I don't think we will win by attacking Kinky

[jobycom]

This is meant only as a comment on strategy, not a criticism of anyone's methods or messages or posts or anything else.

I've seen a lot of lists, like "Ten reasons not to vote for Kinky," and they are convincing, but it seems to me that they won't help us a lot in a three- or four-way race. Here's why. When you have one opponent, you can trash him, convince everyone he is the devil, and voters will either stay at home or choose you by default. BushCo are masters at that style of campaigning, and have almost won two presidential elections by doing it.

It doesn't work that way in a three way race. You can convince people to hate one of your opponents, and they might vote for you, or stay home, or they might vote for the third candidate. Two of those three possibilities don't help in a three-way race. Throw One Tough Grandma in the mix, and you are even less likely to benefit. Of course, you could try to mud-sling against all of your opponents, but at some point you will find that you are only being negative, and that will turn people off to you more than to the other guys.

As we saw in 92, a negative campaign like Bush's doesn't necessarily help the negative campaigner. Bush chased some voters away from Clinton, and they went to Perot instead. Perot campaigned against both Bush and Clinton. The only one running a positive campaign, focusing on what he would do instead of what the other person would do, was Clinton. He won.

My only point here is that Bell's--and probably our--best strategy would be to talk about what all Chris Bell can do. We need to create a positive image of Bell, make people who are on the fence want to live in a state governed the way Bell will govern. We need to make Chris Bell the one people feel best about when Perry and Kinky and OTG ae beating each other up. While those three are squabbling, Bell should be talking about the positive changes he can bring. Better employment. Actual, rather than phantom, lower taxes. Better services for the taxes we pay. An educational system that makes us the envy of the nation, rather than a running Aggie joke (sorry, Aggies!). Policies that make Texas proud of its multi-cultural diversity, that makes us all feel as special as Texans should feel. That brings us all together, rather than dividing us. Etc, etc. (I'm getting choked up just thinking about it!).

The person who wins this race--and I think three of the four candidates has at least a chance--will be the one who makes people feel best about their vote, not worst. I'm not saying we shouldn't point out flaws and inconsistencies and downright lies in our opponents, just that if we make this the focus of our campaign, we're going to look bad, and then we will lose.

That's my theory. I'm usually wrong. But I have to write it down, or I just wouldn't be me! :-)

[WestHoustonDem]

1. I would agree with you but I think the premise that voters

we scare away from Kinky will go to one of Bell's other opponents. I just don't see it that way. Kinky and Bell are both going after the "I'm sick of the shit these Republicans are dishing out" vote.

[jobycom]

4. But there's OTG.

Some voters will go there, too. My own belief is that the people supporting Kinky have little idea of the issues and how the candidates align, they are just voting for a change. They like his personality, his sense of humor, and the fact that he is not aligned with either party. I don't think they'll vote for Bell just because they get turned off to Kinky. Some might. Others will go to Perry or OTG. Some will stay home. That's just not going to help us much.

And a lot of people who are sick of Perry aren't sick of the Republican Party, they just think Perry is a waste. We could win some of those, but we need a better tactic than "Don't vote for Kinky, either!"

As I said, I'm probably wrong, that's just how I see it. Bell's only real chance is to become special in this election. Kinky's got his schtick, Perry's got his base, OTG has the image of the common-sense independent. Bell needs some magic. That's been my problem with him from the beginning--he doesn't make people want him. He makes Democrats want him, but that hasn't been enough to win an election in Texas in a long time, except in Austin. Bell's opponent won't be Kinky, it will be apathy.

[NoPasaran]

2. I think Chris Bell needs to figure out how he's going to deal

With Friedman and Carole 4n3p, but the state party needs to come up with a message for the people who are going to vote for one of them come hell or high water as to why they should vote Democrat down ballot.

