no response is necessary.
p21. Segmenting. - The emerging republicans are skewed female 24%-22%, while it’s not mentioned in the enduring republicans 63% - 57%. Interesting choice of what to highlight, there are a few others on thepage like that.
p23. Enduring Repub Profile - I was surprised that there are social conservatives (51% than fiscal conservatives (42%). Q67.1 seems to indicate otherwise, i could be misreading. Also no Enduring Dem profile; it’s easy enough to construct one myself, I just looking for comparisons.
p11. TOM agenda. Most important is economy, employment and education. The tax cut emphasis on page 12 is only 10% of the TOM. Good to see foreclosures are only 3%.
p29. Emerging Dems. Surprising to see more Catholics than in the other categories.
p31. Interesting phrase regarding the non religious in the critical middle: A higher pct (36%) than any other category never darkens the door of any church. From Q75 we see that 28% to 34% of the total survey do not attend church at all. The critical middle number seems reflect the overall sample.
pB-2 Q4 - What are the three columns?
General observation - many questions inquire about Bush’s coat tails i.e Bush’s policies. Curious omission regarding Texas policies. Also as the study is titled Beyond Bush: Texas Republicans in an Obama era there’s not much correlation to anything regarding Obama - it’s a catchy title though.
The responses about perceptions of Republicans are priceless, I won’t comment as I imagine others will.
Oh and there are 636 people in the survey (p6) but n=600 (pB-2), some were dropped?
26 - See, this whole “Democrat Party” thing is a symptom of the problem. Is the party so bereft of ideas, competence, and candidates that the best you can come up with is jerking with the other party’s name? Really? And I get it, it’s sort of a signal of who the “true believers” are, and you do it mainly because you know it pisses the other side off, and you get a big charge when some national figure says it, but it’s just petty and dumb.
And I’m not a Democrat - I’m part of the Great Squishy Middle Ground who is persuadable - but this just makes you guys look stupid.
#29, Damn Jolly, you really are slow.
Question 2 is an open-ended question… we don’t offer possible answers, we’re just gauging what is on the tips of voters’ tongues, what they volunteer themselves. Economic concerns dominate.
The advantage of open-ended questions is that if someone bothers to say something all on their own, chances are they really mean it.
The disadvantage is you get a lot of “I don’t know.”
So to help concentrate voters’ minds, we followed up with a different question, Q4. Here we ask them to pick (and implicitly prioritize between) a fixed set of possible issues.
We tried to include issues that mattered to the Right, to the Left, to folks generally.
Crime/immigration, right off the bat, garners 21% “highest priority.” That’s ahead of healthcare & education.
The thing is though, all those anti-immigration headbangers are very passionate about their issue (or, to use the scientific term, “rabid”).
Notice how the intensity about immigration drops off immediately from 21% to 14% to 13%… whereas healthcare and education hold a somewhat more steady level.
And btw, just people people don’t pick it as a high priority, that doesn’t mean they are in favor of illegal immigration.
But it DOES mean they just don’t care about it as much as (many of) you do.
You could build a wall, deport 12 million, outlaw the “press dos por espanol” option and drive every taco truck in Harris County into the Port of Houston, and these voters are going to say, “Whatever, tell me what you’re going to do about my tax-burden, healthcare costs and crappy local school.”
Simple;
The large Democratic turnout was a given assumption. So, to clarify, i wouldl ike to know, how much of the loss of good Republican judicial seats could be accredited to the high Democrat turnout voting straight ticket. There really is no other reason I can think of as to why these Republicans lost this last election.
And as for horses before the carts, I would say republicans care forthe right during and election and then go center after it. McCain didn’t follow this formula during ther election. The best result is that we shouldn’t be bothered with McCain running for President anymore. If he did, a quick reminder of 2008 should suffice to knock him off of the race. It would also be interesting to see him debate Sarah Palin.
I haven’t read the report, but I have a couple of comments:
We have lots of other Reagans out there. The GOP doesn’t want them. Look at how they have dissed Palin since about day one after OCain selected her.
I couldn’t work for a company with the same initials as a felonious NY Senator who has problems with memory lapses and filing cabinets.
The GOP is losing its base because they don’t care about us. I’m a fiscal conservative with mostly-conservative social leanings. I’d still vote for either category over just about any democrat. We just aren’t given the chance.
Our target was n=600, but we “over-sampled” Hispanics to make sure we had enough to take a close look at their opinions separately. (NOTE: We “re-weighted” Hispanic opinions later, so don’t get confused and say “Aha! They had too many Hispanics!” You don’t know what you’re talking about.)
