I'll be honest -- I've ripped Burka apart many times on BOR. Two years ago we nailed the elections, and he didn't so much. Yesterday, he predicted 76-74 Republican (I picked the same, for Democrats), and he was right.
Notably, he had the Barret/Garcia races nailed down. I learned what a huge difference it is between making predictions while living in the middle of it all (like I was in 2006) and making predictions when I just have to have phone conversations and e-mail exchanges. It's harder to detect when smoke is being blown up my ass over the phone -- which happened with my understandings of the Barret, Garcia, & Dippel races (Dippel's Bastrop County turnout never took off like the numbers predicted).
The only person who was most honest with me, not surprisingly, was my favorite consultant, Ed Martin (yes, relation). Alas...sons can still be stubborn and pretend they know more than their fathers. Some things never change.
Before I give Burka too much credit, I'll go ahead and say that I did call the Davis/Brimer race, and my Presidential predictions were much closer. But the TX House was the real fight, and he did better by 2. Of course, if Bob Romano flips...we'll also be tied. Funny? Ironic? Nobody cares, do they? Anyways...
Congratulations on the picks, Paul. But don't worry -- I'll keep poking you with a big stick because that's how I show respect to those I may often disagree with. Which leads me to an analysis of the Speaker's race...
...starting tomorrow. Today -- I mean, come on. OBAMA! OBAMA!
Earlier, KT, Matt and I compared and contrasted the "old media voodoo predictions and new media facts and analysis" styles of making predictions on Texas House races. Our fundamental problem was that the old media -- and the old consultant class, which is apparently who Burka was talking to -- use terrible, terrible logic and analysis at looking at House races. They are thinking about things as if we still lived in the 1980's.
Many Democrats, though, believe that research and facts should dictate analysis and predictions.
The Lone Star Project has, for the past few years, done excellent work on fact-based research and analysis. Matt Angle, director of the Lone Star Project, shared with me how they analyze House races -- and it is really quite interesting.
Lone Star Project's Advanced Analysis Structures for Analyzing Races
First of all, I must impress on our readers that this is just the "top line" analysis numbers. There is a much, much, much more sophisticated voter identification processes that goes into all of this -- but that's not we're talking about. This is the "top line", or the basics, as to how the Lone Star Project uses fact-based research and analysis to predict House races, and Angle shares it with us as a learning tool for our community:
From Matt Angle, in an e-mail he sent me earlier today (edited for easier reading):
Our straightforward, “top line” analysis starts with
An expected vote calculated by the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC), after consultation with the Lone Star Project. NCEC uses advanced statistical models to predict the expected vote down to the precinct level. Some obvious key elements of their calculation are the number of eligible voters, the number of registered voters, demographics and historical turnout patterns.
The Lone Star Project takes the NCEC projected vote to calculate our 2008 win number.
We build toward a win number by stacking the votes Kerry received in 2004 with the 2008 Democratic primary voters who did not vote in 2004. This calculation combines a realistic and conservative base performance (Kerry in 04) with the likely benefit a Democratic candidate will receive from the improved political environment and new Democratic participation in 2008.
Compare that with the models that Burka is repeating, which I guess is being spread by Republicans. Not even close, huh?
Angle also shared four PDF models for the four races Burka listed in his post. To see how much better of an analysis the LSP (and even BOR) has in comparison to what Burka shared, here are links to the relevant analysis from all three of us:
HD 96 - Democrat Chris Turner vs. Republican Rep. Bill Zedler
We post this to show how much better it is to use real numbers and real statistics to determine predictions -- and how being public and accountable, as Angle has done today and as we at BOR always strive to do -- is better than using ridiculous models from Austin insiders, like Burka has done.
All the more reason to believe Democrats are much, much more organized and prepared to win this year.
P.S. If you like the analysis of the Lone Star Project -- or are at least thankful for them openly sharing their top-line analysis like this -- feel free to donate some dollars to their cause.
There are many ways you can pick who will win elections.
Here at Burnt Orange Report, we recently picked a lot of them -- you can read about them in our Burnt Orange Political Report. We collected research, posted that research on pages for everyone to see our resources, evaluated the data, and made predictions on fifteen local State House races. Some of the factual data and analytical resources we used included:
Campaign finance reports
Recent voter turnout levels
Past election results
Field & GOTV accomplishments & strategies of a campaign
Parallel county or issue-based campaigns in the district
News coverage & endorsements from newspapers and local groups
Conversations with political experts, consultants, and volunteers
Ultimately, in addition to publishing our resources and giving detailed analysis for why we made our predictions, we felt that we created clear lines of argument and gave you, the reader, the ability to fairly judge both our predictions and what content we used as the basis of our predictions.