[jobycom]

3. Good point. nt

[theredstate]

5. I saw Chris Bell

at the roast of http://theredstate.typepad.com/texas/2006/04/the_roasting_of_1.html">Emmett Shepard and he was so funny it hurt my stomach. Bell needs to show everyone his true side which is smart and funny. I think campaigns can make you stiff but if Bell relaxes and reaches out in an engaging way, he can win.

I agree that the best way to deal with Kinky is to ignore him. Let him self destruct. He's got about 7 1/2 minutes of stand-up and then he starts saying really stupid crap.

[crispini]

6. I agree.

Right now, when I meet a Kinky voter, I need one or two sentences on why that person should vote FOR Bell, not against Kinky. I haven't gotten those sentences yet.

[PDittie]

7. How about...

"Kinky's just a joke. He'll be worse than Jesse Ventura, and not as funny as Arnold Schwarzeneggar."

Or some variation.

[NoPasaran]

8. See, the trouble with that

Is that the average Kinky voter probably doesn't pay enough attention to politics to realize that Ventura and Ahnuld have been disasters.

A lot of these people are supporting Friedman because they think he's a progressive. I think that anti-Kinky talking points need to contrst his actual positions and contrast them with where Bell stands.

But we also need to realize that there are probably a bunch of Kinky voters who are not going to be persuaded by any arguement we can make. We need to court these people so they vote for our candidates downballot. The most important political goal we can actually achieve at this point in Texas is replacing Tom Craddick with a less dictatorial Speaker of the House in the next session. To do that, we need to elect more Democrats. If Kinky voters add five or ten percent to our downballot races I think we do alright--and elect Nick Lampson and John Courage to Congress too.

[David Van Os]

9. Don't forget your statewide ticket!

When you say "down ballot", why do you skip Maria Luisa Alvarado, David Van Os, Fred Head, Valinda Hathcox, Hank Gilbert and Dale Henry? We have a good statewide ticket of grassroots Democrats. They are fighters, not appeasers. As a group they are the most progressive populist statewide ticket we've had in 20 years. They deserve our support for coming up out of the grassroots to take on the Republican beast in its belly.

The TDP doesn't have to do any work to convey a message about these candidates. The candidates already have a very strong message of returning government to the people and they are singing off the same sheet of music. But you haven't seen a word about it on the TDP website or in the TDP's emails. And you probably won't see or hear much about it at the state convention if present trends continue. The state party doesn't intend to print even short bios about the statewide candidates in the convention booklet - unless the candidates buy ads, which is a catch-22 since they don't have much money, thanks in no small part to the state party downplaying their candidacies.

And the statewide candidates are working together. Hank, Maria Luisa and I have all stumped together from town to town. Valinda, Maria Luisa and I are going to be barnstorming together through 15 counties in South Texas May 23-26. And there will be much more of the same thing through the summer. We are taking the campaigns and the message to the people, and we intend to win with or without the help of the State Party apparatus.

[NoPasaran]

10. David, I don't mean to forget the other statewide candidates

I think that in making the case to Kinky voters to vote Democratic after they've had their fun in the governor's race we're also making the case for voting for you and the others. I'm sorry to hear that there's so little support from the TDP. I can't figure out what their plan is this year, unless it involves losing when Democrats everywhere should be winning.

[crispini]

12. Right, when I am encountering a Kinky voter

I will make my obligatory one attempt to persuade them and then I will teach them how to vote straight ticket for all but Kinky.

[crispini]

11. No, like I said, I want one or two pro-Chris Bell sentences,

not anti-Kinky. Still not working for me.....

[derby378]

13. I'll take both

The Kinkster is a conservative. That's enough to motivate most of us to not cast our votes for him.

[PDittie]

14. You right. I missed the point.

I'll take another shot:

Chris Bell landed the first hard punch on Tom DeLay when everybody else was too scared to fight. And now all the rest of the Republican bullies are running away.

Chris Bell is the only candidate in the race who isn't a Republican.

