White Leads Sanchez/Turner in Mayoral Race - Berry Buried

Interesting stuff from the latest Chron poll...

White is leading Sanchez, Turner in mayoral race, according to poll

By JOHN WILLIAMS
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Political Writer

Bill White leads Orlando Sanchez and Sylvester Turner in what is shaping up to be a three-man race for mayor of Houston, according to a Houston Chronicle/KHOU-TV poll.

White, the Houston businessman who has spent more than $600,000 of his own money to help dominate early advertising, has support from 25 percent of likely voters.

Sanchez, with 20 percent, and Turner, with 19 percent, are within striking distance as both candidates prepare to ratchet up their own campaigns in a race most believe will be decided in a runoff.

A distant fourth is Michael Berry with 7 percent.

"This election is a long way from over," said pollster Richard Murray, a political science professor at the University of Houston. "Right now, it looks like any two of three candidates will be in the runoff."

If no candidate receives a majority of the vote Nov. 4, which is likely with such a large field, the top two finishers will meet in a runoff about a month later.

The candidates are vying to replace term-limited Mayor Lee Brown, who won a close runoff over Sanchez in 2001 to win his third and final two-year term.

Polling indicates that voters are ready for Brown's departure Jan. 2 because 52 percent disapprove of the job the mayor is doing. About 39 percent approve of Brown's performance.

The poll was conducted Sept. 10 through Tuesday by the University of Houston Center for Public Policy and Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The telephone poll of 605 registered city of Houston voters who told pollsters that they likely will vote has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Murray said that White's lead is largely the result of effective advertising he has done on television, radio and in mail-outs. The other candidates have largely stuck with less expensive radio and mail-outs.

As of the most recent campaign finance report June 30, White had raised $2.9 million, Sanchez $1.2 million, Turner $800,000 and Berry $564,000.

As a result of White's ability to outspend his opponents on early advertising, his favorability rating among voters is more than twice his negative rating. The three other major candidates' negative ratings are close to their favorables.

But Murray noted that White has not yet faced negative advertising from Sanchez and Turner.

Such advertising might be effective against White, Murray said, because one of three of his supporters say their backing is "not strong." Meanwhile, one in four Sanchez supporters say their support is not strong, while one in five Turner supporters say that about their candidate.

"Bill White has shown the benefit of getting your message out early, when no one else opposes it," Murray said.

Although city elections are officially nonpartisan, party politics have played an increasing role in recent years. And 58 percent of the poll respondents believe party affiliation should appear beside a mayoral candidate's name on the ballot.

White and Turner are Democrats, Sanchez and Berry are Republicans.

Sanchez leads among respondents who identified themselves as Republicans with 40 percent, while White gets 23 percent, Berry gets 14 percent and Turner gets 2 percent.

Turner leads among Democrats with 33 percent, followed by White with 28 percent, Sanchez with 10 percent and Berry with 4 percent.

The Sanchez and Turner campaigns both questioned the poll. Each said it had seen private polling indicating that its candidate was doing better.

Berry said the poll result largely reflects name recognition because the campaigns have yet to swing into high gear.

"The Michael Berry campaign did not expect to achieve high name-ID saturation by early September but we do expect that we will by early November," he said.

White said he has a lead in the race because he is focusing on all neighborhoods in Houston, not targeted ones.

 

Three things interesting to me in this one...

1. Clearly, the early advertising push by White has helped him. Of course, he needed it most because he had the most name-recognition building to do. Also fairly clear is that both he and Sanchez will be vulnerable to negative campaigning given the respective 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 strong support margins they have. Seems like they will try hard to erode each other's votes while Turner seems fairly well-insulated.

2. The fact that Sanchez and Turner monopolize votes from each party is not really that surprising. What is in question is how much of those votes White can erode from both candidates. Turner, like I mentioned, is fairly well-protected, so White will likely target Sachez' constituency given Berry's lagging.

3. Michael Berry isn't now, nor was he probably ever a viable candidate for mayor. The guy just has no experience and he made a lot of mistakes early with his campaign. He tried to lean to hard on the financial backing of far right conservatives even though he is fairly moderate.

I'm sticking by my original prediction. This is a three-horse race and everything hinges on White. Turner is a near-lock to make the runoff but it will be a battle to see who - White or Sanchez - will join him.

I still think Sanchez has the edge over White in getting to the runoff, but White's done a good job so far of staying on his message. We'll see how vulnerable he gets when Sanchez comes at him with both barrells and how he responds.