That's the new media way -- fact-based analysis, and accountability.
Unfortunately, others predict House races using new inventions of magical voodoo politics, a sin found often amongst the old media. Take, for example, the well-known political reporter and columnist for Texas Monthly, Paul Burka.
In a post titled, "The Predictor," he chooses to share with his readers -- even though he qualifies sharing this information by saying, "no warranties, expressed or implied" -- a uniquely bizarre method of predicting elections:
The idea is to determine whether Democrats have a chance to win certain races, based on primary turnout of the two parties and Obama’s percentage in the presidential primary.
Oh wait -- that's it. We weighted at least seven key variables, and presented arguments for each prediction, and shared our resources so we could be held accountable. Burka, however, says looking at two sets of numbers from March will tell you all you need to know:
Take Michael “Tuffy” Hamilton.
Republican primary turnout in the district: 4,714 = 6.2% of registered voters
Democratic primary turnout in the district: 25,465 = 33.4% of registered voters
Looks pretty good for the Democrats, right? But: only 22.9% of Democrats voted for Obama in the presidential primary.
Conclusion: mostly white conservative voters. Hamilton wins.
Here are just three of the first obvious questions that spring to mind:
How much weight is given to party primary turnout, and how much weight is given to % of Democrats who voted in the primary?
At what cutoff points of this weighted average is a race classified as leaning towards one candidate or a toss-up? ...and, then of course...
How is the conclusion of those first two questions mostly white conservative voters?!?!
Burka has made the choice, as one of the most respected political writers in Texas, to share it on his blog. Is this what passes as analysis worth sharing on a blog from the most respected political writer in Texas? Who cares if a guarantee is "not expressed or implied" -- this is what the best of the old media has got?
Finally -- just because 80% of Democratic voters didn't vote for Obama in the primary, they must be voters that either wouldn't support another Democrat on the ticket or would vote for a Republican? Right? That's the only way Hamilton "overcomes" that primary turnout gap, based on Burka's post (if you can follow this dizzying logic so far). Which leaves us asking:
Is the implication of this logic that none of those 80% of Democratic voters that didn't support Obama in the primary could be Hispanic voters -- they must all be white?
Is the implication of this logic that Clinton supporters couldn't be among that 80% -- that they are so mad at Obama that, even though they supported Clinton, they wouldn't support a Democrat down ticket?
Is the implication of this logic that 80% of the Democratic primary voters in this district are all white "conservative" men that so don't want to vote for a Black man that -- either by switching parties in the primary to vote against him or as Democrats who refuse to vote for him in the general -- they'll either not vote for a Democrat, just like always, or vote for a Republican in the district just to spite Obama?
That's the kind of logic and analysis that the old media wants to share? Wait, that's not a question. That's the kind of logic and analysis that the old media wants to share!!!
If that's the kind of logic and detail of reporting that is required in order to become the esteemed guard of the old political media, then we're happy to be known as the kid bloggers.
P.S. Burka is still trying to pass off this analysis as "not mine" in comments to his post:
This is not my model. It is a model that is being used to analyze the races by serious people with a stake in the battle for control of the House — a tool to determine Republican vulnerability. Take it or leave it. It’s nonsense to say that this is “racial stereotyping.” It’s just numbers.
No, Paul, that's not how it works. You have to accept responsibility for what you post and choose to share.
Ifsomething is "just numbers" and you don't really believe it's worth a grain of salt, then don't post it. Develop your own better analysis, or just make your own predictions and give arguments we can all talk about.
I believe that [politics] works best when opposing sides seek common ground rather than ideological polarization. I believe that there are always two agendas -- a partisan ideological agenda and a permanent agenda of the major issues facing a state or a nation -- and that in order for the majority to govern successfully, both must be addressed.
Just as President Bush failed to unite Washington and instead ended up contributing to its divisiveness, so Mr. Obama will eventually have to accept that conflict, rather than unity, is the natural condition of politics. [. . .] In general, however, the nature of American politics is, and should be, adversarial.
Burka actually makes an excellent point in his op-ed: that our electoral system is inherently divisive and that the job of the party out of power is not to govern, but to provide an alternative to the status quo and convince the electorate to put them back into power.