[muse]

16. Chris supports raising teacher pay to the national average

Quote from Chris:

"I support increased funding to the national average for our teachers and public schools. Our children's future is too important to play political games with in this upcoming Special Session."

Which is a $6000 pay raise, not the $2000 raise (or effectively $1500 or whatever it was since I think it includes the $500 health insurance stipend).

[texastoast]

39. Did Kinky ever come clean about his comment

when asked whether he was pro-choice or pro-life? I recall he quipped, "I'm pro-football."

That just irked me to no end.

Another thing that really stands out for me about Chris Bell is that he was the ONLY Democrat willing to risk Tom DeLay. That is courage alone in the face of a bully and his henchmen.

Bell is no flaming liberal. He is quite moderate on some issues.

[johncoby2]

15. I personally dont give a damn. Kinky supporters are stupid people.

Plain and *uckin simple.

They think they are cute signing a petition to put the idiot on the ballot. They dont realize he is a front for Perry to guarantee his re-election.

Idiots. All of them. They can join the Nader voters who gave us George W. Bush.

Needless to say, I will not make any friends with the kinky crowd. But that is OK. Once their candidates loses like a big dog and embarrasses the state, they will crawl back from where they came from and buy another beer.

[muse]

17. I have to agree

My reaction to all of this is Jesus Christ, people, Chris Bell is the only Democrat in the race, so good grief, he stands for all of the Democratic values we all believe in, so yeah, let's attack Kinky because he's not one of us. I'm so tired of Kinky I can't stand it. People need to have a picture painted of Kinky that's real and that's truthful. He's Republican at worst and conservative at best. He admitted his conservative stance on Dan Patrick's radio show last week. There's a story to tell about Kinky and it's not attractive.

I think it's time we all rally around Chris and it's not that hard to do. Chris has a great website (chrisbell.com) and it's easy to donate money to him there. I've done it several times. It's easy to find Chris Bell talking points there. It's so full of information, it will make your head spin. I have it bookmarked and I visit it often. The blog there is interesting.

[johncoby2]

18. Amen sister!

[NoPasaran]

19. Stupid or not...

Wouldn't it be good if they vote for Nick Lampson instead of whatever Grendel the repubs choose or just going home after voting for their hero? Whatever new voters Friedman brings to the polls should be voting for all the rest of our candidates. And maybe some of them will stick around and vote for progressive candidates in future elections when Kinky has moved on to other hobbies.

We cannot have a minimum IQ requirement to vote Democratic. Lord knows the GOP doesn't.

[muse]

25. That makes me sad

As much as I want Nick Lampson votes, I can't wrap my head around trading a Chris Bell vote for a Lampson vote. What a horrible game we are playing here.

Chris has GOT to get all 30-somethiing percent of the democratic base and then some. We ALL have to get behind this. Chris cannot do this by himself. We have got to get it into everyone's thick head that Kinky is NOT a progressive and if a Bell voter is voting for Kinky, that only ensures four more years of Perry.

Someone, please, please tell me how this makes sense? What are we doing to ourselves?

Why isn't every single damn democrat in the state unifying behind Chris Bell??

[crispini]

20. no, they are not. they are people who are TIRED of business as usual.

They may be thinking with their hearts more than their heads, but who they are, at least in my experience, is the people who feel disenfranchised and frustrated by our system. The fact that we have such crappy voter turnout. The fact that government doesn't seem to work, and doesn't seem to respond to them. The sneaking suspicion that people from both parties are "the insiders" who just want to keep their piece of the pie.

Honestly, I am so disgusted with "business as usual" this morning that I can completely understand where they are coming from.

[johncoby2]

21. Sorry but the ones I know think it is a game

They have no answers for his platform. Most dont know what a platform is.

They are ignorant of what they are doing. frustrated or not. Maybe they are frustrated ignorants.

Regardless of being frustrated or not, it is not a reason to be ignorant.

