In last week's epic thread comparing Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo's campaign contributions to Democrats, there was some concern expressed in the comments that someone was running a "Push Poll". One of our longer time users wrote the following.
Shade is using dirty tactics running her run-off campaign
I've been getting streams of push-polls, almost two a night, from a company called TTO Research (or that's at least what the pollster had said). I know they're push-polls because as soon as I ask what kind of poll this is, the pollster was frazzled and only completed 2 questions: who I'm voting for and if I might change my mind, after I called him out. Plus, the number was blocked (000)000-0000, and when I was polled last time from the company, they were pushing me towards voting for Shade with "Would you change your mind if..." questions regarding Tovo. No legitimate polling company I've ever heard from runs their business like this. I'm sorry, but I won't vote for a candidate that uses push-polls. Period. Democrat or Republican, I don't think the tactic is a good one and it's borderline harassment. You can bet your ass I'll be voting against her in the election. I'm slightly concerned about Tovo, mainly on music issues in Austin, but I really want a change now.
and followed up with
I'm aware of what a push poll is, having been a campaign manager for several candidates, and I am also aware that some push pollsters attempt to mask their true goal by portraying their poll as a data gathering poll. The poll that I participated in was certainly a push poll, as it included leading questions that were certainly intended to push my vote away from Tovo. If the campaign is not a part of it, someone else certainly is, and I encourage you here to denounce the use of such electioneering. It degrades all of us that have worked on campaigns.
I agree that push polls shouldn't have a place in our campaign toolbox, though there is often confusion over what constitutes one. Another of our long time readers Colin, who is very familiar with the polling industry, commented at the time that TTO Research (disclaimer: The Tyson Organization for whom BOR founder Byron LaMasters works) was unlikely to have actually run a push poll due to company policy. I agree that professionally Tyson wouldn't do something like that as well as the simple fact that the phrase "push poll" gets abused. The polls in question that the commentor (no met) claims were push polls weren't push polls. Most polls worth their salt are going to test how respondents react to various messages- that's the whole point of message polling.
In any case, the recently released campaign finance reports are out and it would appear that the Randi Shade campaign telling the truth when it claimed it wasn't running any such poll.
In fact, the polls were payed for by the Kathie Tovo campaign. Here's the relevant page from their campaign finance report.
Good polls try to remove bias from their questioning, and part of that is wording a poll so that the respondent can't figure out who's interested in asking the questions. Clearly, TTO Research did a really good job at that. Maybe even too good a job.
Bottom line: It wasn't a push poll and it wasn't paid for by Randi Shade. So maybe instead of making accusations that Shade is a Republican, using Rovian tactics, and running push polls we could take a breather.
...Shade has been outed as a republican in this campaign, and these desperation tactics, which we can expect to see more of, come straight from the GOP/Rove playbook.
Normally this sort of statement would just slide by in the comments but the author took special note to call out the University Democrats and Central Austin Democrats for their endorsement of Shade, organizations of which I have been a member and served as an officer in since I moved to Austin in 2003. So unluckily for them, it made me do a little research, the results of which highlight how Democratic Randi Shade's roots are and help explain why she has won more Democratic club endorsements than Kathie Tovo.
There are many ways to measure someone "Democraticness" including volunteer hours and policy positions but one of the least subjective is one's personal donor history. The following table compiles the contribution history of Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo from available public sources for contributions large enough to trigger public reporting.
Money shouldn't be used as the sole consideration for determining an individual's politics, but for those who have the capacity to give, the frequency, amount, and recipient of those dollars serves as an instructive guide to measure one's "Democraticness". Kathie Tovo certainly has the capacity to contribute to candidates and organizations, after all, she's afforded giving herself over $53,000 in loans to her own campaign.
So if you exclude counting money that you give yourself as a political contribution, Randi Shade's Democratic giving is 60 times as great as Kathie Tovo's.
The only thing Randi Shade has been 'outed' as in this campaign is as an openly gay committed mother of two who's donated more to Democrats in one day than her opponent has in a decade.
If you are anything like Phillip, you believe that local Austin elections are decided by a machine of Democratic groups that often exercise in groupthink and comprise almost all the opinion-makers in these races.
If you're more like him, you hate that. But that's how elections often work in this town. With three incumbents up for reelection at City Hall, it's time for a little update.
