This is a repost from the Equality Texas blog at EqualityTexas.org. But don't worry, I'll hang around.
Last night the LGBT and allied community suffered through some agonizing election returns. We won some. We lost a big one. How do you evaluate such a mixed bag of election results across the nation? Then, how do you apply those lessons to the movement for equality in general?
It's not as hard as you think.
We won.
No, we didn't win everything. The big prize of marriage in Maine got away. Still, we won. Let's take stock.
This is a repost from the Equality Texas blog at EqualityTexas.org. But don't worry, I'll hang around.
Last night the LGBT and allied community suffered through some agonizing election returns. We won some. We lost a big one. How do you evaluate such a mixed bag of election results across the nation? Then, how do you apply those lessons to the movement for equality in general?
It's not as hard as you think.
We won.
No, we didn't win everything. The big prize of marriage in Maine got away. Still, we won. Let's take stock.
Houston Races The Houston mayoral race will feature a runoff between Annise Parker and Gene Locke, who received 30.5% and 25.9%, respectively. Peter Brown received 22.4% while Republican Roy Morales received 20.2%. It seems that, although Brown led in some late polls, his supporters really were soft. A handful of them went and voted for Locke or Morales, apparently.
In the Houston Controller Race Democrat Ron Green has reached a runoff with Republican M.J. Khan.
NY-23 Rick Perry broke from his Republican Party and endorsed Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. With so much "Republican" support going to Hoffman, the Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava chose to leave the race in its final days. So, with almost 50% of the vote, Blue Dog Democrat Bill Owens prevails. The aftermath of this race should be interesting for Republicans to parse...
(I resurveyed the staff just to check and we unanimously endorse Annise Parker for Mayor of Houston in this Saturday's runoff. The following endorsement is what we printed in her first round of the election. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Burnt Orange Report endorses Annise Parker for Mayor of Houston because she is an experienced candidate and committed grassroots activist we can trust to put the people of Houston first.
When we at Burnt Orange Report write about local city races, we normally focus on Austin -- simply because that's where most of us live. However, the City of Houston -- which is both the fourth largest city in the country, and the third fastest-growing city in the country -- will, in one week, select a new mayor to replace the long and respected tenure of Bill White.
We believe the most qualified candidate to be Houston's next mayor is Annise Parker.
Annise Parker is a strong Democrat who has separated herself from the rest of the field with her positive campaign for progress in Houston. Her twelve years of experience in Houston city politics -- she was on the Houston City Council for six years, and is now at the end of her sixth year as City Controller -- stand out as examples of her delivering results, and not just talking about, the issues that matter to the city of Houston.
Parker came into politics through neighborhood activism, a path of determination and sacrifice that resonates both with our own personal experiences as well as with the values we champion throughout the BOR community. Her recent profile in the Houston Chronicle discussed some of her most impressive grassroots work:
Parker hasn't budged from Houston since returning here in 1974 to attend Rice University. Her involvement in gay politics began in 1979, the year after she graduated, when she helped organize a gay student group at Rice.
After college, Parker went to work using new computer software to do economic modeling in the oil and gas industry. In her free time, she plunged into community involvement, joining the boards of gay and lesbian organizations and riding in Houston's first Pride Parade in 1979.
[...]
Many of her nonworking hours are devoted to community activities. It was a desire for something new, Parker said, that prompted her to move from gay activism to the next chapter in her life.
“I was bored with gay stuff,” she said. “I threw myself just as hard into 10 years of neighborhood activism.”
A rash of arson fires near her home prompted Parker and a neighbor to create the East Montrose Civic Association in 1990. Five years later, she became president of the Neartown Association, a coalition of Montrose-area civic clubs, making connections that would help her in her campaigns for public office.
When we take away all the campaign attacks, and television ads, and look at this Houston mayoral race closely, we find that Annise Parker is one of us, and she is someone we can trust. In times like these, trust counts.