THESE PEOPLE JUST REALLY PISS ME OFF BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS A FUCKIN GAME.

[crispini]

22. Well, I guess it's different here then, 'cause I know the head

of his Dallas County campaign. In fact she is a DFA'er. she knows perfectly well what she is supporting... but she is SO DAMN FED UP with everything that she is wholeheartedly going after Kinky. I know people who are of her same mind who are delegates to the state convention ... they knew he'd get on the ballot so they voted in the Dem primary... but they are just fed up.

I can't blame them, I am pretty fed up with the county party at the moment for reasons which I will not go into here.

[johncoby2]

23. Well that makes all the sense now..........

Frustrated? Vote Kinky. There all done. Now they are not frustrated.

Stupid, but not frustrated.

Just what the hell are they going to accomplish? Beat Perry? Yea. Right. This is stupid talk. Honorable stupid talk.

In the end, Texas will get it in the end. Thanks kinky.

[crispini]

24. See, here's my deal.

The last time I was seriously enamored of a third party candidate was in 1980. I figured that Carter wouldn't win, and of course voting for Reagan was completely unspeakable. Besides, didn't the American people deserve some choices? Maybe it was time for a third party. So I persuaded my mother to vote for Anderson. Being 12 at the time, I couldn't vote myself.

Digression: I am only now beginning to realize what an insufferable and precocious child I must have been. TWELVE?! Anyway.

So, of course, I was completely convinced that Anderson would win, because of course, my mother (and by extension, I) had voted for him. He lost, I was disillusioned, and thus endeth my flirtation with third party candidates.

But I still understand why people think like that, and if they haven't been through a similar experience, they are tempted. Mighty tempted.

Besides, in a four way race, jeez, it's a total toss-up, ain't it?

[Czolgosz]

26. The Bell campaign shouldn't be attacking Kinky; we should (if "attacking"

includes comparing Bell vs. Kinky vs. C4n3p vs. MoFo).

To win this race, we need for Texans to understand that it is a race among three Republicans and one Democrat. We NEED to get that word out as best we can as widely as we can.

But illustrating the fact that Kinky is a Republican does not require a mean-spirited assault. All it involves is the disclosure of facts. Also, there is nothing about disclosing the truth about Kinky's Republicanism; in fact, there was a pretty good pro-Bell discussion at the Stop Kinky blog:

"I try not to get too partisan here at Stop Kinky. If you are for Bell: great. If you are for Carole K-M-R-S: great. If you are a Green or Libertarian: great. If you are for Perry -- well, maybe we need to talk. And even if you are for Kinky, that's fine with me as long as you know who you are signing up with.

But since you asked me specifically for one good reason to get behind Chris Bell, the Democratic candidate for Governor in Texas, I'll give it a try.

For me, if someone was going to get behind Bell's candidacy, I think the best reason would be his record as an enemy of political corruption.

From the beginning of Bell's public service career on the Houston City Council in the '90s, Bell has fought hard against improper lobbying practices, insider deals, and other corruption. As chairman of the city’s ethics committee, Bell passed tougher ethics rules, anti-lobbying regulations, and campaign finance reform to limit political action committee money in city elections.

In Congress, Bell was an effective representative and so he was one of Tom DeLay's top targets in the questionable mid-decade redistricting plan that is now under court review and criminal investigation. Where all of the other representatives stood on the sidelines while DeLay gerrymandered their districts, Bell -- with his long history of fighting government corruption -- filed a formal ethics complaint against DeLay. Bell was the first representative in almost a decade to stand up to ethical abuses in Congress.

As a direct result of Bell's stand against DeLay's ethics abuses, the house ethics committee censured DeLay and a criminal investigation was opened. Bell deserves much of the credit for tearing down DeLay's empire of corruption.

Now, I look at the Texas Legislature, and I think we could use a governor with a proven record of fighting against improper lobbying, campaign finance abuses, and outright corruption.