We we had to make some “extra” calls to get our target number of Hispanics.
That dog alone will not hunt. We heard time and again the dangers of an Obama win and sure as hell…. he won and took down a bunch of good judges too boot. Republican good Democrat bad? How’d that work out for you?
Frankly the Republicans need to make the fear plank of the Republican party the smallest board they can. Another dog that ain’t gonna hunt is the “A republican on his worst day is probably a democrat anyway, but he has a R after his name so vote for him.” or something like that.
Now having said that. All the Republicans gotta do is get back to good ‘ol Reagan style conservatism and the rest will come in due time.
I do not want to hear this crappy argument of “what is a conservative….blah blah blah.”
Have a nice day. I gotta get back to earning my tax money.
26 - See, this whole “Democrat Party” thing is a symptom of the problem. Is the GOP so bereft of ideas, competence, and candidates that the best you can do is jerk with the other party’s name? Really? I do get it, it’s a signal to each other as to who the true believers are, and you mostly do it because you know it ticks the other side off, and you get a big charge when Mary Matalin says it on Meet The Press, but it’s just petty and dumb.
I’m not a Democrat – I’m part of the Vast Unwashed Squishy Middle and I’m open to persuasion – but I’m telling you, this just makes you guys look stupid.
Reposted because my original version may have offended HAL’s delicate sensibilities.
That’s pretty good Spanish, Benzion.
My state rep published the results of his own poll today and one question was about how voters would like to see a surplus spent if such did occur. (not exact wording since poll was sent out in Sept.). There was no “None of the Above” response available. So I had to write in “how about returning it to the taxpayers?” I’m sure my response was ignored. Needless to say this rep will not be getting my vote two years from now. This guy is a tax and spend liberal Rhino and doesn’t deserve any future consideration.
#37 johnrh
Care to clarify?
#40 My observation has been that democrats tend to get their panties in a knot when folks say “democrat” party rather than “democratic” party. Limbaugh popularized the misnomer several years ago. The only name that bothers them more is “ultra-liberal neo-socialist commie bed wetter.”
But remember, some of them are the “critical middle!”
#34 drunk says
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Bossman says
Yeah, but then again, I’ve never pretended to be texpat/benzion.
Let me ask you this:
Could it be, just a possibility, that your open ended question is biased based upon the current news cycle and the just recently completed election? And that, when focused, voters have an understanding of their real priorities in life? Such as, staying alive, not being raped, not being assaulted, etc.?
Just a thought.
I read a bit of the report, but stopped short of finishing it.
Where did you get this sample, and WHAT makes you think it is representative of Texas?
I don’t know why you would bother reading this, BigJ. You’re just going to vote for whatever the GOP puts an (R) after, anyway.
Biased no, but reflective of current conditions that can change over time; sure.
I worry about your phrase “when focused” though… people tend to think that if they could only “just explain” how important their pet issue was, folks would come around and feel as passionately about it as they do.
That is harder than you might think, can take a lot of time and cost a lot of money.
It’s typically a more solid bet to assume people know about what actually matters in their lives.
There are numerous vendors that sell high-quality, extremely accurate lists of not just registered voters, but registered voters by vote history (voted in 3 of last 4 elections; vote in off year elections; vote in primaries; you name the permutation, it can be ordered).
It isn’t representative of Texas… it is representative of registered/active Texas voters.
What makes me think that?
Statistics.
I haven’t read the survey. That said, I would point out a couple of things.
1) Somebody might want to take a peek at the Texas Republican Platform and observe how well it’s being followed.
2) A couple of years ago, in the Republican Primary there were several non-binding conservative initiatives on the ballot that received approximately 90% approval by Republican Primary voters. They were then roundly ignored by the Republican Party.
Sure seems like the grassroot voters have made their statement - the Republican Party just continues to be blinded by their fog of arrogance and corruption.
No survey necessary.
I have to disagree that you got a good representative sample of even the category you mentioned. You missed the boat with the first set of questions on report page 44. I’m GOP, but when I’m asked by a pollster at the beginning a question like that, I hang up on them.
So, of your 636, is that 636 who weren’t “terminated?” Or does it include the terminations? I think you’re just re-doing “Dewey Defeats Truman.”
The fact that a week earlier Obama smacked down the NYT GOP candidate would make folks less likely to answer if they would vote GOP, assuming they had stayed online at all.
The result is that you’re asking a bunch of democrats what to do to fix the GOP, what’s wrong with the Texas lege, and what to do about it. I can save you a lot of time. Just read the NYT. They’re full of “help” like “McCain is the only electable republican.”
How’s THAT working out for you?
