As things now stand, Hutchison will probably resign her seat in the fall. I believe that Perry will appoint either Dewhurst or Abbott. Michael Williams would be an interesting choice, but Dewhurst or Abbott should be able to hold the seat in a special election, which would take place in May. Williams would not be a sure thing.

Can White defeat either Dewhurst or Abbott in a special election (no primary, just the top two vote-getters in a runoff)? I don’t see it. Either Dewhurst or Abbott will be able to raise a lot of money. Dewhurst can put his own money into the race. Abbot has been a very successful fundraiser. White can spend personal money as well, but he will be facing an incumbent appointee who has been able to raise money in Washington as an incumbent for six or seven months. Democrats generally do not turn out for special elections as well as Republicans do. That is not good for White either.

On the other hand, suppose that White runs for governor. The Republican nominee will be the survivor of a brutal primary. If the nominee is Rick Perry, he is vulnerable in a general election context. And if it is Hutchison, well, she looked invincible when the first polls came out, but she doesn’t look so strong today. Democrats will be excited about the chance to win a statewide election for the first time since 1994. If White wants to win, he should run for governor.

I have been involved in national politics in one way or another for about 25 years now, and have been part of literally thousands of national discussions on political targeting. For most of that time, the state of Texas sticks out as the great oddity, the exception to all other demographic trends that seem to hold true around the rest of the country. At the beginning, people in targeting meetings are always saying things like “If you look at the demographics in Texas, it ought to be winnable.” By the end of every cycle, none of us at the national level is targeting the state and the state-wide Democratic candidate loses by 10-12 points.

It’s time for Texas and national Democrats to make this kind of investment in voter engagement work in Texas.

* * * *

Why is Hispanic voting behavior different in Texas than in the purple states of the Four Corners region and California? I think that the reasons fall into two categories. One is historical. The disillusionment with politics started in Mexico with a political culture that never did anything FOR the people but did plenty of things TO them, and this culture was transplanted to South Texas. Politics was about the pursuit of money and power, not about improving the lives of one’s constituents. No one who follows Texas politics has to think very long before coming up with names who fit this description, and I don’t mean George Parr. Corruption is rampant in the border counties, particularly among sheriffs. Reymundo Guerra of Starr County is the most recent lawman to be indicted, for offenses related to drug-trafficking. His predecessor was indicted for accepting bribes. Sheriffs in Zapata, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties have endured the same fate in the last fifteen years. This is bound to create a great disillusionment among people who once trusted these public servants. As long as politics in Hispanic Texas is rife with bossism, factionalism, and corruption, a large number of potential voters are going to be turned off of politics. Poverty has been a longstanding problem in South Texas as well, particularly in the more rural areas. The biggest employers in many counties and towns is the government, and so elections for county, city, and school governing boards tend to be fiercely contested, because if, say, the school board changes, then teachers hired by the old majority will lose their jobs.

This is the dark side of the problem of Hispanic turnout. But I think that there is another development that is more positive. Hispanics in urban Texas are more integrated into the political and economic mainstream than they are in other states that Lux writes about. This is a generalization that I cannot prove, but know something of the history of the tension between the Anglo south and the Hispanic north in New Mexico (suggested reading and/or viewing: The Milagro Beanfield War) and similar tensions in East LA and the San Fernando Valley. Groups like Valley Interfaith and COPS in San Antonio are part of the political structure in their communities and tend to be more interested in economic issues than in traditional minority concerns like civil rights. The result is that Texas Hispanics tend not to respond to traditional pleas to cast straight ticket votes for the Democratic party. Indeed, Karl Rove and other Republicans view Hispanics as a natural Republican constituency because of their strong family ties, their patriotism, their penchant for hard work, and their Catholic beliefs about pro-life issues. To this must be added the black-brown split in the Democratic party that was so obvious in the 2008 presidential primary, and the failure of the Hispanic community in Texas to produced a charismatic leader since Henry Cisneros left politics. All of these factors have worked to keep Hispanic turnout low. The Democratic party, to the extent that it exists at all, doesn’t have a clue about how to motivate Hispanic voters, which it why it keeps on relying on the same old appeals from the civil-rights era.

I have made some inquiries about this issue to the Southwest Voter Registration Project in San Antonio and to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, and as I get responses, I will post more on this very important subject.

Favorability
Perry 42% favorable, 32% unfavorable
Obama 43% favorable, 46% unfavorable

The Lyceum poll had Obama’s favorability rating in the state as a hard-to-believe 68%, and Perry’s favorable/unfavorable was 57/30. In both cases, the new poll’s figures seem a lot closer to reality.

Senate Race (likely to occur in May 2010)
Sharp 10%
Dewhurst 9%
White 7%
Abbott 6%

Issues
–Accept unemployment insurance stimulus funds 36% yes, 43% no (not a ringing endorsement of Perry’s refusal)
–Voter ID 70% yes, 17% no
–Gambling 40% favor full casino gambling, 20% favor a limited expansion
–Statewide smoking ban 63% favor, 31% oppose

* * * *

I find Perry’s lead to be quite believable. Hutchison is running the worst campaign imaginable. She has essentially abandoned the field to Perry. She has been invisible. Perry gave her a softball by fighting for the extension of privatized toll road agreements in the special session — a heaven-sent opportunity — and she just watched it go by. I think her team is not first-rate talent, and I think they are letting her do what she wants to do instead of telling her what she needs to do. Part of Perry’s lead is due to his ability to exploit Republican voters’ anger at the federal government, but part of it is due to Hutchison’s complete absence from the fray. What we have seen is voters defecting from being for Hutchison to being undecided. Hutchison has a long way to go before she is an effective candidate. I keep hearing stories like the one out of the Dallas area, where legislators who attended a meet and greet with Hutchison were appalled at her lack of knowledge of state issues.

