Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

February 26th, 2020:

UH Senate poll: Hegar leads, the rest scramble

Day Two of the UH Hobby School of Public Affairs poll, and a second result showing that MJ Hegar is in a strong position to make the primary runoff for Senate.

MJ Hegar

Hegar, a Round Rock Democrat who narrowly lost a 2018 Congressional race to incumbent Republican John Carter, is the best-known candidate among the crowded field. Still, more than half of voters said they did not know enough about her to have an opinion. Those numbers were even higher for the other 11 candidates.

Among people who indicated a preference in the race, Hegar was the top choice of 41%, more than three times the vote preference for state Sen. Royce West of Dallas, at 12.3%. Chris Bell, a former Houston city councilman and congressman, was in third place with support from 10.8% of voters, while Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez was fourth, with 8.3%.

The other eight candidates were led by Annie Garcia and Michael Cooper, each with 5.4%; Amanda Edwards with 5.0%; and Sema Hernandez with 4.5%

Renée Cross, senior director of the Hobby School, said the Senate race has been overshadowed by the Democratic presidential primary. And having a dozen candidates hasn’t made it easier for voters to sort out the Democratic Senate race.

“Texas Democrats were optimistic about their chances against Republican Sen. John Cornyn, especially after Beto O’Rourke came close against Ted Cruz in 2018,” she said. “But with so many candidates, it’s been hard for anyone to stand out.”

The poll, conducted between Feb. 6 and Feb. 18 among likely Democratic primary voters, found Hegar leading across all geographic areas of the state except for the border – although Bell came close in the Houston area – and across most generational, racial and ethnic groups. West drew more support from African Americans with 28.5%, compared to 18.1% for Hegar.

The full report is here, and the Hobby School landing page for their 2020 primary polling is here. I reported on their Presidential primary polling here.

I kind of hate the way they presented the data in that writeup, because it’s the result of an adjustment to the raw data that’s not clear unless you read this closely. Basically, what they did was take the initial response numbers, then recalculate them after throwing out the non-respondents. This has the effect of almost doubling everyone’s totals. They did this in the Presidential poll too, it’s just that there were just far fewer of these “don’t know/nobody” respondents, so the effect was much smaller. In the raw numbers, as you can see on that full report link, Hegar led with 22% (Table 2, page 3), followed by West at 6.6% and Bell at 5.8&, then the rest in proportionate amounts. It doesn’t change the big picture – Hegar has a significant lead, which is the same result that the UT/Trib poll got, with numbers similar to the raw totals here – it just looks funny.

To be fair, some adjustment is reasonable, because it really is the case that a non-trivial number of people who will vote in the primary will not vote in the non-Presidential races, as we discussed before. My estimate of the dropoff rate is around 25%, so if we assume everyone in the Hobby sample will vote in the Presidential race, more than half of those “don’t know/no one” respondents will still pick someone in the Senate race. You could take a crack at extrapolating from there, but honestly, I’d have just left it – and reported it – as it was. Like I said, the basic story was accurate. Why fudge around like that?

What is “safe”?

Saw this on Twitter, and it got me thinking:

AOC isn’t the only person I’ve observed referring to CD28 as “safe” Democratic. This WaPo story from 2019, reprinted in the Trib, calls CD28 “a strongly Democratic district…which gave the president just 38.5 percent of the vote in 2016”. This DMN story has a subhed that calls CD28 “Vast and overwhelmingly Democratic district”, and notes that “Trump lost here by 20 percentage points”. The American Prospect is a bit more circumspect, saying CD28 is “a safely (though not extremely) blue district, with a +9 Democratic lean”, and also noting the 20-point margin for Clinton over Trump in 2016.

But 2016 isn’t the only election we’ve ever had, and the Clinton-Trump matchup isn’t the only data point available. Here’s a broader look at the recent electoral history in CD28:


Year  Candidate    Votes    Pct
===============================
2012  Obama      101,843  60.2%
2012  Romney      65,372  38.6%
2012  Sadler      90,481  55.1%
2012  Cruz        68,096  41.5%
2012  Hampton     93,996  58.5%
2012  Keller      61,954  38.6%

2014  Alameel     41,901  46.6%
2014  Cornyn      42,010  46.7%
2014  Davis       48,451  52.7%
2014  Abbott      41,335  45.0%
2014  Granberg    45,658  51.7%
2014  Richardson  38,775  43.9%

2016  Clinton    109,973  57.8%
2016  Trump       72,479  38.1%
2016  Robinson    95,348  52.6%
2016  Guzman      77,590  42.8%
2016  Burns      102,778  57.1%
2016  Keasler     69,501  38.6%

2018  Beto        97,728  58.7%
2018  Cruz        67,483  40.5%
2018  Valdez      87,007  52.7%
2018  Abbott      75,939  46.0%
2018  Jackson     94,479  58.3%
2018  Keller      63,559  39.2%

Yes, in 2014, John Cornyn topped David Alameel in CD28. To my mind, if it is possible for a candidate of the other party to beat a candidate of your own party in a given district, that district is by definition not “safe”. It’s true that in Presidential years, most Democrats win CD28 comfortably, with the closest call being a win by just under 10 points. But in off years, even factoring out the crapshow that was the Alameel campaign, Dems generally win CD28 by smaller margins.