I'm not saying that Bell is the only candidate, but if you were looking for one reason to support Bell, I think this is one hell of a good reason."

<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24562544&postID=114469877385360287>

[muse]

27. GREAT POST

A voice of reason.

[MrTriumph]

28. Chris should slap Kinky around everyday

No Mr. Nice Guy/ Mr. DINO

[Bridget Burke]

37. You regard Chris Bell as "Democrat In Name Only"?

Why, exactly?

Chris Bell needs to speak out for himself. Of course, he won't get as much media attention as The Kinkster.

[MrTriumph]

38. Chris is too eager to talk about working with R's, being bipartisan....

Seems to me Chris ought be be running AGAINST the R's and telling the people he wants to take the state in an entirely different direction and he'll run over any R that gets in his way.

[cosmik debris]

40. In the last general election

Over 60% of Texans voted Republican. Tell a 60% majority that they are all wrong and that you want to run over them doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. Would you care to explain how alienating 60% of the electorate is a good thing?

[MrTriumph]

41. Sure I'll explain. Tell it like it is

Bell need not tell the people who voted Republican that they are fools. But he can say the Rep. leaders are crooks & liars and have betrayed the public trust and that he will lead the state in a more honorable direction.

Or, he could take your suggestion and just say, "Me too!" to everything Perry says.

[derby378]

42. Exactly - one need look no further than Bush's poll numbers

Dropping steadily over the past 12 months is a damn good thing, albeit way too late.

[cosmik debris]

43. You are crawfishing

First you said he should "run over any R that gets in his way" then you softened your point to "Bell need not tell the people who voted Republican that they are fools."

And I never suggested "just say, "Me too!" to everything Perry says"

You are putting words in my mouth.

We should be able to honorably disagree on this.

I believe that we can't win by telling the Republicans what crooks and liars their leaders are. They already know that. And they believe that it is better to have their crooks and liars than our crooks and liars. I believe the winning strategy is to say NOTHING about the Republicans and say a LOT about the Democrat alternative. Every time we say how goods the Democratic program is, it will automatically remind the Republicans about how bad their program is. An we don't have to be the one doing the name-calling and finger-pointing.

As much as I hate the urge to moderate our political position, we can't win in a state-wide election if the Republican majority does not let us. Two things we must not do are: NOT pissing off to many Republicans, and NOT scaring the Republican base with a dogmatic liberal diatribe. If our primary message is just anti-republican, we won't win this time either.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

45. You did say that

You said EXACTLY that. Here is your quote copied and pasted without edit.

"Or, he could take your suggestion and just say, "Me too!" to everything Perry says."

Name-calling is offensive. I am sure you think it will win the affection of voters, but I don't agree.

[MrTriumph]

46. Okay, since you are an honorable guy, I'll accept the apology.

x

[Texaroo]

29. OK, I've said this before....

...and received a BUNCH of vitriol in response. Kinky is a joke - to bash him merely suggests that he is a serious candidate.

How about tying Chris Bell to leadership of the legislature? One of the issues I think we can use as a wedge is Perry's utter lack of leadership, the very public fights he as had with Craddick, Strayhorn, et al, etc. Chris Bell can be portrayed as a coalition builder to ensure that legislative sessions are not held solely to race against a clock.

Face facts, folks - Texas Democrats are NOT popular in this state. Unless we can front a candidate who has statewide name recognition and/or notable charisma, there ain't a snowball's chance. I know that there has been talk here of strategy about who is or isn't on the ballot, but it should be clear that a bunch of people are willing to vote for Kinky ONLY because he has a "persona."

Outrageousness sells. Bashing Kinky supporters is a losing strategy - they are not stupid or ignorant (I won't vouch for drunk) - they just want some cheap entertainment. The goal should be to entice them towards Chris. A script:

Uninformed Registered Moderate/Left Voter: "I'm voting for the Kinkster - Yahoo!"