A better method would’ve been to select X GOP primary voters, Y Dem primary voters, and Z voters who didn’t vote in the primaries but who voted in the main, then compare those answers. As is, you’re allowing anyone who stayed on long enough to declare themselves “middle of the road” without any vetting of the sample. Most Dems I know consider themselves “moderate”, and are about as non-partisan as Nancy Pelosi. Most GOPers I know are proudly GOP, and will let you know (provided you aren’t a stranger on the phone asking intrusive questions with no preamble).
I think your methodology (especially the “call terminated”) flawed this report. I’d read it, but I don’t think I’d put much weight to its conclusions.
Lawrence– I am sympathy with your position… and indeed, if the question is “Why are grassroots Republicans disappointed with party office-holders,” then no, a survey is not necessary. Might be interesting for various reasons, but i suspect years in the right-leaning blogosphere/talk-radio trenches gives me (and you’all) a pretty good feel for that.
If, however, the question is “where are things headed politically for the Republican party in Texas” and “How can the GOP in Texas win in the future,” then you have to stop and ask yourself a question–Do committed, principled conservatives currently constitute at least 51% of the Texas electorate?
If you’re answer to that question is “Yes,” then you are wrong.
Read the survey, trust me.
There… fixed it for you, David.
I don’t even know where to begin, other than to know that I shouldn’t. Readers are just going to have to decide who to trust on survey methodology…
(1) My boss
… or (2) An anonymous blog-commenter named Wino.
As I understand it, simple terms average Americans can understand, are important. The average American reads and understands at an 8th grade level. so plan appropriately. How we are perceived is another matter and difficult to change because the MSM labels us and repeats the labels whenever possible.I’m not sure how we combat that. How to get our message out is a difficult thing. Finding good people who can speak, have charisma, and sell is quite another. I’ve heard clips of different republicans, speaking on bail out, or auto, etc. Most of them sound like beaten dogs, who are just worn out. Ugh.
Then show HRC what I said, and have them refute it internally. Here’s your questioning method, reworked:
“Will you be voting for someone like McCain next time, GOP voter?”
“Will you be voting for someone like Obama next time, Dem voter?”
Then hang up on those who say, “I won’t answer that.” THAT’s what your first question did. No… that wouldn’t skew the sample, and therefore the results.
I don’t believe that Texas went from Majority GOP to majority Dem in two weeks, which is what your poll indicates. Your method is flawed, and I gave at least ONE possible reason. Refute it or not, of course, that’s your choice. But to get such results so out of the ordinary so shortly after the election in which the GOP, overall, won in Texas, then I’d say there is something amiss.
I centered in on the sampling bias created by your first question. I could be wrong on WHY it happened, but I’m willing to bet I’m right THAT it happened.
#47 Lawrence,
I’ve looked at the platform and find it intellectually defunct and morally offensive. But then I’m admittedly a small government libertarian — a minority vote that neither party sees any value in appealing to.
My guess is that if republican incumbents had stuck to all of the platform planks, the result would have been an even greater ass whupin than was seen in November, and an acceleration of the (I think) inevitable change from red to purple, and eventually blue.
Just like Colorado.
When I took statistics (four semesters, by the way… may not make me a PhD, but it certainly makes me more than just an uninformed commenter), we were pretty much told that if your results defied common sense, then you should make especially sure your methodology is correct.
YOUR results defy common sense.
Bossman says
I’m sorry. I should have used your words because you are, after all, the brains of the operation:
Will you allow me to rephrase? Sure you will, remember, you’ve already noted that I’m “slow”. Will this suffice?
Just a thought.
The way that the educated/professional people have steered the GOP into the ditch, I’ll take Wino.
Interesting read, though.
Funny how it is always Reps/Dems. Keep any others out of the sheeple’s mind.
I wonder how the sampled 618, plus or minus 18, would have scored in recent Intercollegiate Studies Institute Civics Test:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/od_afp/ushistoryeducationoffbeat_081120192450
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/summary_summary.html
#56 BJ– yes, when minds are concentrated (like, for instance, after jet-liners plow into sky-scrapers and kill thousands), “even” average folk “get it” about what matters most.
Then, over time, many of them forget, or stop caring.
Stupid, stupid people.
Anyway, now that we agree I’ll acknowledge that you are not “slow,” but in fact wise and brilliant.
Jaime,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I see a ship going along a river, and someone on deck asking if we shouldn’t check the maps again, with the captain giving all his credentials and experience rather than trying to find out what that ignorant louse is doing questioning HIS authority. (”I ain’t questioning yer awthoreety, cap’n, but I am wondering how tall that waterfall up ahead is.”)
