08/14/2002 Archived Entry: "Texas Toss-up: Kirk vs Cornyn"

In the Texas US Senate race, a poll of likely voters' picks if the Senate election were today:
John Cornyn 46%
Ron Kirk 46%
Undecided 6.5%

SOURCE: Telephone poll of 1,152 likely voters July 31-Aug. 8, by Montgomery and Associates in Austin.

A May poll by the same research firm, Montgomery and Associates in Austin, had similar results. It is remarkable how little the overall numbers have changed in this race since May. Support in their base areas is beginning to firm up, and moderate swing voters will become more crucial as this extraordinarily tight race progresses, said pollster Jeff Montgomery.

Like the previous poll, the sharpest divisions were along ethnic and racial lines, with 60 percent of Hispanics and 86 percent of blacks supporting Mr. Kirk, the former Dallas mayor. Mr. Cornyn, the state attorney general, was backed by 60 percent of whites in the latest survey.

Kirk is ahead. Montgomery and Associates are using a voter projection of whites comprising nearly a 2:1 make-up over blacks and latinos combined. From the data above, we can surmise that Cornyn has ~32% latino and ~6% black support. Combined, Cornyn has 60% of white support and ~19% of the latino/black support; while Kirk has the support of ~32% of whites, and ~73% of latino/black voters. Amongst whites, Cornyn leads Kirk by ~28%, while amongst blacks/latino's, Kirk leads Cornyn by ~54% which nearly equals out to a 2:1 make-up, given the 46-46 tie of the poll. Likewise --looking at the numbers from the 46-46 poll result-- the 60/19 Cornyn numbers have a 14/27 margin of difference; with the 32/73 Kirk numbers also have a 14/27 margin of difference. Again, just under a 2:1 ratio.

Of the 11.6 million Texans who are registered to vote, 2.4 million have Hispanic surnames and about 1.5 million are black. So, on the face of it, the number of whites is about 7.5M, compared to 3.9M latinos and blacks amongst registered voters, just shy of a 2:1 ratio. Amongst the broader population totals, blacks and latinos make-up about 45% of the states population, a nearly equal ratio.

In otherwords, Montgomery and Associates are using the registered voter make-up ratios to determine their poll results. They have a turnout model for blacks and latinos which is greater than the historical norm-- a correct thing to do in this particular election. Typically, the Republican polling in Texas will be using the traditional turnout models of blacks comprising ~10%, latino's comprising ~12%, and whites comprising 72% (3% other) of the total vote. Under the Sanchez and Kirk GOTV efforts, the combined 22% traditional turnout of blacks/latinos will most definitely be higher, but how much is the question.

In the Archived Entry: "Kirk vs Cornyn" , in which I approached the contest from a perspective of the minimal white voter percentage needed for a Kirk victory, the projection there is of latinos comprising 20%, blacks 15%, and whites 62% (3% other), of the actual turnout. So, I expect the actual black/latino turnout to surpass the 33% that Montgomery and Associates project.

I see Kirk getting 95% of the black vote, and 70% of the latino vote, surpassing the historical 90% of the black vote, and 60% of the latino vote that a Democrat in normal election years could expect in Texas. In the archived entry, Murray (working with near historical turnout models) states about Kirk: To win, though, "he'll have to get, minimally, about 35 percent of the white vote..." In the Montgomery and Associates poll, Cornyn recieved 60% of the white vote, with 8% undecided/other, leaving 32% for Kirk. I project that 30% of the white vote is needed by Kirk.

The central message of having a "Dream Team" is to celebrate, not try to hide or discourage, diversity. Republicans, believing along the historical lines of assimilation, see such encouragement of plurality as divisive and dis-uniting.... Hence, Gramm's derisive suggestion that the Democrat's dream is to create racial separateness. Amidst all this punditry about the shade of skin, it's easy to forget Kirk's message that this really is not the central issue amongst us, nor something that should divide us.

Replies: 27 comments

Here's the article:
http://www.mydd.com/politics/myDDindex/kirk.html

Posted by myDD @ 08/14/2002 12:19 PM PST

Obviously for 60% Texan whites, color of one's skin is more important than competence or even ideology. With the enron mess that Enron John is involved in , I am really amazed that 60% of whites still continue to support him. A coupe of days before this poll, American Viewpoint had Cornyn ahead 46-35..but that poll is a fraud. Still I think the numbers are around 43-43 with 14% undecided rathern than 46-46.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/14/2002 02:19 PM PST

In defense of Texas whites (not something I'm ordinarily inclined to do!), I think it is not unreasonable to vote for a less qualified or less competent candidate because that candidate will give support to your party in control of the Senate or support a president of your party. We have some poor senators for that reason, but I think it is a reasonable choice for voters to make.

