Burnt Orange Report

Here was my reply to that email.

Sloppy poll analysis: those changes are simply within margin of error, especially considering that you link to the 55+ age bracket with a 7.8% MoE. Plus who is "surveyusa.com" and how was this alleged "poll" conducted? Overall, a shady mailout which appears to prey on the uninformed and overly partisan.

Dang, and here I was thinking that a 10 point drop among 55+ was bigger than the 7.8 point MOE. I guess in GOP math 10 is less than 7.8.

As for SUSA polls, here's a conservative site analyzing polls for the battleground states in comparison to the actual results, and they pick SUSA as #1 for accuracy.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=5180

You Dems are nothing if not optimistic. Of course, there's not a chance in hell that KBH will be unseated or that Prop. 2 will fail, but that doesn't stop you. Very admirable.

Let's see......

Texas is going to somehow elect a Liberal Democrat Jewish Female Trial Lawyer to the U.S. Senate????

Uhhhhh.....yeah. Right. Sure.

Somebody please call the men in the little white coats and have them bring one of those jackets with the arms that tie together in the back.

Well at least you Republicans are reading a Demo Blog... maybe you can learn something...

Dang, and here I was thinking that a 10 point drop among 55+ was bigger than the 7.8 point MOE. I guess in GOP math 10 is less than 7.8.

You obviously don't know how margin of error actually operates. It's not a simple subtraction operation believe it or not. I sure as hell hope that Radnofsky's pollster actually understands MoE, because if this error was unintentional they really are screwed.

Anyway, according to the poll that's referenced, KBH's approval numbers dropped from 76% approve - 18% disapprove in July to 66% approve - 27% disapprove in August, for respondents aged 55+ (even though it isn't mentioned in the mailout what subpopulation it is). At first glance this is a 10 percentage point drop in approval rating, but you obviously have to take the margin of error into account, otherwise you're a very poor analyst.

The margin of error for the first month was 7.1%, so the actual number had a 95% chance of being between 83.1% and 68.9%, and a 5% chance of being outside of those bounds. For the second month the margin of error is 7.8%, so the actual approval had a 95% chance of being between 73.8% and 55.2%, and a 5% chance of being outside of thoes bounds.

In other words, it's statistically probable that the actual approval rating between July and August hasn't really changed. The change in results is likely just random variance in the sample population, which is the 55+ age bracket, not a true change in the overall population's opinion of KBH.

If you change the subpopulation to be "track all adults", you can see that the approval rating overall has only changed 3 percentage points, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points. In other words, the mailout was dishonest and misleading.

The following people would have a better chance than Radnofsky to beat KBH:

-- Jim Turner
-- Bill White
-- Charles Stenholm
-- Fozzie Bear

In other words, it's statistically probable that the actual approval rating between July and August hasn't really changed.

Don't they teach you the difference between 'probable' and 'possible' at that school you go to?

We'll all know better in mid September when SUSA again runs their monthly tracking poll on all 100 Senators. Of course, polls for Republicans haven't been trending that well lately.

Oh, I should also give a big shout out to the Junior Senator from the Great State. Big John Cornyn has gotten up off the mat and moved from dead last among all Senators in approval ratings to sixth from the bottom! WTG Johnny boy!!!

Interesting how 7 of the bottom 8 are GOP...

Toasty says,

"Let's see...... Texas is going to somehow elect a Liberal Democrat Jewish Female Trial Lawyer to the U.S. Senate????"

First, she is NOT a "trial lawyer" (i.e. Plaintiff's attorney suing companies) She works for one of the largest "blue chip" law firms in the State representing a Who's Who of corporate America. Hardly sounds like a liberal. If you read her positions, this is a very fiscally conservtive woman.

But, hey, just because she is a woman and jewish, The GOP thinks its ok to attack and stereotype her. Toasty is right in one respect: she will not get the misognyist and antisemitic vote, but hopefully bigots like Toasty aren't as numerous as you'd think.

Well, I like BAR, but I think we all realize that "winning" in her case doesn't mean 50% + 1. KBH is the most popular politician in Texas, hands down. There is not a person in this state that could beat her with any amount of money, barring something dramatic.