And for the punch line of a different old joke:
So the hippy says, “Naw, we have enough parachutes for all of us. The ’smartest man in the world’ just jumped out of the airplane with my backpack.”
Like Will Rogers said (paraphrased), “All I got is common sense, and the commoner it is, the more of it I got.”
This study tells me that in less than two weeks, a majority republican State suddenly became anti-GOP-core-principles OR that there is a problem with the methodology. I had the temerity to suggest the latter.
#55
And Wino will drink to that.
Dunno Benzene… but I’ve enjoyed a good booze buzz with some pretty smart guys before. Some of them with a good bit more common sense than some of the PhDs I’ve run across.
Uh, Dave . . .
That came off a bit mean, elitist, and arrogant. I guess those numbers were correct. Just because someone doesn’t list his CV doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one, and if he doesn’t have a PhD in hydrodynamics doesn’t mean he can’t see the pump won’t work.
You admire your boss, we get it. He’s a smart guy, no doubt. But a bushel of those smart guys got an “ass whupin” (h/t Bob42) last month, and for good reason: they didn’t listen to us, the voters. They don’t listen before they run, and they don’t listen when they get into office. And the voters got fed up. Not that the “other” guy is gonna do any better. They won’t. But the other “@sshole” is out. And everyone on the news said he was an “@sshole”, so it must be true.
Makes ya wanna vote for Nader, or Ron Paul. Or not at all.
Hey, my Bacon Salt stuff did get mailed, right?
Tell ya what Wino, I’ll give it one more shot, on your terms–no appeals to mere authority, just logic. Folks can judge the merits of our respective cases for themselves.
First, you claim that…
I realize you felt comfortable commenting without having read the report the first time around, but was under the impression you had eventually decided to look at what it actually said.
Read the report again. Large margins say their tax burdens are too high; by 2:1 the overall electorate (not just Republicans, not just middle-ground voters–the entire electorate, 2:1) say they want government to cut spending (a plurality 42% “strongly” support spending cuts) vs. just 1 in 3 that want to spend more to “improve our quality of life.”
The “Critical Middle”–the voters who aren’t particularly on-board with the GOP–still self-identify as right-leaning (not even moderate); still see the GOP as being “somewhat” conservative (as opposed to being hard-right, which is how a genuinely moderate group of people would perceive the GOP), and still sees the Democrats as being far to the left on the ideological spectrum from where they are.
Those are just some examples of how the report very clearly doesn’t say Texas has become anti-GOP-core-principles.
Unless, that is, one defines “core GOP principles” to include an INTENSE obsession with illegal immigration (as opposed to general opposition) and a STRIDENT stance on social values (as opposed to a basically traditional outlook).
Texas may be conservative, especially compared to the rest of the country (heck, lots of Democrats, when they were in power–and even now–are pretty conservative in a lot of ways); and Texas may have been and may still be overwhelmingly more comfortable voting for Republicans rather than Democrats; but Texas never was, and it isn’t right now a “majority intense obsession with illegal immigration and strident stance on social values” state.
People may not like hearing that, but that doesn’t make it not true.
On to your methodological concerns.
We ask a simple question–
And then…
You asserted that those questions are essentially equivalent to the following–
Huh?
Where do we say (or even imply) that the Republican who might be on the ballot for governor will be a “McCain-style” Republican? YOU may suspect so, but in reality the choice may be Perry or Hutchison or Dewhurst or Abbott or Patterson or Combs or Dan Patrick or Chuck Norris–or do all of those folks fit your definition of “McCain-style”?
Same thing with the generic, hypothetical Democrat… why are you assuming the Democratic candidate will be like Obama? And what allows you to assume that every other person contacted for the survey would make the same assumption?
Here’s the kicker–everyone we called got the option of saying “unsure”! One in four respondents did just that, and they sailed on through offering their opinions on the rest of the survey.
So who got terminated?
People who failed to demonstrate even the most perfunctory capacity for cooperating with the interviewer. People who could not even bring themselves to say “I don’t know” or “I’ll decided later” or “It depends on who is running.”
Literally, the only people that got zoinked were those who completely, flat-out refused to offer any opinion whatsoever.
Well, guess what… this is a public OPINION poll, so by definition it can’t measure the opinions of people who refuse to EXPRESS one.
For your methodological concerns to be legitimate, all of us have to accept that there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Texans who, after agreeing to participate in a public opinion poll, are too pained to say either “Republican” or “Democrat” or “I don’t know.”