That said, however, a certain small percentage of Texas whites will certainly choose Cornyn based strictly on race. If this same poll is even right before the election, Kirk will lose because there are more racists in the voting booth than on the phone with a pollster. It's interesting (and sad) that nobody looks at this race in terms of party affiliation and what percentages of each party and independents will vote for each candidate. My inclination is to let my cynicism make me pessimistic about Kirk's chances, but I have only heard positive things about him so I suppose he has a real chance.

Posted by CA Pol Junkie @ 08/14/2002 03:04 PM PST

If anyone can break the cycle of whites not going for minority candidates, it would seem to be Ron Kirk. He is by far the more superior candidate and makes Coryn look like a petrified tree in the charsima department. I think that the black/Latino turnout will be massive in Texas this year. They have reasons to vote and two great candidates in Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez. I feel good about the chances of both of these men pulling victories in November.

Posted by Ced @ 08/14/2002 05:02 PM PST

I can make the flip argument. The fact that Cornyn is in trouble in this heavily GOP state (albeit racist state, where some whites who are in the poor house because of Enron or American Airline layoffs would vote their color and commit financial suicide)does not augur well for the party in the rest of the country. Cornyn should not be under 50 now, that too against a black candidate. Part of it is demographics shifting away from whites...but I do not believe it has happened yet. For the reasons of Demographics I am more likely to belive Texeira and Dick Morris over other political experts such as Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, who believe that the GOP and Democrats would split the country 50-50.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/14/2002 05:25 PM PST

Interesting article on Perry:

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/14/national/14TEXA.html

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/15/2002 07:05 AM PST

Interesting article on the South Dakota Senate race and the impact of the draught. What is most telling is the farmer accusing the Bush Administration of favoring Texas and the South.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19483-2002Aug14.html

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/15/2002 08:19 AM PST

More problems for GOP in South Dakota?

http://www.ksfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=896478&nav=0w0iAhFr

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/15/2002 08:22 AM PST

I wanted to take this chance and find out what other are predicting will be the situation come September regarding competitiveness of Senate and Governor's races.

As of this moment I make the following predictions on the races to watch in the Fall Campaign.

SENATE
Republican Held Seats
New Hampshire: Smith vs Shaheen
Arkansas: Hutchinson vs Pryor
Colorado: Allard vs Strickland
Texas: Coryn vs Kirk
Oklahoma: Inhofe vs Walters
Alabama: Sessions vs Parker
Tennessee: Alexander vs Clement
Oregon: Smith vs Bradbury

Democrat Held Seats
New Jersey: Torricelli vs Forrester
South Dakota: Johnson vs Thune
Minnesota: Wellstone vs Coleman
Iowa: Harkin vs Ganske
Missouri: Carnahan vs Talent

Despite what some think will be a wash year in the Senate, I feel there will be big gains for the Democrats in the Senate. The only Democrats I see losing this so far year are Johnson and Torricelli. Most of the others will win comfortably I believe including Harkin, Cleland, Landrieu, and Carnahan. But I see up to five Republican seats switching to the Democrats. Arkansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Oklahoma are my picks to end up in the Democratic column with a strong possibility that Tennessee, Oregon, and Alabama may go too.

Why such bold predictions. Only 3 Democrats are languishing in the 40% range. While fully six Republican are in that dangerous 40% with as many as 4 other seats right on the cusp of being in that dangerous zone.

As for governors

Endangered Republican Held

New Mexico, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Rhode Island, Arizona, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Idaho, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Massahusetts.

Endangered Democrat Held

Alaska, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Alabama, South Carolina, Iowa, California, Maryland, Oregon, and Vermont.

I predict as of now that the Democrats would pick up New Mexico, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, RI, Arizona,
Wisconsin, and Tennessee with great chances in the others.

I predict the Republicans would pick up only Hawaii, New Hampshire, Alaska, Alabama, and either South Carolina or Iowa.

As for the US House, it is totally a 50/50 proposition. If the economy doesn't perk up fast,I see a Democrat House and Speaker Gephardt next year.