DUer: "Kinky is a funny guy, but aren't you tired of getting sodomized by right-wingers who have sold out to real estate developers and big business?"

UV: "Kinkaroony will show them where it's at - yahoo (burp)!"

DUer: "Do you have any idea where Kinky stands on the issues?"

UV: "Uh - he said SOMETHING about sticking somebody in a room listening to a Negro talking to himself..."

DUer: "Yeah. See - that's the problem I have. Some of us just think this election is too serious to give back to Rick Perry. We need real leadership. Do you realize that Chris Bell is the one guy who dared to stand up to Tom DeLay in Congress? That he has a history as an investigative reporter and a reformer who fights governmental corruption. Kinky is pulling a lot of press right now, but it would be sad if you overlooked such a great guy, especially if Rick Perry is the punchline to your joke. Chris Bell has strong support among the Democratic base, and his views make a lot of sense."

UV: (sheepishly) "I guess I'll check him out. Why haven't I seen him on the news?"

DUer: "Well, he's not clowning around in a black cowboy hat with a cigar, he's not a troll with a grudge, and he's not financed by oligarchs. It's hard to compete for press time when you are up against a three ring circus...."

And there you have it. Don't belittle these voters - co-opt them. It's a mistake to assume that they are uninformed or unintelligent. The truth is, the frustrated Democrats among them don't think Chris Bell is electable. The task is to disprove that theory - I would say it's a tough road, but with OTG in the race, you could use the ploy of saying that is Chris can win "back" some disenchanted voters who get a kick out of Kink, his base of support is likely to exceed Rick Perry's.

But guys - I need convincing to some extent myself. Given a four way race, how is Chris Bell electable?

[muse]

30. Given a four way race, how is Chris Bell electable

I'm always surprised that this question is asked here. What does that matter to us really? You say you need some convincing. But, all we need to do is get behind Chris and work for him. He can't do this on his own. I keep getting the perception from Democrats that Chris is supposed to be a super hero out there winning this thing somehow all by himself on his own good looks and charm or something. I sense that he's been abandoned by a lot of Democrats. This is like any other race. If we want a Democrat in the the governor's mansion, it will take dollars, phone banking, door knocking, LTEs, lots of buzz, word of mouth, bumper stickers, etc. None of that I mentioned is Chris Bell activity, that's volunteer activity, Democrat voter/base activity.

No, absolutely he's not electable if we all sit back and watch.

This is something I'm very concerned about and relates back to your strategy to deflect the Kinky problem away from making fun of Kinky and on to supporting Chris Bell.

[derby378]

31. Speaking of which, WHERE THE HELL IS CHRIS BELL??

He's seemed just short of invisible lately. With his poll numbers the way they are right now, he cannot afford to let the media ignore him - he's got to get out there and start landing some political punches.

[PDittie]

32. Come on, now

He's working it hard:

After spending one very long week winning the endorsement of the Texas AFL-CIO at their COPE convention and then visiting schools across South Texas as part of his Statewide Education Tour, Chris Bell invites you to kick off the weekend with him in South Padre. Chris will be in South Padre for the IBEW’s Southwest District Convention. He will be speaking at their Beachside Barbeque Thursday night (May 11) and again to the convention Friday morning (May 12).

He just completed a tour through South Texas finding out about the state's public schools in the wake of the disastrous special sesion:

http://www.chrisbell.com/blog/051506_TAKS_generation

Here's his event schedule for the weekend:

# Thu, 5/18: Chris Bell to attend HCDP Swearing-In Ceremony (Houston)
# Sat, 5/20: Chris to speak at TDW fundraiser in Nacogdoches

See, you're not going to find out about any of this in the corporate media. That's a problem, yes, but it's our problem (and has been for at least five years now).

[derby378]

33. Point taken

I know Chris is a hard-working man - never saw him, but he's made numerous trips through Dallas last year polling local Democrats and trying to gauge support for his gubernatorial run.