If White makes the runoff, no matter who he faces, he will win. No one will be able to beat him one-on-one. However, if Sanchez and Turner run, it will be close, but Turner's strong base of constituency and long-term service in the house still give him the slight edge. It's going to be an interesting race.

 

Actually, Max, you are correct. Ridership was so strong on their original rail line (a 6.5 mile line in downtown - sound familiar???) that they actually passed a SALES TAX INCREASE to fund their additional lines. Even with fairly well-organized opposition, they got over 70 percent of the vote to expand DART. Getting 70 percent to support a tax increase for ANYTHING in Texas is rare, let alone for something as controversial as rail. They obviously wanted it badly.

Given the sprawling nature of Dallas and the way they got started, I'd say they are a fairly accurate comparison and it's pretty clear from their experience that LOTS of people ride it.

 

TJ: You failed to address the Dallas issue Max brought up. Dallas and Houston have tremendous similarities when it comes to light rail.

The Greater Houston Partnership, not exactly a anti-capitalist, liberal coalition, has been on record for five years stating light rail is important for the growth of business and the ability to recruit quality workers to Houston.

Even a group of mayors from the staunchly conservative west side of town (Sugar Land, Ft. Bend County) pleaded with their congressman - Tom DeLay - to stop his blockade of federal funding for light rail a couple of years ago stating that it was vital to their part of greater Houston.

The polling is clear. The majority of Houstonians - and citizens from throughout the region - consider light rail not just a component of our future transportation plan, but VITAL to the long-term eliviation of congestion in the greater Houston area.

Bob Lanier, the guy who ran Kathy Whitmire out of office - pardon the pun - on a rail, did so by promising to NEVER allow Houston to install a single track of light rail. Since the 2000 METRO referendum, he has been a supporter.

It's just critical mass. As the quote goes, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Light rail just happens to be gaining that critical mass now after 20 years of fighting over it.

Sure, there are still dissenters but they are largely the same people who have dissented every move of progress inside the inner city. Barry Klein, the Houston property rights champion, has been a staunch opponent of:

- the ballpark/football stadium referendum

- zoning

- historic preservation

- expansion of public parks

- every school bond election (he actually once said in the Chronicle that instead of improving fire safety equipment at schools, we should petition the state to lower standards so taxpayers could save money)

- both arena referendums

- and now, light rail

Between him and the Hotze's, you've got the tiny group that has scared us into believing rail was equal to communism for all those years. These are the Helen Lovejoy's of the city who, whenever a new initiative is introduces, get up and scream, "Will someone please think of the children?!?"

Personally, I don't want to live in a city run by people who spend their lives afraid of what problems progress might cause or what it might cost. I want someone with vision, not the servant who buries his talents in the ground afraid he might lose them.

If Houston ever wants to be something other than the poster child for ugly, strip-centered, pollution-covered, sprawl-laden hellhole's, we'd better let go of these old fears that serve no one. If the polls are any indication, most of the public already has.

 

TJ: I have no intention of debating you on the cost issues. I don't know them. I don't want to know them. For me, they are irrelevant.

You and I simply view government diferently. You view it as a business - something that needs to justify each and every expenditure like a company would to satisfy a budgetary projection.

I view cities as extensions of their citizens. They must balance the wants and needs of citizens through the expenditure of our tax dollars. They aren't there to make a profit. They are there to carry out the will of their people.

In this case, the people want light rail. It was clear in the 2000 referendum. It was clear in polling earlier this year. It is clear in polling now.

When people would ask me to justify the costs of the arena, I wouldn't. The truth is, it cost tax dollars to fund it, albeit car rental and hotel tax dollars, but they are taxes nevertheless. I never debated that fact. My contention was that the value of the team in the city was greater than what you could calculate on a spreadsheet. I still feel that way.

I view light rail much the same way. It has a value beyond the quantifiable, measurable dollar amount because of what it says about Houston not just to those who don't live here but what it says to those of us who grew up here and saw the difficult progress it took to get to this point.

I can guarantee you that the polling numbers in 1983 would have been the exact reverse of what they are in 2003. Why? Because our population demographics are simply different now. We are no longer the blue-collar, suburban population we were then. We are a white-collar, increasingly urban community. The light rail polling numbers are a direct reflection of that change.

I don't really expect to convince you any more than you should expect to convince me. I'm not really interested in the hard number crunching. It is my belief that we are better off with transportation options that include rail than we are simply continuing to pour concrete and buy more cars. The polling numbers would seem to indicate a majority of Houstonians agree with me.