Actually, for your methodological concerns to be legitimate, we need more than that–we need to believe that those hordes of “refusers” are out there AND their opinions about state politics are uniformly so special, so unique, so different from ALL THE OTHER people who share their demographic, ideological, economic and political profile that by not begging, bribing (or perhaps coercing?) their opinions out of them, we’ve somehow overlooked a broad and meaningful political trend that will jump up and catch us by surprise on Election Day.
I guess we just can’t do any sort of poll anywhere about anything…. how do we know they person we’re calling isn’t lying to us, for fun? Stoned? How do we know they even really EXIST? Maybe we only THINK we’re calling voters… maybe this blog is a figment of my imagination, and I’m really arguing with myself… maybe there is no such thing as myself, and this delusion of consciousness is simply a random synapse firing in God’s brain… maybe God’s brain is inside a box… and “blogosphere” is just another word for what is “outside” the box that holds God’s brain?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions… but if you aren’t willing to share it over the phone, you forfeit the ability of public opinion researchers to care.
Correction: I should have used schooled in stead of educated.
Schooling and education are not the same thing.
Oh good lord… I’m not claiming, and have never claimed, that people with PhD’s are better than anyone else (for the record, I have a worthless B.A. from a hippy-school); nor do I think “average” folks don’t have a lot more common sense than intellectuals (it’s practically the foundation for my entire worldview).
People–who do you trust to operate on your clogged arteries–your barber, your brother, your accountant, or a heart surgeon?
Do you assume experienced veterans know something about fighting? Or is every armchair general’s opinion as valid as a 30 years in the service Marine’s?
There are plenty of PhD pollsters who never leave academia and pontificate about politics… go throw your barbs at them.
David Hill has helped elect over half a dozen state governors, more than a dozen United States senators, over two dozen members of congress, countless members of state legislatures, and passed/defeated major statewide ballot initiatives.
He’s not a pundit… he’s a professional… the dude has got fists full of SuperBowl rings and you’re sitting up in Row 45-G convinced he doesn’t know how to call a screen pass…. been a coach too long I guess, has lost touch with the fundamentals of the game. Not like you and me, Joe… remember the state quarter-finals, back in ‘74? Hell, they ought to let me down on the sidelines… I’d get things turned around, pronto!
Enough.
If you think the results are bogus, ignore them… I’m interested in generating a conversation with fellow conservatives who are prepared to take an honest look at where we’re at and ready to work together and work hard to move us to a better place.
#63 DB
That’s funny, I’ve been wondering the same thing.
But then I remember Colorado became a Democratic state with approximately 36% of the voters as registered Democrats. Hmmm….I wonder how that happened.
I thought the poll was informative and clearly identified areas to work on and pointed out some subtleties that aren’t apparent.
But then I don’t know what I’m talking about
#65 DB
Thanks, you put it much more politely than I would have.
We have met the enemy, and they are us.—Pogo
Well, at least some of us.
and the ripping and shredding begins.
get it out of your systems, and don’t let it take 12 years for everyone to get it together to take over again when the Democrats screw up the country as badly as we know they will.
OK, I noticed a HUGE issue mentioned only once: abortion.
I personally find it wrong, as do many here. But if we are going to be realistic, that is not what the “squishy middle” thinks. And if we, as conservatives, want to appeal to the “squishies”, we are going to have to tone down the rhetoric about abortion. Women, and some men, find the issue a matter of personal choice, “It’s my body, ” blah-blah. We’ve all heard it.
But in too many cases, the squishies see the anti-abortion crowd as religious zealots bent on destroying their rights. Look at the commercials the gay rites crowd are running about the LDS. They have tapped into that exact vein with those commercials.
/dons asbestos underwear . . .
So, to win an election in Texas (or anywhere else), a conservative candidate is going to have to cut taxes (really), fix education (really), be honest, moral, and incorruptible,and get off the bandwagon about immigration and abortion.
Cool.
Now, let’s get constructive. How? How do we fix education? Not just the funding, how do we make the primary education system in the State the envy of the planet? Then we’ll worry about secondary education.
How do we disconnect the school system from property taxes? We are already seeing a business tax doesn’t work. Property taxes are still going up. Switch to a sales tax ONLY?
How do we shrink the State government so we CAN cut taxes?
How do we fix it? How would a farmer do it? How would a fireman do it?
That’s the attitude I want to see.
OK… step one… we need to get a bunch of those cool “push-to-talk” phones…
As am I. And I get your point about choosing those most qualified to do the work they’re qualified to do. Couldn’t agree more. Problem is, from my vantage point up here in Row 45-G it seems like nobody is listening to what the fans up here in the nosebleed section have to say. If someone is listening, it sure as hell isn’t apparent to us shlubs up here in the cheap seats.
