Another look at Carole Strayhorn's entrance as an Independent in the Governor's race. This time from Bob Gammage's long time media consultant, Dean Rindy. Dean is a well respected political consultant but of course he wrote this for public consumption and it should be read that way.

"TO: BOB GAMMAGE CAMPAIGN FROM: Dean Rindy Re: Strayhorn Creates Immense Opportunity for Democrats

Overnight Carole Keeton Strayhorn has created an exciting investment opportunity for Democratic contributors---the best opportunity in a decade.

Suddenly the Governor’s race is winnable­ but not for Strayhorn.

Strayhorn’s Private Meetings

Strayhorn has been meeting privately with major Democratic donors around Texas, trying to raise a campaign kitty of $20 million. I have talked to people who have been briefed on these meetings. Strayhorn is touting a poll which she says demonstrates that, running as an independent, she would beat Perry, Chris Bell and Kinky Friedman for Governor. (The poll was conducted in December, before Bob Gammage announced, so he wasn’t included in the trial heat.)

Her poll confirms the theory that Friedman will fade away into single digits with Strayhorn in the race as an independent. She simply sucks the air out of Kinky’s message, hogs the media spotlight, steps on his story line, and makes it very difficult for him to attract significant numbers of Perot type conservatives. Kinky will have to go after Democrats, and a strong Democratic candidate will make that very difficult. On the issues Kinky is a bland centrist who doesn’t offer much to a progressive constituency.

In her presentation to donors Strayhorn offers the caveat that if the Democratic candidate for Governor gets a million or two for TV in the last week, he will pull enough Democrats back into the fold to defeat her. Strayhorn’s spin is that this would hand the election to Perry. A more objective view is that it would allow the Democrat to win. A major part of Strayhorn’s private mission is to dry up money for Democratic candidates. This is actually a grave admission of her fundamental weakness, for it reveals how fragile her poll numbers really are.

At the present moment she can do well against a weak unknown like Chris Bell, or if Democratic voters see her as the only alternative to Perry....but that will change dramatically once a Democratic candidate receives the millions of dollars worth of free publicity that comes from merely winning the Democratic primary. If the nominee is a real Democrat, like Bob Gammage, who excites the party’s base, then it is a new ball game and fundamental electoral forces come into play. If Strayhorn and Perry cut each other up, and if Bob Gammage holds the Democratic base, we can win.

The Lay of the Land

In 1992 George Bush Sr. carried Texas with 41%. Clinton got 38%, Perot 22%.

Bush Sr. barely scraped by in that election, and Rick Perry is not a George Bush. Perry is a lot more vulnerable in the state. His performance ratings and trial heats have been well below 50% in every poll for the last year, which often foretells death for an incumbent. While Perry is no Bush, Strayhorn is no Perot.

Her image as an independent is much weaker than Perot’s, and it will be extremely easy to discredit her with Democratic voters. This is a woman whose announcement speech opened with the words, “I am a Republican,” and closed with “I love George Bush.” Her son, Scott, is Bush’s chief flack. Buried in news archives around Texas are rich troves of nasty quotes she has delivered about Democrats in very recent years. And she has an additional problem. Strayhorn cannot use this year’s most effective issue--the culture of corruption in the Republican machine, because she’s been part of it herself.

The Democratic Base

Thirty-eight percent is a good, conservative indicator of the Democratic Base vote. Clinton won 38%. Kerry got 38.2% in 2004, and Gore got 38% in 2000. Down-ballot Democrats with no money finish in that neighborhood or a little below in statewide races.

In non-presidential years Democrats have done BETTER.

Perry won 58% in 2002, while Sanchez got 40%. In 2002 Sharp got 46% for Lt. Gov; Ron Kirk got 43.6% for U.S. Senate. Other down-ballot Democrats in 2002­unknown and unfinanced--- came in below 40. Obviously circumstances, previous name I.D., or TV advertising can lift a Democrat above the party’s base numbers.

Strayhorn’s Impossible Math

Here’s the math. For Strayhorn to reach the high 30’s in total statewide vote, she has to win almost HALF of all the voters who voted for Kerry and Sanchez (That gets her to about 19-20 percent of the total vote). Then, she also needs to pull nearly ONE-THIRD of the voters who chose Bush and Perry (which would get her up to 38-40% of the total vote). THERE IS NO WAY THAT CAN HAPPEN. There is no way Strayhorn is going to win half of all Democratic voters while winning one-third of all Republicans.

If there is any kind of credible Democrat in the race, Strayhorn will get no minority votes, no White liberals (as in Houston and Travis County), and no Democratic loyalists. The Party has been purified down to its base. The people who might defect already did so some time ago. Strayhorn’s best potential targets are moderate conservative, Republican-voting “independents” and moderate Republicans who can’t stomach Rick Perry. These are the people who gave Perot 22% in 1992. They are not enough.

If somebody starts talking about the large share of self declared “Independents,” in our electorate, (as much as 24% in the 2004 exit polls) tell them to sit down and catch their breath. Any pollster will tell you that most self-identified “independents” are actually partisan and are usually inclined Republican or Democratic. Less than 10% of Texas voters, if that, are truly “independent.” So the best measure of voter potential is to actually look at the way the total vote for party candidates has gone in recent elections.

Strayhorn’s poll is an artificial universe, frozen in time, which assumes a zombie-like quietude from the Democrats and an ineffective attack campaign from Perry. Neither of those assumptions will hold true.

The Logic of the Situation

So it’s 1992 again---Clinton, Bush, Perot. And we’re Clinton. He won nationally, but didn’t quite get over the top in Texas; we can. Money will come into the race from national Democratic sources who see the fantastic opportunity here. If Democratic funders in Texas contribute, even modestly, we can be competitive.

Ordinarily you would need at least $20 million to run for Governor in Texas. But this is not an ordinary time, and a Democrat can win with less than half that. We can spend money three times as effectively as normal campaigns, because we only have to target advertising at our base, which is all we need to be competitive in a multi-candidate free-for-all. Our advertising dollars can be spent far more economically than our opponents’. And our message is much simpler.

Here’s the logic of the situation. Strayhorn will probably launch a TV campaign, perhaps fairly soon, to reestablish her positive identity and explain her new “independent” role. She cannot win, however, by being nice. Strayhorn has to attack Perry in order to win. Perry has to crush Strayhorn, the earlier the better, to stop her from gaining momentum. It is quite likely that we will see a $30 million bloodbath.

While the two dinosaurs thrash about in the jungle, we can remain relatively unscathed for the mid part of the campaign year. We will hammer home our message to hold our base, while looking far cleaner than our two Republican rivals. Perry will wake up as we begin to move, and start to attack us, but it will be too late. He and Strayhorn will be damaged goods, we will have outflanked Kinky on progressive issues. We will hold our base, we will pick up some votes in the disillusioned center. And we will win.

Dean Rindy Rindy Miller Media www.rindymiller.com "