But that's not what conventional wisdom peddlers like Burka have been saying for the past five years when, to give just one example, describing the '06 school finance legislation as a "responsible resolution of a crisis" as opposed to the right-wing, "starve the beast",Grover Norquist-inspired tax legislation that it actually was. Hopefully, now that Mr. Burka has called out Senator Obama regarding the relationship between partisanship and ideology, he'll consistently apply the same standard (and provide no cover of "responsibility") to the extremistswho have beenrunning state government for the past five years.
I thank Paul Burka for taking the time to respond to my earlier post suggesting he held a fondness for authority that made him overly critical of the impolite disruptions of power that are sometimes necessary to restore balance in a popular democracy.
I have enormous respect for Paul's knowledge of Texas politics, and while I know some BOR readers disagree, Paul's opinions are important and influential, and his response is worth noting. Whether you are a fan of Paul's or not, I believe he here aims at a simple political philosophy we should embrace.
I am amused to see Glenn's statement that "authority and power" are "everything" to me. In fact, the opposite is true. I believe in the diffusion of power. Within weeks after I first began to work in the Legislature, I came to realize that checks and balances, so boring when you read about them in textbooks, define everything that takes place in the Capitol. I have been extremely critical of Governor Perry's efforts to expand his power at the expense of the Legislature, as I have been of Speaker Craddick's efforts to centralize power in the speakers office at the expense of the members. I am for the legislature against the executive and for the members against the chairs of the House and Senate. The objective of legislative government is to allow the expression of the will of the body, not the will of the leader.
If those are Paul's sentiments, I wholeheartedly endorse them.
It is my view that the current Republican leadership in Austin and Washington is unalterably opposed to the diffusion of power. It is the concentration power and the wealth it brings them that they cherish most. Furthermore, this hunger for power has for too long been hidden in the sheep's clothing of "family values" or "government run like a business." Sometimes it's not even disguised. Conservative intellectuals like Judge Richard Posner argue against popular democracy and for elite rule. Posner even worries that increased political participation would distract citizens from their most important duty: buying things to support the consumer economy. (It's in his book, "Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy.")
Texas Monthly's Paul Burka is suddenly quoting Coleridge and Thomas Wolfe, so perhaps he won't mind me comparing him to the English reactionary Edmund Burke. Burke, of course, used the excesses of the French Revolution to justify his attacks on popular democracy. Authority and power were everything to Burke, as they are to my friend Paul Burka.
Burka hated Ardmore, he hates last night's walk out, I suspect he would have condemned Gandhi for his civil disobedience. Progressives often want to scream at Paul because of his longtime relationships with Bill Messer and other lobbyists. But that's not fair. Paul does a good job, as Edmund Burke did, advocating a kind of elite rule in which the mechanisms of popular democracy are there for show and not to be taken as true empowerment of the people.
Let me just say, criticizing anyone for getting in the face of Tom Craddick, who has now dismantled House rules and warped the Texas Constitution to suit his fantasies of power, betrays Paul's devotion to elite blocks of power. Burka is not alone in this conception of democracy, and I don't condone shrill, anti-Burka attacks that miss the point that his is not all that unusual a bias. He means well. So did Burke. They are just dreadfully wrong.
(Grits points out that there is still a chance to save the Innocence Commission. Far be it from us to point out procedural methods that could be used to save this bill if it truly has the support to pass. - promoted by Burnt Orange Report)
Burnt Orange Report has received some attention this past week.
With only a week left in the 80th Legislative Session, rumors are still flying that any day now, Speaker Craddick will become just another Rep. Paul Burka and this community did not necessarily see eye to eye on who should be the next Speaker of the House or the events that may lead to that. While we disagreed with Burka on the Speakers race, we did not remove a link to his site.
Rep. Aaron Pena on the other hand, did just that. After we reported on a bill lagging in committee, Rep. Pena heard the bill. Sadly, that bill was killed, but at least the vote was held before a procedural deadline killed it without a vote. It would have been inappropriate for us to ignore this legislation considering it was referred to a committee packed with Democrats and lead by a Democratic Chair (Pena) and Vice-chair, and supported by Democratic leaders in the Senate. Rep. Pena has decided that he will remove his link to us from his site. That's his choice, but we see no reason to engage in such pettiness.
Sure, we are saddened that Rep. Pena blames us for the death of SB 263 (odd considering we aren't the chair of the committee that was supposed to pass the bill). In this case, Burnt Orange Report and Grits for Breakfast could only shine light on his bill as we could not vote on it for them. If we could have, Rep. Pena and the people of Texas would have had two more aye votes last week and maybe an Innocence Commission.