But we can try and keep her down to 60% or less and help our other statewide and downballot candidates. That's why if I were BAR, I'd be focusing on getting at least 40% of the vote. And BAR is not a whack job, she's a serious candidate. It's not like Gene Kelly is running here.

BAR has my vote, and I wish her the best of luck. Win or Lose, if she can help us organize our state for the Democratic Party, we are better off than before.

""Let's see...... Texas is going to somehow elect a Liberal Democrat Jewish Female Trial Lawyer to the U.S. Senate????""

I think it would be fitting to have a Jewish governor and a Jewish senator. Certainly would shake things up in Highland Park. One of Texas' biggest problems is Highland Park. God talks to them as well as to George Bush you know.

"She works for one of the largest "blue chip" law firms in the State representing a Who's Who of corporate America."

She is a partner with Vinson & Elkins. And I simply refer to the Batson Report. Ethics have become an issue for a growing number of voters in Texas. It is rather hard to use the word "ethics" with regard to a law firm that the Enron bankruptcy examiner stated had committed legal malpractice in the state of Texas. Apparently the State Bar of Texas doesn't take such matters seriously. The managing partner of the law firm was called a liar on national television by a US Congressman during the Enron hearings. Not long after which Kay Bailey Hutchison's husband went from "partner" to "of counsel" which most took as a way of distancing himself. Blue chip? Some would say "cow chip" at this point. Most who lost their retirement or savings to Enron among them. That's quite a few Texans.

That aside, Barbara Radnofsky has established quite a good reputation for herself. She would probably be as popular as Kay Bailey Hutchison has been. Because she is responsive to people.

I don't think there is a Republican in this state who is not vulnerable. Even Tom DeLay. Beatable is another matter. It's all about money with Tom DeLay. But it's also about constituents. And so far the majority of his constituents like him.

I don't pay attention to polls or pollsters. But I give Barbara Radnofsky a 50-50 chance of winning and if she keeps herself "out there" talking to people she will probably pick up that extra 1% by next November. And beat anyone foolish enough to challenge her in the primary.

The real problem with Kay Bailey Hutchison is her heart is no longer in it. She was planning on abiding by her promise of "two terms only" and running for governor. She probably would have won. But apparently it would have upset Rick Perry. And we all know we mustn't upset Rick Perry. So suddenly she decided not to run for governor. And became very vulnerable at that point. As reflected by her record of late.

I think the Democrats in Texas often become too myopic. They focus too much on one or two candidates they believe will become saviors of the party. They need to focus on all the candidates and the party itself. And they need to encourage some competition instead of, as the chair of the Harris County Democratic Party did, deciding that some are now "sacred cows" whose seats are not available to challengers within the party. One of Gerald Birnberg's biggest mistakes was informing a challenger that he could not win and asking him to withdraw his challenge to an incumbent. One of those Austin insiders as a certain gubernatorial candidate calls them.

We didn't lose control of the state because of the Republicans. We lost control of the state because some of us lost interest in the party and the party candidates. Too often the party focuses all the effort and all the money on "favorites to win" and then find the oddsmakers were wrong and they lose the races that matter. Anyone would have been better than John Cornyn. But the party itself put little effort and little money behind Ron Kirk. Of course Ron Kirk to some showed his true colors when he licked his wounds by joining Vinson & Elkins. Some very reputable attorneys have remained there because they built their business within the framework of the firm itself. But most attorneys I know are not exactly banging the door down to get in there. It reeks of everything the Batson Report said it did.

The Democratic Party in Texas needs to learn that when we give money, we intend it to go to all candidates. Not just their "favorites to win." They don't give the money to candidates equitably. Or spend it wisely. Why a lot of us stopped giving. Some of us will give to candidates worth giving to like Barbara Radnofsky. But the party itself? Forget it.

Most likely Charles Soechting and Gerald Birnberg would respond to this by saying we need to become more active. And to talk to them. We already talked. And they proceeded to ignore us.