Posted by Ced @ 08/15/2002 08:53 AM PST

I think as of now Torch is the most endangered on the Dem side and Hutchinson the most endangered on the GOP side. I do not think that the Oregon governorship is in any danger. Alaska and Alabama are a definite GOP pickup as of now. I agree with your last statement. However, as of now, I would say it is a 60/40 Dem. Early last month it was 50/50.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/15/2002 09:56 AM PST

Ced -
I think your predictions pretty much hit the mark, at least as far as anyone can tell 3 months out. We'll see in NJ how things settle out, as the most recent polls there are skewed by the recent news. Johnson's inching upward in SD - he'll still be endangered up to election day, but at this point I'd say he's slightly favored.

As for governors, Gray Davis is not endangered. Simon is getting creamed in polling (47-30), and fired half his staff so he could afford one more week of ads. Given the amount of money he has, that means he can now buy 3 weeks of ads while Davis has been and will run ads continuously until November.Massachusetts governor is probably more endangered for the GOP than WY, OK, and ID. Rowland in CT has shown some unexpected vulnerability lately - we'll see if that holds up.

I'm guardedly optimistic that the Democrats will take back the House. Logically speaking, the economy is bad, we have no prescription drug plan, we have ballooning deficits, we have backlash from corporate excess, and we have a motivated Democratic base. One piece of October bad news, like a stock market crash, would bring Gephardt's 30-40 seat dream to fruition.

Posted by CA Pol Junkie @ 08/15/2002 10:43 AM PST

One interesting thing with Gray Davis is that his lock on the gov is due to a court ruling and lack of name ID by Simon. Davis is running on a platform of "at least I'm not as bad as him". It could be an exapmle of the CA Dems win due not to capabilities, but to lack of challangers w/ talent.
Of course, there are many states with similar situations thru time.

Posted by jimGAGOP @ 08/15/2002 11:03 AM PST

One prob with Dems hitching their wagon to the economy is that one result of the 90's is that most people think the DOW is the economy. If, from mid Oct to election day, the market is up, it will remove the core issue of Dems platform. Unlike past years, Medicare and SS are not as big since Dems have put so much empahisis on the economy.
The toch may be in toruble, but I have trouble putting IA and MO in the toss-up colum. They should both remain Dem. Perhaps it is a head fake to force Dems to spend cash as Bush did with CA.
The more I think about it, one of Gore's most underrated moves was not breking the bank spending in CA, even when GW said he would carry the state.

Posted by jimGAGOP @ 08/15/2002 11:08 AM PST

If we believe Dem polling that says Idaho Gov. Kempthorne is "endangered" because he's only ahead by 15 and under 50, then why don't we all go and believe the Republican poll that has Cornyn ahead of Kirk by about ten?

Posted by Mr. Moderate @ 08/15/2002 11:32 AM PST

Mr. Moderate:

As I have said over and over again all the party polls are fraud. Kempthorne is not ahead by just 15, Hutchinson is not ahead of Pryor, Cornyn and Kirk are pretty even, although shameless racists who even worked and lost jobs at Enron would still like to commit financial suicide by voting color of the skin (white) over the color of the money (green). The Texas race comes down between not black and white, but between green and white.

Posted by G. C. Raj @ 08/15/2002 01:41 PM PST

Example of suicide other than what was evident a year ago: California GOP committing political suicide by nominating Simon over Reardon. Not very rational behavior, if you ask me.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/15/2002 01:44 PM PST

Mr. Moderate-how excited are you about the idea of Forrester extinguishing the Torch, which I think will happen as of now? And what kind of political future does he have?

Posted by AVADem @ 08/15/2002 07:11 PM PST

I agree that there's nothing to worry about in the Gov race in Oregon-Mannix's win was almost a carbon copy of Simon's, the true believers damning the party by picking the idealouge over the guy who can actually win.

Right now I see a Dem Senate gain of 3 seats, winning Arkansas, New Hampshire, Texas and one out of Tennessee, Oklahoma, Oregon and Colorado, while losing only New Jersey. As for governorships, the GOP takes Alabama, Alaska, and New Hampshire, while Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and maybe one of Idaho, Wyoming, Massachusetts (Kerry should do a lot for this race, to assure his successor should he take the White House is a Democrat) and Arkansas (if this one gets any closer, a certain former Arkansas governor with access to all the money the Dems need, an old friend of Fisher who is quite unfond of Huckabee, will take a VERY keen interest in this race) while Penny wins in Minnesota.