In short, I’m not questioning your bosses’ credentials. I’m questioning whether anyone is really listening to the answers he gets to his questions. I’ll believe the Repubs are listening when I see them change.
Slash, what I get from the survey is that for Republicans to keep Democrats from making incremental, if not large, gains in Texas we need to do some of the following. Concentrate on fiscally Conservative issues. Campaign on lower taxes and less government, but provide positive ways to frame these issues. Once elected, actually provide tangible results where tax payers can compare their tax bills from last year to this year and see a reduction. Do not compromise on social issues, but do not make them the focus of the campaign. Provide younger candidates who can appeal to the voters in their 30’s. Tone down the rhetoric. Republicans have a big image issue, people who are more likely to agree with Republicans are not wanting to vote for them because of perceptions. Republicans need to find a way to be positive about their viewpoints instead of negative against their opponents view. The middle does not see the parties as Conservative Republicans, RINOs, Conservative Democrats, and Liberal Democrats. They see it as Republican or Democrat.
benzion says
Is it possible that minds can be concentrated following an economic collapse that hasn’t occurred? That said concentration is due to hyper media reports? And that when someone asks, hey, what’s on your mind, that they would say, uh, um, the economy? And that, when followed up with a list of issues, they remember that they aren’t affected by the economic calamity they keep hearing about on the news?
Honestly, why would 636 voters in Texas, which certainly has not been affected economically in the same way that other parts of the country have, be so
focusedconcentrated on the economy?Another question I have would be on the wording of the concentration question. Why lump illegal immigration in with crime?
I guess this got off to snarkiness by my use of the word bias. I did not use it in a negative connotation, if you took it that way, I apologize. I would never challenge your professional credentials, much less Dr. Hill’s.
Mr. Benzion,
I’d like to ask about this recommendation:
What is HRC’s definition of unethical behavior? And no, I’m not asking what the definition of “is” is.
Ethical behavior means different things to different people. Some think it unethical to not follow the party platform, others don’t. Some think it is unetical to forward racist emails, some don’t. Most think a criminal conviction is unethical but not necessarily a charged offense. Some think hiring a family member, or paying them on a contract basis is unethical, some don’t.
I guess what I’m asking is, if I’m the party head in some county, how do I follow HRC’s recommendation to “own” the ethics issue.
The Dude brings up a point I was also circling earlier: if people that consider themselves conservative won’t vote Republican, how are we gonna attract the squishies?
Seems there is a pervasive feeling of disconnect between the party and, well, reality. As The Dude put it, they aren’t listening to us. SEVERAL posters over the last couple of years have lamented that there is “no conservative candidate”, the “hold my nose and vote” group, some of which didn’t vote on principles.
But I agree if people in office with an “R” behind there name started fighting for lower taxes, fighting furiously for smaller government, started acting like true conservatives with values we admire like common sense, things would start to turn around.
We have to stop electing guys that would think sex in an airport bathroom was OK, even hetero-sex.
And if we, as conservatives, want to appeal to the “squishies”,
It might help to stop calling us “squishies”.
Just a thought.
As a stereotypical member of the “squishy critical middle” (enough jokes about my weight. I’m working on it) I can say that the findings in the survey don’t seem that far off to me. I’m in my late 30’s, not Religious (but personally staunchly Christian) more to the ambivilent side in regards to social issues, lean right fiscally, but am growing tired of the Republicans casting themselves as the party of “NO”.
I could have built an art-car this year with all of the negative fliers I received from Republican candidates and the Republican party casting candidates as “closet libruls” or saying that the end of the Republic was near, without offering up any concrete plans as to what the Republicans were going to do to prevent this. Republicans need to find a plan and a platform that’s not reliant on wedge issues, and which goes a step further than “cut taxes, reduce spending”.
I’ve always ran under the premise that there are a few things that the Government does well: National Defense, the Highway system, parks, public works etc. and the focus of every level of Government should be to do those jobs to the best of their ability. Unfortunately the Republican dogma seems to be centered around “have the Government do nothing, privitize everything” which hasn’t worked out so well recently due to a number of factors, most of which are due to the poor way in which said privitation was structured.
So Republicans have received a slap on the wrist electorally speaking. That can either be a wake up call for the Party or it can turn into a retrenchment of a few bitter party loyalists behind an ever-shrinking perimeter as more and more voters search out answers from politicians aligned with big-government ideals. It’d be nice if the “smaller gov’t” forces could hire a PR firm that is able to craft a message more complex than: “We hate illegals” or “Your dirty sex caused God to send the Hurricanes”.