Before Council Members Randi Shade, Chris Riley, and Laura Morrison even hired their reelection teams, most observers thought that the three were in pretty good shape. They also thought that, if anyone was in any trouble at all, it was Council Member Shade, who has critics from both left and right. If club endorsements are the guide, those initial guesses were true. All three Council Members seem to be leading their races.
The following Democratic organizations (in a relative timeline order) have endorsed the following candidates:
North by Northwest Democrats: Chris Riley (Place 1), Kathie Tovo and Randi Shade dual endorsement (Place 3), Laura Morrison (Place 4)
Black Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Kathie Tovo, Laura Morrison
Austin Tejano Democrats: Chris Riley, Laura Morrison
South Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Kathie Tovo, Laura Morrison
Capital Area Progressive Democrats: Chris Riley, Kathie Tovo, Laura Morrison
Circle C Area Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
University Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Central Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Austin Progressive Coalition*: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Capital Area Asian American Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
Capital City Young Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade, Laura Morrison
West Austin Democrats: Chris Riley, Randi Shade and Kathie Tovo (dual endorsement), Laura Morrison
*NOTE: The University Democrats and the Central Austin Democrats are the two organizations that come together to make the Austin Progressive Coalition (APC), which endorses candidates that both other clubs endorse. When APC endorses candidates, it prints and distributes thousands of fliers to help elect them.
Chris RIley and Laura Morrison have received every single Democratic club endorsement thus far, and so long as they maintain normal, active campaigns; losses by them would come as major surprises. Morrison was supposed to have tough opposition from radio-man Toby Ryan, but he's fared very poorly in the endorsement game (not even showing at many endorsement meetings!). Ryan's campaign hopes to reach out to non-traditional voters for victory, but they'll likely need quite a few of them.
Not counting APC, Randi Shade leads opponent Kathie Tovo in Democratic club endorsemetns 7-5. Tovo started strong out of the gate, and her biggest victory was with the South Austin Democrats, a big organization that has sent city council mailings in the past. Council Member Shade won the biggest prize when she won the APC endorsement: their mail and enthusiasm may very well put her over the top.
The Place 3 race is also interesting in that the opposition support for Kathie Tovo seems to come entirely within the establishment. The University Democrats, always made up of members new to the scene, has a history of endorsing anti-establishment and challenger candidates more often than other organizations. In their endorsement vote, Randi Shade received over 80%.
That said, the Tovo-Shade race is still a competitive one, and the endorsement game is close enough that the field campaigns will make the difference over the next month. With other candidates on the ballot, too, a runoff won't be surprising. I wouldn't be surprised to see the incumbent win without a runoff, either.
With city council talking about single member districts, this may be one of the last times that every Democratic club has quite this type of influence on the council. With a mid-May election, there's one other thing that can still swing things, too. You'll still need to vote.
Disclosure: I am now a public supporter for all the incumbents (Riley, Shade, and Morrison). I am also the President Emeritus of the University Democrats.
Seeing Chris Bradford's piece today on the new makeup of some of the key City of Austin Board and Commission memberships, I'd thought I'd expand a bit in laying out the membership of two of them which he was referring to. In either case, his original post is still worth reading in it's entirety though I do quote from it here.
It is well known that the City of Austin Planning Commission is a pipeline for higher office and whose appointed membership greatly effects the direction and design of the city. This May's race between Chris Riley and Perla Cavazos, both former Planning Commission members being case in point. But with the current retirements, expirations of terms, replacements, and upcoming term expirations, it's clear that the Planning Commission as a whole has drifted towards a heavier influence by the Austin Neighborhoods Council.
Here is the new make-up of the Planning Commission with the year in which their terms expire (so most recent appointments are at the top).
The bolded names are brand new to the board and both are very closely aligned with the ANC. Councilman Spelman's appointment Danette Chimenti was Morrison's successor to the ANC. Morrion's appointment Kathie Tovo, former Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Association President, was almost a candidate this spring in the Place 1 race and is thought to still have council aspirations. Commission member Dealey ran previously in 2005 for Council, losing in a 4 way race to Jennifer Kim.
With the Planning Commission having in the last year lost Chris Ewen (not reappointed) this indicates a shift on the board. A close eye should be given to Martinez's next appointment as Castillo's partial term expires this Friday. Beyond that, Mayor Leffingwell will get to replace all 3 of Mayor Wynn's appointments next summer so given his close relationship with Martinez, will make or break the direction and diversity of the Planning Commisison in its next iteration.