Not trying to put the man down, but Rick Perry is in a position where he doesn't have to frame, and Kinky Friedman is a framing machine but can't seem to do anything else. And Carole? Soon a non-entity, bless her heart.

Chris has my vote in November, come Hell or high water or Hoobastank. But just look at how many Texas Democrats voted for Gene Kelly in the primary runoff back in April, for cryin' out loud.

[Czolgosz]

35. Bell is exactly where he should be: engaging the press and raising money.

It would be great if Bell got out to meet more Democrats, and I understand that this is his plan for the summer, but right now he's focused on running around trying to raise money and he's trying to get as much free media coverage as he can.

[cosmik debris]

34. how is Chris Bell electable?

OK, let’s pull some numbers out of our heads just to work with. Let’s suppose that Texas is 60% Rep. and 40% Dem. If the Reps. split 20-20-20 and the Dems hold together, it is a landslide for Bell with 40%.

But we KNOW that the Reps. won’t split that way, and the Dems. won’t hold together. So we take away 10 hypothetical percentage points from Bell and hope it doesn’t put any of the three stooges over the 30% mark. I am optimistic that Bell can lose 15 to 20 percent of the Dems. (equivalent to 6 to 8 percent of the electorate) and still win. The key will be whether Kinky and Carol can muster 30% between them. If they get 30% between them, Perry’s goose is cooked and Bell is our next governor.

Of course this is fantasy, but it is a happy fantasy, not the nightmare of four more years of Republican rule.

My perception of history is that third party or independent candidates tend to hurt the side that they are on. (i.e. Nader) I believe that it will hold true in this case.

[Czolgosz]

36. Bell is electable and the only candidate with a chance of beating Perry

Remember back to 1998. George Bush was a very popular governor (not with me, of course, but with many Texans), and the Democrats nominated a good guy (a great guy, actually) with little name identification and less money. His name was Garry Mauro, and it was generally understood that Garry had no chance whatsoever of winning. Garry worked hard but his campaign was grossly underfunded and his opponent had all the money in the world and, in the end, that election netted Garry 31% of the vote versus Bush's 68% of the vote. 31% of Texans vote for Mauro despite the fact that his name identification was very low, the details of his goals for the governorship were largely unknown by most Texans, and he really couldn't afford to run a statewide campaign because no one would fund this candidacy which was doomed to lose.

Mauro's vote was the yellow dog Democrat vote -- the vote who would have voted for the Democrat even if they knew he was going to lose and even if they didn't know anything about him or his candidacy other than he was the Democratic nominee. That vote is about 31% of Texas voters.

Next, remember back to 2002. Tony Sanchez was our candidate. We learned the lesson from 1998 that -- without money -- we can't run a statewide campaign so we picked a candidate who could fund his own campaign (never mind that this guy was a Bush supporter and had some questionable dealings in the past). Tony, who ran a statewide campaign but who ran it about as poorly as it could have been run, netted 40% of the vote against Perry's 57%.

As I interpret these results, some number very close to 31% of the Texas voters will vote for the Democrat even when he's not run much of a statewide campaign and even when he is going to lose. 40% of Texas voters will vote for a weak-as-dishwater Democratic candidate with a bit of money to run a half-assed statewide campaign.

The 9% difference from 1998 to 2002 is at jeopardy to sniping from c4n3p and Kinky, but neither of these two Republicans can cut too deeply into the 31% yellow dog Democrat vote.

Perry's numbers have slumped as low as 36% in some polls. If c4n3p is unusually effective against his base, or if Texans wake up as see how badly Texas children have been screwed by Perry's bullshit education under-financing fiasco, he should dip lower than 36% but not too much lower.