Call that “squishy” if it makes you happy. But that “squishiness” is going to be key to Republicans winning future elections.
Republican ethics?
And don’t get me started on transparency in government.
#79 Lose an Eye
In the last eight years, the size of the federal government and its revenues and expenditures, as well as debt, have soared throught the atmosphere. Outside of chartered schools on the local levels, the only privatization of any significance has been in the military with outsourcing of basic support services. While it began in the early 90s, in the restructuring of the military after the fall of the USSR, it has been mostly successful.
The reality is we fund and perpetuate a federal Leviathan which assumes there is nothing it cannot and should not do. We even had the SCOTUS endorse the confiscation of private property by local governments to indulge in playing private land developer. Government at all levels under the current Republican administration has grown larger, more invasive and immensely more expensive. Exactly how is that “do nothing, privatize everything” ? Your statement makes no sense.
” Exactly how is that “do nothing, privatize everything” ?”
Since this study is based on a Statewide and not a federal level my thoughts are confined to that area alone. In other words, you’ll get no argument from me that the Federal Gov’t is expanding at an alarming rate.
However, at a State level the Republican strategy has centered around reduction of Gov’t services and (at times) terrible privitization plans.
For examples of that you need look no further than the Texas Department of Health disaster, shoddy deregulation of the electrical industry, cuts in State programs such as sCHIP, a flawed business tax that was rushed into being for the (stated by Rick Perry) sole purpose of lowering property taxes while education funding floundered.
All of this happened during a time period that the electorate was voicing strong majority support for education, child health care, etc.
Yes, Republicans at the Federal level have gone on a spending spree that makes a Beverly Hills trophy wife look frugal in comparison. At the State level however (again, where this survey is targeted) the prevailing attitude regarding Republicans in office is that they are working harder to shut down critical gov’t services and needs in the name of “property tax cuts” that never materialize harder than they are working to provide basic services to the citizenry.
And in politics, perception is 99% of the game.
#79 Lose an Eye
One of the key leaders of the McCain campaign gave a speech recently in which he described the most effective Obama ad against McCain. Obama’s people ran Spanish language radio & TV commercials accusing John McCain of being closely allied with Rush Limbaugh on the subject of immigration. The campaign consultant said it was absolutely devastating for McCain among Latino voters, particularly in Florida and they never found a way to counteract.
Even though it was sad, the ridiculous and spectacular chutzpah it took to run such an ad made me laugh out loud. Anyone with even passing knowledge of the immigration issue and the controversial failed bill in the Senate would realize how absurd was the assertion that McCain and Limbaugh were not polar opposites on the issue.
You ascribe the “I hate illegals” theme to Republican candidates even though the Republican leadership in the White House and Senate conceived and promoted a very favorable, generous plan for all the illegal immigrants in this country. Your perceptions confirm for me that we are in even worse shape than I thought in trying to convey a coherent message. If politically engaged bloggers cannot make some of these distinctions, how can we expect the general public to do better ?
“You ascribe the “I hate illegals” theme to Republican candidates even though the Republican leadership in the White House and Senate conceived and promoted a very favorable, generous plan for all the illegal immigrants in this country. Your perceptions confirm for me that we are in even worse shape than I thought in trying to convey a coherent message. If politically engaged bloggers cannot make some of these distinctions, how can we expect the general public to do better ?”
The problem is this:
Who was it that created the “no Shamnesty” firestorm the 86′ed the McCain immigration reform plan?
The sad fact is all politicians get painted with broad strokes. If a substantial group of a politicians supporters support an idea, then the perception is that the politician supports the idea as well. “Why else would they be supporting him/her?”
The real travesty is that some good honest debate got lost in the immigration issue because of Republican anger on one side, and Democratic fear mongering on the other. What we were left with was a false choice between a “pathway to citizenship” and “send them all back home”. This ignored the simple fact that many immigrants didn’t want citizenship at all, they just wanted the jobs that their home Country was incapable of providing to them.
I will say this, part of the reason I consider myself independent is not, as the survey suggests, because I value and identify with my independance. Quite the contrary, I understand that you can get more stuff done within a traditional Party structure than without. I’m an independant because my moderate stances are out of vogue right now. I’m considered “squishy” and “soft” because I’m not flexible on some issues.
As bad as it may seem for Republicans now, I still find it easier to sit down and talk over issues with Republicans than I do Democrats. We may not always agree but, for the most part, the conversation is good, the beer cold and I don’t walk away frustrated from being called a xenophobe or racist after every other point.
Typically the word they use is “sheeple” but I’ve learned to let that one role off my back….