Posted by AVADem @ 08/15/2002 07:27 PM PST

When predicting votes in Texas, consider how long the ballots are going to be---2 pages front and back in Dallas and Tarrant Counties, among others, which means that first-time voters (who tend to be more Democratic, more ethnic, and excluded from polling because they haven't voted in one of the two last general elections, being new voters) will tend to vote straight-ticket based on their ethnic identity, and I expect Sanchez to capture over 85% of the Hispanic vote---Bush is the only Republican ever to break into the big digits with Hispanics, and he's not running. The ballot is led by two federal races (Senate and House), then Governor et al, so first-timers will be tempted to pick and vote their party based on their ethnically-identified candidate (I am always amazed that first-timers don't understand that you don't have to vote in every race for the ballot to count in those races you do vote, and in Dallas as in most of the state, the vast majority of first-time voters will be black or Hispanic, mostly Hispanic). Sanchez is pouring money into registration in black and brown precincts, and the new registration numbers border on unbelievable. And, for essentially all of "Anglo Dallas", the Democratic candidate for Congress is a female African-American who is a former teacher, union activist, and NOW member, running against a Republican incumbent from another district whose children attend private schools at enormous expense, and who still hasn't moved into the district. He'll probably win, but not by the margins the Republicans need to take the county, and he's not inspiring his voters like Dick Armey did (in fact, even gay Republicans are actively campaigning against him).

In Dallas County, straight-ticket Democratic voters outvoted straight-ticket Republican voters by 12,000 in 2000. Bush only carried the county by a couple of points, and only due to early voting. On election day votes, he lost the county, whose minority population share has increased by about 4% versus Anglos since 2000. The Democratic vote countywide was actually up in 2000 versus 1998, in percentage terms, and the County itself is now majority-minority.

Republicans need 100,000 net margin in Dallas County to carry the state, and they're not going to get it this year---their max margin in the county, based on bloated turnout in 2000 Congressional races, is 45,000. If minority precincts show up, the Republicans will be lucky to carry the county.
Without Dallas, the Republicans will have to roll up huge margins in East and West Texas, and Ron Kirk is viewed as an East Texan (I don't understand why).
West Texas doesn't have the population. All of Texas south of and bordering I-10 will be heavily Democratic, as usual. Unless Central Texas north of Austin grows substantially between now and November, there simply aren't enough white voters to carry the Republican ticket (I think.)

Posted by siriridge @ 08/15/2002 10:05 PM PST

AVADem:

I think that the Dems would win the Wisconsin governorship as well and blow the GOP out in Illinois and Michigan. However, I also think based on polls that the Dems would win in Kansas and if they get no rain, and no aid is forthcoming from Washington DC, the Dems would win the South Dakota governorship as well. Maryland would be too close to call.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 08/16/2002 09:45 AM PST

Thanks CAPolJunkie and everyone who commented. I really think my predictions are where it stands now. There are so many opportunities for the Democrats this year to make massive gains in the Senate and in governorships. The political environment is good for DEMS with the economy becoming the primary issue, upcoming battles this fall over Medicare, Healthcare, Prescription Drugs, etc. and the Democrats having the sense to pre-empt Bush's sure "Irag October Suprise" by talking about it now and criticizing such a move to quickly.

Posted by Ced @ 08/17/2002 02:01 PM PST

For the record, here's what I think will happen in November.

Governorships
Democrats pick up:
Maine, RI, IL, PA, WI, MI, TN, KS, NM, Arizona and TX. +11

Republicans pick up:
AL +1

In Alaska, a recent poll had Murkowski up 48-41 over Ulmer, well within reach. In New Hampshire, the Republican frontrunner, Benson, is still under 50% against both Democrats, who lead against the other two.
(Check DC's Political Report). And in Hawaii, I remember reading about 1998, when Lingle lost a 20 point lead to Ceyatano. Lingle's up 47-32 over Hirono right now, but most in Hawaii are saying she'll drop soon, as in '98. Right now, the Republicans would pick up AK, NH, HI and perhaps SC, while the Democrats would not get Texas.