Despite what our current Governor would have everyone believe, Texas -- and especially the city of Houston -- is facing challenging economic times. At a time when the specific policies of the mayoral candidates are, by most accounts, broad and indiscriminate, we find ourselves searching for the candidate we can identify with and trust the most.
Parker is the most experienced candidate for mayor, and as she said in one debate, "I'll always tell you the truth, even if you don't want to hear it." I personally know her to be smart, loyal, and an extremely hard worker. From day one, the City will be run effectively and efficiently.
In a community, you trust your neighbors that work hard and share your values. Burnt Orange Report endorses Annise Parker for Mayor of Houston because she is an experienced candidate and committed grassroots activist we can trust to put the people of Houston first.
Yesterday saw two polls released about the Houston mayoral race. Usefully, we now have something to compare to the earlier Zogby poll.
One of those polls was another from a local media outlet. 11 News and KUHF Houston Public Radio paired together for a poll from Bob Stein and Rice University's Center for Civic Engagement. This survey should have some particular weight as we consider these, because the Center for Civic Engagement is the only polling outlet that is consistently involved in Houston politics. This poll's methodology probably took Houston politics into account more than others. Like the Chronicle/Zogby poll, Peter Brown was shown ahead. 24% of those polls said they would vote for him.
The rest?
Brown's nearest challenger is comptroller Annise Parker, who holds the support of 16 percent of likely voters in the current poll. Former city attorney Gene Locke has 14 percent support, and Harris County Department of Education trustee Roy Morales has 5 percent support. Forty-one percent of likely voters told pollsters that they have not yet settled on a candidate. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.2 percent, which means it is difficult to determine whether Locke or Parker has more support than the other.
Although Parker and Locke were found neck-and-neck with this poll, this poll is the only one to show Controller Parker that behind the front. Actually, Annise Parker released her own poll, conducted by the well-respected Lake Research Partners, that shows her ahead with 27%. Her poll shows Peter Brown with 21% and Gene Locke with 17%. If "leaners" are taken out of the equation, though, everyone sits within the 4.9% Margin of error: Parker, Brown, and Locke would sit at 18%, 12%, and 12%, respectively.
We cannot say with any certainty, now, who leads the mayoral race, but reaching a majority is unlikely for any candidate next Tuesday. I just care about who reaches the top two, and three polls over a week and a half shows a likely runoff between Parker and Brown. Clearly, Gene Locke has a lot of last minute work in order to reach the Finals. He already started: last week, he released the first negative advertisement of the campaign, trying to win back African American votes from the white guy, Peter Brown. That might help (or just show desperation), but he'll need some strong GOTV, too.
The Houston Chronicle paired with Zogby International to release this poll that was held last week.
"It's close, a lot of voters are undecided, and there appear to be three legitimate contenders," said John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, which conducted the poll for the Chronicle. "Brown has spent the most money and has the greater name recognition, and that's been enough to put him in first place. But you could make the argument that he could be a little disappointed in these results, because whatever lead he has is hardly commensurate with what he spent."
According to the poll, Brown leads the field with 23.8 percent of the vote, followed by Parker with 19 percent, Locke with 13.1 percent, and Harris County Board of Education Trustee Roy Morales with 6.7 percent.
The results are drawn from a survey of 601 likely Houston voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
That leaves 36% undecided, so any of the three leading Democrats can make a runoff. But with an election so close, the candidates are fighting not only among themselves, but also against "stay behind at home."
Brown was behind in many older polls, but his deep pockets and many paid advertisements seem to be paying off. The poll also asked one-on-one contests between these three leaders. Brown wins against both Parker and Locke, but he finds himself in a statistical tie with Parker, leading only 35.3% to 34%. Parker beats Locke in that match-up.
Nany Sims gives solid analysis. She thinks everything points towards a good future in Houston, as she finishes:
Here's the bottom line: We have a field of outstanding, qualified candidates and people are just not concerned that one is significantly worse than the others. Shouldn't we be celebrating this fact?