Also of note from Bradford's piece was the Board of Adjustment which is the funnel through which variance requests are routed (for instance, business designations for noise requests). Another 9-member board like the Planning Commission, two "nay" votes can kill a variance request.
Councilwoman Morrison has appointed quintessential neighborhood activist, and once again, former ANC President Jeff Jack to the Board of Adjustment where he will join former ANC President Bryan King who Bradford notes as "a reliable nay vote". The other appointments from last week include former ANC South Central Representative Clarke Hammond (Leffingwell) and the reappointment of Nora Salinas (Martinez).
And then there's Morrison's choice of Mary Arnold for the Waterfront Planning Advisory Board which guides the development debate along Lady Bird Lake. That one's already stirred up controversy beyond Bradford with the Austin Chronicle critiquing the choice as not following the Waterfront Overlay ordinance's commands for a diverse professional board with specific categories of representation which Arnold may or may not particularly fit.
In sum, none of this is to say that appointments to city boards and commissions will behave or vote in similar patterns just because they have similar backgrounds in their activism and interaction with the City. But Bradford's closing statement in his article is all to true, and is reflective of what happens under our current system of local government.
Someone should just draw up a list of the dozen or so neighborhood representatives who seem to serve on every board and commission. When one is appointed, we can cross her off the list and move to the next name. When we get to the end of the list, we can simply return to the top of the list.
I thought Austin had a deeper pool of neighborhood activists.
I've commented on this before. So long as Austin is captivated by low turnout and lack of interest from the broader electorate, we will be captivated by a limited pool of dedicated activists whose ranks are not growing in proportion to the city's population. While some of those long time activists are revered institutions and others reviled (it often just depends on which side of a local skirmish you are on), the question might be would Austin's citizen-government be improved by having more activists on top of just long time activists?
On a personal note- it is easy to offer a critique in Austin and I think that's healthy to the larger debate we as a community are having on the nature and structure of our government (single member districts, campaign finance, public financing, etc). But in addition to words, there is action. And along those lines, I'm now serving with the newly created Austin Bike Theft Task Force which is making some real progress, and am in discussions to help restart my own inactive neighborhood association, Kealing, in Central East Austin.
There is always a guessing game of who is working for who in the races. Here is what we know and what we hear about who is working for who in their campaigns. In fact, we are constantly getting praise and criticism for campaigns we don't work for. So let's clear the air and shed some light on the process.
Team McCracken:
Christian Archer: Bill White, Phil Hardberger, Mikal Watts, Dawnna Dukes '08 primary, Juan Garcia, Bexar County candidates, Julian Castro in 11/09, former Archer Nathan partner.
William Yarnell: Patrick Rose, Hays County candidates, Capitol Lobbyist
Mario Bravo: Juan Garcia campaign manager, Mikal Watts
Local attorney Martha Smiley is Brewster's treasurer Mikal Watts, childhood Corpus friends with McCracken
Team Leffingwell (anticipated):
David Butts: Every current and recent past City Council member but McCracken, every current and recent past County Commissioner, every current and recent past District Judge, most Austin ISD and ACC board members, Laura Morrison, Woodie Jones and Karen Huber in '08
Mark Nathan: Every current City Council member but McCracken and Morrison, Bill White and Phil Hardberger (with Archer), Lloyd Doggett '04, Austin Bonds '06, Anti-Prop 1 & 2 '06, Anti-Prop. 2 '08, Travis Dem. Coordinated consultant '08, Randi Shade '08, frequent Butts partner, former Archer Nathan partner
Nancy William: Leffingwell aide, former Executive Director of Texas Democratic Party, longtime local Democratic activist
Other key players expected to emerge after likely Leffingwell announcement in mid-January
Longtime labor activist Kitty Clark has been Lee's treasurer in '05 and '08 and will likely be again in '09
Team Levy (anticipated):
Sandra Ramos: Kirk Watson, Travis Dem. Coordinated '06, Sarah Eckhart aide, Started with Karen Huber '08.
There are also rumors that Jack Martin (Public Strategies) is involved in the campaign.
Team Keaton-Rylander-Strayhorn-McClellan (anticipated):
This one is more speculation and rumor than fact. We guess this will be a family affair and Scott and /or Dan McClellan will be involved. Thornton Keel has been CKRSM's campaign treasurer in the past and Louise Epstein is treasurer for CKRSM's "exploratory" committee.