Senate Races:
Democrats pick up:
AR, NH, CO, TX, and (as upsets)OK and Kentucky. (Sadly, Chellie is a goner, and I doubt we'll win anywhere else)

Republicans pick up New Jersey (Thanks to that ***-hole Bob Torricelli, who can only tie Forrester in the internal polls. For god sakes, can't we at least have Diane Allen!)

In the House races, keep an eye on IL-8 and NJ-7, along with Fl-24-I sense upsets there.

In all, on election day the Democrats should be able to win 10-15 seats, and lose 2-3, leaving us with about a dozen seats more.

Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/17/2002 02:49 PM PST

Mr. Liberal-pretty good all-around analysis. But do you really think we have a chamce in Kentucky? As much as I dream about beating McConnell, I don't know that Weinberg is the right person to do it. But we'll have a Democratic Senator from Kentucky by 2005; even if McConnell wins, I have a lot of friends in school from Kentucky, and most of them say Bunning is toast against Patton. And I definitely agree Oklahoma will be the upset of the year-Walters is by no means a good candidate, but in Jim Inhofe we're talking about a man who made is infamous "playing hooky" remark after OKC, yet I believe has one of the worst attendence records in al of Congress. Walters is Forrester to Inhofe's Torrecelli; a not particularly good candidate who will win not because of who he is but because of who he's not.
As for the governorships, I agree about Hawaii-I'll believe it when I see it. And to be honest, I'm sort of rooting for Murkowski-get him out of the Senate, bring his seat into play for Knowles to win in '04.

Posted by AVADem @ 08/18/2002 07:02 PM PST

Mr. Liberal-interesting sidebar about the NJ race. I was talking to my uncle from Wyckoff, a Democrat, a couple weeks ago, and he said the better it looks for the Dems in the overall Senate picture, the less likely he is to vote for the Torch. He can't stand Torreclli, thinks he's scum, but will grudgingly vote for him if it means keeping the Senate Democratic. Do you think there are a lot of other people like that, and if so, how much of a difference could it make?

Posted by AVADem @ 08/18/2002 07:09 PM PST

To AVADem:

The reason I think McConnell MIGHT lose is because of a recent poll that showed this:

McConnell-51
Weinberg-33

Reelect McConnell-39
Replace McConnell-24
Consider Replacing McConnell-24

However, what the story DIDN'T mention is this fact: Among those who know both candidates (47% in the poll):

Weinberg-49
McConnell-41

Clearly, it's about name recognition. And since Weinberg didn't spend any cash in the primary, she still has more than a million to run ads (she probably has raised 2 million by now). Those ads probably would be the standard one: "I rule, the opponent drools". (Of course, no candidate in their right mind would run an ad with those words, but you get the point). Basically, Kentucky might just be possible.
And I agree on Bunning/Patton-at least one Kentucky Senate seat will be Democratic in 2005.

As for Alaska, you have a point-Senator Knowles is probably a better trade-off than Governor Ulmer. Still, Ulmer's a wonderful candidate, and we need more women governors, in my opinion.

Now, as for New Jersey, I tend to agree with you. However, Forrester is having some problems also. Torricelli is dragging "Mini-Corzine" into the gutter with him, with stories of Benecard. What's that? Apparently it's Forrester pharmaceutical company, which Torch says he used to get rich and cheat seniors of their retirement money. It's heartless and mean, but it might work. Also, Forrester has come out strongly in favor of drilling in Alaska. According to David Rebovich, a columnist for polticsnj.com, "...(he) has a penchant for Alaska drilling." And that's VERY unpopular with New Jerseyans.

Essentially, this is a race between the movable Senator and the stoppable Challenger. My guess is that, if the Democrats do well enough this year, Torriceli will narrowly hold on. But if there's anything less than a good showing, he's toast. But trust me, if Torch goes down, it will be Bob Menendez in 2008, not Jim McGreevey. Menendez has a future. If I were Torch, and I win, this would be my last term. Get out before you're kicked out.

Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/19/2002 09:34 AM PST

Oh yeah, AVADem, please tell your uncle for me that even if he votes for Forrester, PLEASE VOTE FOR ANN SUMERS! She is the kindest lady you'll ever meet!

(And by the way, I don't know about my own family because they never say who they vote for)

Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 08/19/2002 09:37 AM PST

If Ulmer can defeat Murkowski for Governor, than Knowles sure as heck can defeat him for the Senate. Why not have both? :)

Posted by RParker @ 08/19/2002 05:01 PM PST