In our modern democracy, people tend to be more driven to vote "against" someone than "for" them. When you have a collective of qualified individuals, the voters are stumped.
I say "YEA" for a democracy that is actually working as it should. You may have to work a little harder than normal to pick the candidate you like the best but be happy that you don't have to threaten to leave the city if one of these folks wins.
But the Houston Chronicle thinks one of those three candidates might be worth voting against. And it is the man their poll places as the front-runner, Peter Brown. Their editorial board has co-endorsed Annise Parker and Gene Locke, but Muse tells us what it really intended: "Anybody But Peter Brown." Problematically, though, the Chronicle fails to enumerate their problems with Brown, leaving voters without reason to actually cast that vote against him and for someone else.
Personally, I, too, am shaking my head at that co-endorsement. It makes little sense to me, and it only adds confusion in a race nearing the finish line. I tend to agree with Nancy, too. The reasons to vote for these three candidates supersede reasons to vote against them. Annise Parker probably still has the most inside track to the runoff, but the candidates' combined strength provide the possibility for any combination of these three to battle one-on-one after November 3.
Only three weeks remain until polls open in the city of Houston for voters to choose a man or woman to succeed Bill White as mayor of one of this country's largest cities. Yet, of the voters who even realize Bill White will soon vacate the office, many surely remain undecided still. Sure, many activists are aligned somewhere due to various loyalties, but the general voters have been given little differentiation to work with in order to make a good decision.
It's no wonder, too. Of all the candidates, only three are active with a strong pulse. Annise Parker, Gene Locke, and Peter Brown are all also Democrats whose policies compare closely. If you are an absolute stickler for Democratic credentials, you might back Annise Parker, but all three are just as Democratic as their predecessor. If you particularly care about a certain policy area, you might support someone else.
Really, voters need every available method to distinguish the candidates. So, I thought I would discuss a method I once used to decide between candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Each candidate, while similar on policy, probably will be significantly different in their potential styles of governing.
For the task of painting a picture of these candidates' styles, I will look at two different sources. First, I will review basic biographical information for each of the candidates. Then, I will also look at the great Insider's Looks into the Campaigns from Mayoral Musings with Nancy Sims.
Annise Parker:
With Annise Parker, I first noticed that she really cares about Houston government. She ran for City Council twice unsuccesfully before finally winning a seat in 1997, and the current City Controller has served in elected Houston office ever since. She is the only candidate for Mayor who can say she has served constituents in Houston government for more than a decade. Although that might be the most important piece of biographical info, the most known might be that the candidate is openly lesbian. Her activeness in the LGBT community might not show us much regarding how she leads, except she probably ran into a few problems along the way that might translate into toughness. Finally, Parker worked in the oil & gas energy for two decades -- at the very least, she has knowledge of the industry, which could prove helpful in any clean energy initiatives she could attempt as Mayor. She also has a powerful public record of fiscal responsibility, which is probably buffered by that business experience.
And from her journey to get elected to the city's highest office? Nancy Sims gives these thoughts:
So, what does this team and organization tell us about how Parker might manage the city? Volumes. I predict that she will seek expertise where she needs it. She will be loyal and true to the voters that elect her and will likely stand by her promises. She will be a leader and inspire those who work for her to perform to the best of their abilities. She is willing to trust others to accomplish their jobs without telling them what to do every step of the way. If Parker's campaign team is a reflection of her leadership style, Houston will be run as a finely-tuned machine.
Annise Parker's supporters can be confident that city government would be an efficient cog under a Parker administration. She was successful in business, and her campaign is being run like one. So would the city of Houston. I am confident Houston's economy would likely thrive under Parker, but my only concern is how many risks she would take with the city. Will Annise Parker bring the city into another level of prestige, or will she only keep it chugging along at the same level that Bill White has brought it to?