I totally agree with you. The people who have done the most damage to the GOP are Republicans who have endorsed the Jim Crow style anti-immigration tactics. But asking them to tone it down is like talking to an alcoholic in denial, they simply refuse to see the damage they are doing, and if you dare challenge them on it, well then you must be a “liberal” or somehow “in favor of illegal immigration”.
Republicans, if they want to do something about illegal immigration, need to take the focus off the immigrants themselves and put it on the people who are employing them - and this is not some “liberal” argument, it is a free market argument. People employing illegals are engaged in unfair competition and racketeering and are preventing free market solutions to high labor costs because the option to hire cheap Mexicans, rather than to inovate technological solutions, is there for any employer who wants to hire them. So we have a true circular firing squad - we have Limbaugh, and locally “Pat and Edd” pissing off every Hispanic person in shouting distance with overheated rhetoric, we have what are mostly Republican business-lobby people hiring them, and we have Republican enforcement people looking the other way as they do so. In the end, immigration rises and Republicans in Texas, well, they are simply going to lose because of simple demographics.
Here just one of many examples of the republican majority going too far.
The people behind this waste of weren’t just trying to appeal to a deluded base. They were sincere in their stupidity and lack of regard for justice.
I must have messed up the linkie.
Bob42,
What is your purpose behind bashing Republicans and never mentioning Democrats?
David and Dr. Hill: Very interesting. I published this piece on Pat Gray’s site in March 07 entitled “Texas Goes Blue in ‘08″: http://patgray.com/home/?p=951
It was designed more as a warning than a “prophecy”. Ha! And at the time I was certain that Hillary would get the dem nomination. Had that happened I think she might have garnered more straight party dem votes than Obama and the possibility of an upset.
I totally agree w/you guys that if we do not purge the Bush/Rove transnational progressives from the GOP, Texas will indeed go blue. There is a fight right now within the RNC to do just that. The charge is being led by North Dakotan Gary Emineth and others. I’d certainly be interested on y’alls take on this.
Thank you so much for putting the spotlight on this issue “now” while we can still do something about it. Darvin Dowdy
#88 BigJolly, ME? Bashing republicans?
#88 bigj
It’s all part of the anarcho-syndicalist nature of being a libertarian.
I don’t know why I bother to post here, since my posts are censored and deleted, perhaps it is better if I simply communicate via link:
http://culture11.com/blogs/upturnedearth/2008/12/30/try-a-little-tenderness/
C’mon FTL, be fair. I deleted a couple of short lines in which you attacked a host of KSEV. I also deleted the response from that. Nothing more or less.
As for your link, Culture 11 is interesting. Rod and Joe are both excellent thinkers and I enjoy reading them. I wish they would blog more but I think they must be busy trying to expand the site.
Here’s some exciting, pertinent reading.
texpat #9;
That’s my line of thought exactly.
FTL;
As Big Jolly said, click on my name, make your posts ad I promise you that I’ll give you my personal attention.
My conspiracy theory:
Big Jolly waited until *after* I posted my response to you to delete your posts. I think he deliberately left yours up as long as he coud without sacrificing LST’s integrity.
Was that good or what???
DarrenConspiracyFreeLEOsThatShootUnarmedPeople said
Nope. BigJolly was freezing his ass off on the ride from Galveston to Shoreacres when you two decided to discuss piss poor talk radio, which, in this case, violated LST’s longstanding tradition of not disparaging KSEV. Had I been in the warm confines of my office or trailer at the time, I would have deleted it quicker.
That’s all.
Oh, and DarrenLovesLoudTalkers,
Careful what you ask for. This is an easy one.
Big Jolly;
Considering that your ass if of high priority to me, I’m glad you made it back safely.
I’ll get you one of these for next Christmas. Not at all insinuatng anything about you.
I know you would have deleted everything earlier.
Now, is attacking Edd Hendee *AND* Pat Gray considered disparaging KSEV?
Also, I’m glad David Benzion went through the history of LST and KSEV. I never knew the full extent of it.
Big Jolly;
About talk radio:
Here’s the official blog of Don Wade and Roma. Very fun couple. There’s was my favorite morning radio show. It’s still my all-time favorite. I linked to their blog for you and others to get a feel of how they are. Peruse WLS AM Chicago website and read their bio.
Here’s a link to Roe Conn. His was my favorite afternoon show. Gary Myer was his co-host before their splitting and together they were, for good reason, number one afternoon talk show in Chicago. Still ranks as my all-time favorite afternoon show. When I’m in the Windy City area I make it a point to tune in. He still produces a great show w/o Myers.
Neither are screaming heads; just dang enjoyable. So “loud talkers” is hardly what I seek.