If you put the Democratic base at 31% (expandable up to 40% with a half-assed campaign) and Perry's hard-core Christofascist Enronpublican base at 36% -- then you subtract the traditional 2% for Greens, Libertarians, and other minor third parties -- Kinky and c4n3p have 31% soft-core moderate voters to split between themselves before they have to cut into the hard-core Democrat or Enronpublican bases -- but remember that Bell is also in a good position to claim a fair portion of this 31& soft-core mushy moderate vote.

So Perry has his "life-long Republican" voters as a base from which to build support and Bell has his "life-long Democrat" voters as a base from which to build support, but c4n3p and Kinky have to individually win every vote they take.

Can c4n3p achieve that?

She's a Republican, who identifies herself as a Republican even in the ads for her campaign as an Independent. C4n3p has voted in every single Republican primary since 1990 (as far back as Travis County Elections Administration records go). In 2000 and 2004 she campaigned for Bush, and in 2002, she endorsed Perry and campaigned with him. She'll take some of the "9% Democrats" (the type who voted for Sanchez but didn't vote for Mauro), but I haven't met any hard-core Democrats who are supporting her (none of the "31% Mauro Democrats").

If c4n3p is going to challenge Perry, she will need to (a) clean up among the 31% soft-core moderates, (b) take a huge bite out of Bell's 31% yellow-dog Democrat base, and (c) take another huge bite out of Perry's 36% crazy-as-a-fruit-bat Enronpublican base. Essentially, c4n3p must simultaneously position herself to the left to steal as many votes as possible from Bell while she positions herself to the right to get as large a portion as possible of Perry's vote -- while not annoying the 31% of the moderate vote. That can't be done. C4n3p cannot get a majority of the 64% of the vote which is not Perry's because too much of that vote is Democrats. Whether you think Bell gets 31% of the vote simply for being the Democratic nominee or 20% or 15%, it's still too large of an advantage for c4n3p to make up.

Kinky can't do it either.

He is running on progressive support according to all the polling, but he is not progressive on any issues other than alternative fuels. Once the medial covers Kinky's campaign as a real campaign and not a "here's a look at the lighter side of the news" story, the honeymoon will end where he currently enjoys the support of voters who neither know what Kinky stands for nor support his outrageous shit. Kinky likes to talk about Jesse Ventura's surprise win in Minnesota and Arnold Schwarzenegger win in California, but Ventura was elected as the Reform Party candidate and Schwarzenegger was elected with the Republican Party behind him. Also, Kinky cannot get a majority of the 64% of the not-Perry vote because so many insane people simply don't vote.

Now, how about Bell?

He has his built in yellow dog Democrat base (whether you consider it 31%, 20%, or 15%) just for being on the ballot as the Democratic nominee so he starts out with a huge chunk (half to a quarter) of the 64% of the not-Perry vote. Also, Bell has BY FAR the worst name recognition. Having the lowest name recognition in the race means Bell has the most room to grow. Political consultant Chuck McDonald's analysis of the race for Austin's KVUE echos much of my thinking (this is a race where Perry is the favorite, Bell is the main competition, c4n3p is the dark horse, and Kinky will fizzle before November).

Can Bell win?

I don't know. He can definitely win under the right circumstances, but I cannot predict whether those circumstances will arise.

There is no doubt that the approximately 64% of the not-Perry vote cannot be split three ways into roughly equal parts without guaranteeing a Perry re-election. Either Perry wins or at least one of the not-Perry candidates will have to dwindle away. I know that Bell is not the candidate who will dwindle away because there is a sizable segment of the population who will vote for Bell based on his status as the Democratic nominee even if they have no other reason to vote for him (and there are plenty of reasons to vote for Bell besides his status as the Democratic Party candidate). Accordingly, for Perry to be defeated either c4n3p or Kinky must dwindle away to the point that he or she has a negligible effect on the election (i.e., unless c4n3p dwindles away Kinky cannot win, and unless Kinky dwindles away c4n3p cannot win). If Kinky and c4n3p both remain strong candidates, Perry wins. If one fades away, we have a three-front-runner race that any of the three can win.