It’s eight months until the election, but she has wasted the last eight months (except for fundraising), and she still doesn’t have anything that resembles a message. The one thing in her favor is the same thing that has always been in her favor: She remains very popular. Look at Perry’s favorable/unfavorable: 42-32. That’s plus 10. Hutchison’s in the Lyceum poll was 65-17. That’s plus 48. If she is going to beat Perry, those are the numbers that will decide the race.

Dear —-

A few weeks ago, I found myself at the center of a national firestorm, and the subject of withering attacks from the left, because I had the nerve to defend the U.S. Constitution.

I don’t know when the Bill of Rights became like a cafeteria plan, where we can pick and choose the amendments we like, but clearly there are folks in Washington who do not appreciate my stand for the 10th Amendment, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When I placed my hand on the Bible and swore a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas, I swore to defend the entirety of those founding documents — not just those parts that are convenient. It is a duty that I take very seriously.

I am fighting for the very Constitution that our Founding Fathers crafted to limit the reach of the federal government in our lives. But I need your immediate help. Your gift of $50 or $25 to my campaign today will help me compete against my well-funded Washington-connected opposition that thinks power and freedom emanates from government.

The fact is, the Constitution was created to limit the powers of the federal government, not unleash them.

In the coming gubernatorial campaign, I will ask you to honor me with another term as Governor for Texas. But understand, this campaign is not about personalities but principles. It as about two models of governing: the Washington model that talks the talk about limited government while delivering record earmarks and increasing bureaucratic control, and the Texas model of balanced budgets and fiscal restraint that recognizes growth and prosperity are not granted by government but created in the private sector.

Washington has given us jaw-dropping bailouts, record debt and deficits, and a stimulus package that grows government. They have also tried to force states to raise taxes in order to receive unemploy,ment dollars, and have made reforming expensive programs like Medicaid dependent upon their willingness to grant waivers.

They over-tax us, over-regulate us, and make billions of dollars in federal funding dependent upon our acquiescence to the strings they attach. They have over-stepped their authority, and they are racing us toward fiscal ruin.

When the colonists rebelled against the British Crown, they fought a distant regime that sought to impose its will on the lives of citizens through onerous regulations and taxes. Sound familiar?

If there is any question whether limited government and fiscal conservatism works, look no further than Texas. A part-time Legislature … a Constitutionally mandated balanced budget … no income tax … a predictable regulatory climate and a fair legal system … and the most hardworking people in the world. It’s no wonder that Texas leads the nation in exports, job creation, and Fortune 500 companies.

Limited government works. We just wrapped up the legislative session, in which we responded to the economic crisis by reducing spending of general revenue dollars — the second time we have done that in six years — setting aside money for a rainy day, cutting taxes for small business, and strengthening protections for private property owners from the use of eminent domain.

While our families face lean times and are cutting corners to make ends meet, the Pelosi Congress increased the federal debt by one-third in just the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. Worse still, the Administration’s own numbers balloon this year’s deficit from $1.7 trillion, or $5,500 for every person in America, to almost $7 trillion ten years from now. That is almost $23,000 for every man, woman, and child in America today!

At a time when small businesses — our greatest engine of prosperity — are struggling to survive and provide jobs for hard working Texans, the federal government is handing out trillion-dollar checks to big corporations, even taking them over. Our system of capitalism is at risk!

And as the soft economy shrinks the tax coffers of the states, the Federal government has tried to bully governors and state legislatures into taking federal money by forcing them to increase taxes, expand bureaucracies, and change long-standing state laws. When it came to an expansion of unemployment benefits,. I told them that they can keep their money and we will keep our state sovereignty.

I will stand strong against anyone — Democrat or Republican, federal or state — who would lead us further down that misguided path. But to get my message out to the voters of Texas so they know exactly what is at stake, I need your immediate gift. Please join my team today. Together, we can win this most important battle for Texas and America.

Sincerely,
Rick Perry

PS — The eight months until the March 2 primary election (fittingly held on Texas Independence Day) will pass quickly. Today is the first day I can raise campaign funds under Texas law. But as a Federal official, unrestrained by Texas law, my Washington-connected opponent has a six-month head start. Please send your contribution today, and stand with me as we work to preserve our vision of limited government for Texas. Thank you.

* * * *

This is a very effective document. It reminds readers of his April remarks that hinted at secession without using the “s” word; it embraces the Tenth Amendment; it reinforces the message of the Tea Parties by referring to the American Revolution and puts himself in the tradition of the colonists. This is an Horatio-at-the-bridge message. It speaks to conservatives who believe that the country is in deep trouble. And it differentiates Texas (”limited government”) from Washington (”jaw-dropping bailouts,” “the Pelosi Congress). Perry has had almost three months, starting with the Tea Parties on April 15 to drill this message into the consciousness of Republican primary voters, much of it through free media. This letter can serve not only as the basis of a reelection campaign, but also of a national campaign. Meanwhile, Kay Bailey Hutchison has had nothing to say. Remember the Claytie Williams campaign of 1990. Primary races can be won in October. Or July.