Sometimes we disagree. That's part of politics and it's certainly part of blogging. It is not our job to be complacent or accept the good because we do not want to fight for the perfect. If there is an opportunity to fight for something better, then that is what we will do.
As staff members at the capitol, campaign operatives, former elected officials, and pundits, Burnt Orange Writers are more than just the UT Students who started this blog. We have political agendas and electoral priorities. Here at Burnt Orange Report we will continue to support Democrats and progressive positions.
With only one full week left of this session and an interesting election cycle on the horizon, we promise to continue to do what is right regardless of whether it is popular. That's a promise.
With Keffer publicly campaigning to not only vacate the chair, but also eyeing the big prize for himself, it got us wondering, isn't this the same guy who stood shoulder to shoulder with Tom Craddick in Janurary?
One of Keffer's own press releases sums it up best.
The spirited race for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives has raised some interesting questions by Republican and Democrat members and members-elect about the future of this fine institution.
[…]
First, I strongly support the reelection of Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick. Why? Because in order to have a successful process, such as School Reform and Property Tax Relief, we need loyalty and leadership; and I firmly believe our legislative body has accomplished landmark legislation under the leadership of Speaker Craddick.
[…]
Because of his past successes, I am confident in Speaker Craddick's ability to meet this new challenge; therefore, I respectfully ask my colleagues to consider and support his reelection to a third term. .
That seems bold, but it gets better. On January 7, 2007, days before the big vote, Keffer actually attacked his fellow Republicans in order to defend Craddick. In a release submitted to Quorum Report, Keffer states that Craddick had the votes and Republican's to vote for Craddick.
Speaker Craddick has more than enough pledges to win the Speaker's race on Tuesday. My fellow Republican colleagues Geren and Keumpel were not among those counted on his list. The bluffs, exaggerations, and failed press conference claims have proven that when all is said and done, there will be more said, than done by our opponents.
I have encouraged Speaker Craddick to adjust to the new session and our new Texas House membership with a new approach to achieve broader bipartisanship and regional inclusion which will enhance the representation of each legislator's respective district.
Because of his past successes, I am confident in Speaker Craddick's ability to meet this new challenge and I respectfully ask my colleagues who are still undecided to consider his re-election to a third term. Like all the other members who have pledged to Tom, I will vote for Speaker Craddick on Tuesday, January 9th.
Not to mention a statement signed December 26, 2006 along with other Chairman saying, "[Craddick] is known for fairness and making tough decisions, qualities that are indispensable to the House of Representatives. His critics can't attack his honesty, his character or his accomplishments. We know that without Tom's unwavering focus the many accomplishments that we have achieved during the last two regular sessions and numerous special sessions would not have been possible."
Keffer clearly sees there is blood in the water and is making a run at Craddick not because it is good for Texas, but because it is good for Jim Keffer. We will continue to look into Keffer as the day progresses.
The rumors abound are that Jim Keffer might be most openly making the rounds, but there isn't a single member in the House that doesn't want to be speaker. Is Keffer the best choice to represent every Texan? Probably not, but Keffers open campaigning is a clear sign that the House is influx.
Could make for an interesting couple of weeks.
UPDATE: The speculation post:
Latest word is the confirmation that if they can get the votes, they definitely will do this and probably Monday and no later than Thursday.
UPDATE: Just found this comment on Burka's blog very interesting.
...in 1996 when Mr. Keffer was first elected he filled out the National Political Awareness Test offered by the bipartisan Project Vote Smart. On the question that asked, "Please indicate the changes you will support (if any) concerning Texas' tax levels for the following categories" he indicated for the category on "Business Taxes" that they should be "Greatly Decreased." However, Mr. Keffer was the primary author of the tax bill in the most recent special session and during the current legislative session, he has adjusted that bill by GREATLY INCREASING taxes on Texas businesses. All the while, Mr. Keffer's own business - EBBA Iron, Inc. - has been targeted for huge tax breaks based on his tax legislation.
It isn't often that I agree with Paul Burka, but today is a day I will gladly stand up and say, "Mr Burka, I salute you."
His most recent entry sums up what Burnt Orange would like to see:
The time has come for Tom Craddick to resign as Speaker of the House.
Craddick has been instrumental in removing the Republican Party from public discourse and has instead opted to have the party sell itself to the highest bidder. When Craddick needs something, like a vote to give a pharmacist the right to deny you a legally obtained, physician prescription, he threatens you with your seat and promises to get Republican mega-donors and part time sugar daddies James Leininger and Bob Perry involved in your opposition.
How has this strategy worked for the House Republican's?