None of this is to say that CD28 is a swing district. It’s not, and I have no reason to be concerned about it in 2020. But if Trump-versus-Clinton-in-2016 is the gold standard here, I’ll point out that of the six districts Dems are targeting this year, four of them (CDs 02, 10, 22, and 31) were won by Trump by larger margins than Wendy Davis won CD28 by in 2014 and Lupe Valdez won it by in 2018. Different years, different conditions, and different candidates may provide a different perspective.

Another way of looking at this is to see how Democratic CD28 is compared to other Congressional districts represented by Democrats:


Dist  Clinton    Beto
=====================
CD07    48.2%   53.3%
CD32    48.4%   54.9%
CD15    56.2%   57.4%
CD28    57.8%   58.7%
CD34    59.1%   57.7%
CD20    60.2%   66.2%

All other Dem-held districts were at least 63% for Clinton and 70% for Beto. Again, none of this is to say that CD28 is vulnerable. Whoever wins the CD28 primary will be the strong favorite, like 99%+, to win it in November. This is not a comment on that race, but on public perception and objective reality. It’s why I generally try not to make blanket statements like “safe district” but try instead to put a number or two on it, so you have some context to my evaluation. I doubt anyone will adopt this as their style guide, but it’s very much how I prefer to operate.

And I have to say, I might have let this go by if I hadn’t also seen this little gem in the Chronicle story on the announced resignation of State Sen. Kirk Watson:

Abbott soon will have to schedule a special election for the remainder of Watson’s four-year term, which ends in 2022. Watson’s District 14, which mostly lies in Austin, leans Democratic.

“Leans Democratic”??? Here’s that same set of numbers for Watson’s SD14:


Year  Candidate    Votes    Pct
===============================
2012  Obama      193,112  60.2%
2012  Romney     116,001  36.1%
2012  Sadler     187,717  59.4%
2012  Cruz       109,877  34.7%
2012  Hampton    181,614  59.1%
2012  Keller     106,581  34.7%

2014  Alameel    123,058  56.2%
2014  Cornyn      80,818  36.9%
2014  Davis      140,602  63.3%
2014  Abbott      75,206  33.9%
2014  Granberg   127,108  59.7%
2014  Richardson  73,267  34.4%

2016  Clinton    249,999  65.3%
2016  Trump      106,050  27.7%
2016  Robinson   218,449  58.8%
2016  Guzman     124,165  33.4%
2016  Burns      223,599  60.8%
2016  Keasler    120,727  32.8%

2018  Beto       289,357  73.8%
2018  Cruz        98,589  25.1%
2018  Valdez     257,708  66.3%
2018  Abbott     119,889  30.9%
2018  Jackson    264,575  69.4%
2018  Keller     104,375  27.4%

LOL. SD14 “leans” Democratic in the same way that a wrecking ball leans against the side of a building. Data is your friend, people. Use the data. I know I’m tilting against windmills here, but at least you can see why I noticed that tweet.

MLB, Astros, Red Sox respond to DraftKings lawsuit over sign stealing

It’s motion to dismiss time.

Did not age well

As baseball’s electronic sign-stealing case joins the long list of sports-related court cases, attorneys for the the Astros, Red Sox and Major League Baseball all say that while fantasy sports bettors may be angered by rules violations, that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to monetary damages as a result of cheating.

All three parties filed responses late last week in a proposed class action case filed in a New York City federal court against the two teams and MLB over purported damages resulting from the 2017-18 sign-stealing scandal.

The two cases filed in New York have effectively been rolled into one case as bettors have joined forces against the MLB entities.

All three responses to the lawsuit filed by DraftKings customers cite court decisions in such past brouhahas as the New England Patriots’ “Spygate” case in 2010, boxer Mike Tyson’s ear-biting assault upon Evander Holyfield in 1997 and the New Orleans Saints’ “Bountygate” scandal of 2009-11 in asking U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff to dismiss this case.
“Every court that has been faced with similar claims by disappointed fans … has soundly rejected such a claim recognizing that these types of issues are best resolved on the field and not in the courtroom,” attorneys for MLB wrote. “The same result should obtain here.”

In similar fashion, attorneys for the Astros wrote that fans “have no express or implied right to an event free of penalties, undisclosed injuries, rules violations, cheating or similar conduct. … There is no legal claim for a violation of a sports league’s internal rules.”

See here for the background, and here for more sign-stealing-lawsuit stuff. A copy of the Astros’ motion to dismiss is in the story. I don’t have anything to add to this, but if you’d like to hear an actual lawyer give real lawyer-like opinions and analysis of the various sign-stealing lawsuits and their merits, I recommend you listen to this episode of Effectively Wild, which will give you a firm footing on the subject. Courthouse News and the Associated Press have more.

2020 Primary Early Voting, Day Eight: It starts to turn upward

Here’s the Day Eight report for 2020, and here are the totals from 2012, 2016, and 2018. The totals after Day Four:


Year    Mail    Early    Total
==============================
2012   5,695   16,671   22,366
2016  10,970   34,419   45,389
2018  12,914   36,185   49,099
2020  18,503   54,325   72,828

2012  12,705   34,660   47,365
2016  16,435   49,702   66,137
2018  15,512   32,402   47,914
2020  19,690   47,271   66,961

Another best day for the Dems, who put a bit of space between themselves and the Republicans. I don’t have any brilliant insight beyond that, but we’re headed for a big finish. Have you voted yet?