Council Races:
Place 1 (Lee Leffingwell incumbent)
Rick Cofer - manager David Nerio, consultant David Butts
Chris Riley - manager Katherine Haenschen
Perla Cavazos - manager Laurie Felker Jones
Kathie Tovo - consultant Mark Yznaga
Place 2 (Mike Martinez incumbent)
Mike Martinez - consultants David Butts and Mark Nathan
The campaigns between Democrats and Republicans are over (at least for another year). The campaign focus to run toward the center or demonize the other party ended Tuesday but there are still campaigns on the horizon.
Across the state campaigns for city council and mayor are gearing up, and once the holiday cheer fades the spotlight will shine a little brighter on these men and women.
Here is a little holiday guide to what we already know about some key races.
Back in July, David discussed the future San Antonio Mayor's race. Super popular Mayor, Phil Hardberger is term limited, which usually creates the political climate apt for a lot of candidates to get in one race (just think U.S. Senate race if Kay Bailey steps down).
David wrote almost 5 months ago that Julián Castro, Diane Cibrian and Fernando Reyes were all eyeing the race.
Speculation was almost proven right. To date, PR consultant Trish DeBerry, Former Councilman Julian Castro, and Councilwoman Diane Cibrian have all entered the race.
Julian Castro is the favorite in this race.
Castro first ran in 2005 and lost by about 3,000 votes after being down over 10,000 in Early Vote. Castro closed the margin, ran a tough campaign, and made a strong case for his vision for the city and his qualification.
Beyond campaign experience, Castro is the only candidate with a website and the site includes video endorsements from San Antonio State Senator Leticia Van de Putte and Henry Cisneros. Two high profile endorsements in a low turnout election.
For more information about San Antonio politics and San Antonio races, visit Dig Deeper Texas and check out their fine work or the aptly titled San Antonio Mayor Blog.
While the race for Mayor of San Antonio seems cut and dry, the races in Austin seem to be crowded and confusing.
By statute, city council places 2, 5, 6, and the Mayor's office are all up and voters will have to cast a vote in all of them. In addition to these , place 1 may be vacated by Lee Leffingwell if he chooses to run for Mayor. This will create an interesting dynamic since the only two people not running and not on the ballot are newly elected council members Laura Morrison and Randi Shade.
While place 2 and 6 are on the ballot, no serious candidates have emerged to take on either Mike Martinez or Sheryl Cole.
In the place 5 race, Brewster McCracken's current seat, only one candidate has emerged, former city council member and current UT Professor, Bill Spelman.
Spelman already appears to have a large and diverse coalition of supporters surrounding him. It is hard to imagine any candidates trying to challenge Spelman and its even harder to imagine Spelman losing.
While places 2, 5, and 6 already seem to have front-runners, place 1 and the race for Mayor are totally up in the air.
The irony to this is, place 1 isn't on the ballot unless Lee Leffingwell decides to vacate it and run for Mayor and unless Lee runs for Mayor, a lot of candidates won't have a place to run.
Let's start with the assumption Lee Leffingwell runs for Mayor (as is suspected), then the place 1 race looks like it will be Chris Riley, Perla Cavazos, Rick Cofer, and Kathy Tovo. Not quite as easy to manage as the place 5 race, but still interesting.
This race nearly guarantees a runoff. With four candidates who draw from 4 distinct, unique bases it hard to see how anyone will win this in the first round. It also means endorsements and supporters will have a massive impact. Not to mention the always-important fundraising numbers. Unlike any other race, this one is wide open.
Of course, the campaign for place 1 hinges entirely on who runs for Mayor.
Even in the exploring phase, Strayhorn's past is hurting her. It's hard to see how Strayhorn wins even with a small, more conservative electorate. As KT once pointed out, looking at her Governors bid, her base is 21% of the general election vote. This electorate will be closer to 50,000 people and even with a smaller voting population its hard to see how Strayhorn gets to 50% plus 1.
Especially with Mayor Pro Tem McCracken running and former Texas Monthly editor Mike Levy.
While the field is predictably crowded, it is also diverse. No two candidates appear to have similar backgrounds or messages. Leffingwell and McCracken get close, but their priorities in the council have differed. Leffingwell has been an environmental leader and Brewster has focused on women's issues. It's an over simplification, but shows the contrast in policy priorities.
If Facebook groups and supporter lists are any indication on who the front runners are, this race is between Leffingwell and McCracken.
All in all, the city council races look to be very interesting this year.