Gene Locke:
Gene Locke's life is also one of challenges. He worked through law school as a steelworker, but after his JD, his rise became quick. He went to Washington, D.C. to work as chief of staff for Congressman Mickey Leland. In 1995 Bob Lanier appointed him as City Attorney. Under the Lanier Administration, Locke led the negotiations for Minute Maid Park, Reliant Park, and the Toyota Center, the three prominent sports arenas for the city's three prominent professional sport teams. He currently practices law with Andrews Kurth LLP, but he has served as Special Counsel to Houston METRO and the Port of Houston Authority. Locke, though, has heard a fair share of criticism for the way he has conducted a lawyerly proceedings.
While a law career tells little about one's management style, a campaign can, and Nancy concludes this about his campaign:
What does this team tell me about how Gene Locke will govern? Lots! He will look for the best and brightest. I can envision Locke picking staff and department leaders that have experience, commitment and heart. He is a listener and will trust the experts to do their jobs well. His staff and department heads will trust him and believe in him. He will set clearly-defined goals for his team and for the city. He and his staff will all be working from the same page to keep Houston running. Based on early campaign changes, I would say Locke is willing to make hard decisions, even when it may not be popular to do so, if it is in the best interest of the city. If Locke's campaign is a reflection of the way he will govern, we can count on smart, dedicated leadership that keeps Houstonians top of mind.
Gene Locke could be a mayor that will get things done by negotiation with different agencies. He has connection with many of them, and he has succeeded with them before. Also, if he sees an opportunity to bring an important event, I suspect he might take it on head-first: that's what habitual leaders willing to take risks tend to do, especially if they have a loyal and intelligent staff. But all of these attempts would also chance the appearance of Locke's slick ways that can always create potential for trouble.
Peter Brown:
Peter Brown's life path to this election may be the one that began the most privileged. He attended the private St. John's School and then spent much time receiving three separate university degrees. Afterwards, he spent six years in the Army's active reserve, though, showing that he has thoughts for his community even if he grew up with amenities that others lack. His first degree was a Bachelor's in French Studies followed by a Master's in Romance Languages, but his preparation for city work really began with his last one. He received a Bachelor of Architecture, Master of Architecture, and Master of City Planning from the University of Pennsylvania. Since, he has worked as an architect and urban planner, doing work in over 20 cities, including many years in Houston. In 2003 he was made a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, the highest designation for the organization. He was actually so good that he has been able to self-finance most of his political career. In two years he would be elected to the city council.
Peter Brown's history tells us a lot about his knowledge of cities - they are high and many. Unfortunately, his career gives little indication to his ability with budgets, his political tact, or any other managerial skill. Apparently his campaign gives us a similarly hazy forecast:
What does this team tell me about how Peter Brown will govern? It's a little tougher assessment than the Parker and Locke campaigns. It's my observation that if Brown will recruit a strong leader and trust them to manage the operations, he will have a well-run City Hall operation. If not, things might be a little chaotic. We will trust that the leader will be able to carry out Peter Brown's vision for Houston. His vision is a solid one and one that is gaining interest from voters. Brown will need to say "this is how I see it" and allow a team to implement the details. It may be a little hard for people who interact with City government to master accessing the Brown administration but we know that it will be well run. There will not be much opportunity for jockeying or schmoozing - it will be a "state your business" type of team and they will follow-through on their commitments. You may rest assured that a Brown administration will have a plan and implement it!
As powerful mayors go, they can be considered the continual designers of their cities. Peter Brown would be a gifted one at Houston's head. But Brown is an architect in training and practice; he is not a builder. If you trust he can get excellent builders, he may be, by far, the best candidate in the field. If you think he will have trouble with that, he may be the decided worst. (Ok, besides from Roy Morales!)
While at Netroots Nation a few weeks back, I had the opportunity to listen in on a panel discussing climate change, Texas' energy future, and energy security featuring Houston Mayor Bill White (you might have also heard he is running for US Senate).
Mayor White gave very measured, political answers. Throughout the panel, never did the words "Cap and Trade" leave his lips, but he did remain skeptical of anyone who claimed to have it all figured out and that their answer would be easy and painless. He also showed legitimate concerns about the impacts of renewable energy mandates done wrong on low-income consumers. As a representative from a consumer advocacy organization, it is refreshing to hear White's commitment to protecting our most vulnerable even as we chart a new energy future.
Mayor White's stated goals are to become more energy independent for basic security reasons and to be in control of our energy future. To do so, he maintains that we must reduce our pollution based on sound science, and do so in a way which does not burden low-income households. He proposes three main mechanisms to meet these goals:
Cut the amount of fuel we use in vehicle travel without impinging on people's ability to travel freely-- specifically by increasing our efficiency per mile traveled.
Cut the amount of energy consumed in buildings. Why drive up the cost of business by paying for electricity?
Decrease the amount of power we get from coal and substitute that power with cleaner sources
Despite some skepticism, Mayor White certainly showed that our energy future could have our cake and eat it too, namely through increased efficiency in building codes, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and use of cost-effective renewables. See the edited video here:
Public Citizen does not and would never endorse candidates. Even if we could, it's hard to get an exact read on Mayor White and how he would act as the next Senator from Texas on the issue of federal climate policy -- so even so we could offer little endorsement other than a candid analysis of his words and his record.
When asked off-camera about how he would vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the climate bill which passed in the House in June and due up for debate in the Senate over the next 2-3 months, he remained committed to energy efficiency but overall rather vague. White showed skepticism as to large long term goals rather than smaller but gradually increasing cuts in emissions. His version of the bill, he said, would have strong building code mandates, a renewable energy efficiency standard (which is it, Bill?) with a price cap on renewables to protect consumers, and change dispatch priorities to wean the nation off of coal fired power. He did not, however, indicate whether or not he would support implementing a federal cap on carbon dioxide emissions or the cap and trade mechanism.
This is a question likely to come up in the next few months when ACES comes to a Senate vote, and hopefully Mayor White will have a clearer answer prepared when that time comes. But if the final answer is no on ACES, would he have some specific policy solutions about how to improve the bill, or would he just cast the same "no way, never" vote that we'll likely get from John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison?
That being said, it is refreshing to hear a candidate speak so fluently about energy policy. Mayor White's record on energy as Deputy Secretary of Energy stands on its own, as does his impressive work on making Houston a national leader on energy efficiency. We may still be uncertain as to where he stands on ACES, but we certainly know his feelings on energy efficiency both in word and deed - which is nothing to sneeze at.
Houston City Controller Annise Parker's mayoral campaign had an internal poll (.pdf) done by Lake Research Partners, and in a head-to-head with at least two other likely opponents, Parker received 29% of the vote while the other candidates received a combined 18%.
The poll also showed that more than half of Houston voters recognize her name (with no direct word on the name recognition of the other candidates). Of those who recognized her name, she had 44% favorable to 7% unfavorable, a +37 spread. That's much wider than Peter Brown's +16 or Gene Locke's +10.
Another memo (.pdf), by Rindy Miller Media, commented on the results of the poll and gave a very bold statement:
Advertising and field organization are expensive in a huge market like Houston's, and Annise starts the race with significant advantages - high name recognition and a strong favorability ratio. Or, to put it in blunt terms again, Annise starts the race with a one to two million dollar advantage over her opponents. Annise's opponents, all much lesser known, will have to spend a vast part of their war chests simply to gain name recognition. Meanwhile, Annise will be using resources to grow her advantage, building on her already strong lead and image.
The emphasis was not added. Obviously, someone with this much of a lead at the start will have the practical advantages mentioned, but does it really amount to a million dollar lead? I'm skeptical on that.
The elections are in November, so it's a long way off. Many things can happen in between now and then. But it should be interesting to watch. So far, all the major candidates who have entered are also good Democrats.
