That Pesky Crossover Vote: Dissenting With Burka (And Agreeing), Democrats Outnumber GOP In Lubbock Early Vote & More

Over the last two days, we’ve talked about the issue of “crossover” voting by Republicans in the Democratic Primary–particularly in the context of the presidential race and Republicans crossing over to vote for Barack Obama (see here and here).

Now, Paul Burka over at Texas Monthly gives something more to chew on: numbers from East Texas, specifically Smith County. Here is what Burka has to say:

Look at Smith County (Tyler).

R 3,875
D 3,769

This is a county that voted 53,392 to 19,970 for Bush over Kerry in 2004. Would the vote be closer today? Yes. Do the early vote totals mean that Ds are close to parity in Smith County? I hardly think so. The numbers have to reflect crossovers.

This is the pattern we’re going to see in the fall. There will be crossovers from R to D and from D to R. Which means that there will be a lot less straight ticket voting than usual.

We’ve talked over this issue until we’re blue in the face with some pretty smart folks in the political arena in the last 24 hours and the consensus seems to be “nobody knows and we just can’t be sure.” So, we’re going to devise a bit of our own theory here. And, essentially, we’re going to sustain Mr. Burka in part and dissent, in part (isn’t it fun to use legal terminology?).

The numbers from Smith County mean a bit more to me than they might to others because it is a county that I’m pretty familiar with–demographically and politically.

Mr. Burka argues that it is the early vote totals in Smith County reflect GOP crossover because Democrats in Smith County can’t possibly be turning out in these numbers to vote. And, in any other election, that might be true. To explain what we mean, we’re going to go back in time a little bit. All the way back, in fact to 2000–pre-redistricting (and re-redistricting, for that matter). Take a look at the numbers that former State Sen. David Cain (D-Dallas) posted against State Sen. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) in the 2002 race Deuell lost to Cain in Smith County:

The reason I pick this race is because, in 2000, SD 2 didn’t include all of Smith County. But, it did include all of North Tyler, a predominantly minority area of East Texas’s largest city. Cain got 11,178 votes. Those are “hard” Democratic votes. And, while Cain only ran in part of Smith County, Gore/Lieberman only polled about 5 to 6,000 votes better than Cain did in the entire county. Of course, 2000 was the height of Bush’s popularity.

Fast-forward to 2002. Although Cain ceded much of Smith County through redistricting, he retained the Democratic strongholds in North Tyler. Here is how that one turned out:

Again, those 4,806 votes are “hard” Democratic numbers and reflect a pretty activist segment of the population in Smith County. Fast forward now to 2004:

CD 1 is an interesting race because former Congressman Max Sandlin (D-Marshall), had his hat handed to him in Smith County. But, he still out performed the Republican, and out performed John Kerry. Thus, I’m not sure using Bush v. Kerry numbers in Smith County–or any county–is the right set of numbers to use for this election, which is where I dissent with Burka.

Part of this dissent has to do with the dynamic in each of these races: each race had more than significant field operations and ground troops in Smith County. They were energizing people in ways that neither the Bush Campaign nor the Kerry Campaign were because they were doing it door-to-door, on television, via direct mail, and the like.

It’s the same principle that’s at play in this primary. Democrats across the state are being energized, and that is ramping up primary turnout in areas which–even with statewide contested Democratic primaries on the ballot–haven’t been energized before. It’s been a long time since a Democratic Party candidate in Texas has bought significant television and significant direct mail and phone banking in a primary election–at least on the scale that the two presidential candidates are. Thus, they are energizing those “general election only” Democrats much like church services at Easter and Christmas energize the ECCO (Easter-Christmas-Come-Only) crowd (nobody can argue that churches are packed to the gills at Easter and Christmas regardless of attendance the rest of the year).

Where we agree with Burka is on this point: there is no question R’s are crossing over. However, is it for malicious reasons? Who can say. The fact is that, if it was happening it would not be the first time. However, given the religious manner in which Texas Republicans seem to view their own voting records, it’s doubtful that any mischief would be anything more than token. At minimum, it’s certainly no repeat of what happened in Minnesota in 1956:

That year, Gov. Orville Freeman and most top DFL leaders had lined up in support of Stevenson, who was hoping for a comeback after his defeat by Eisenhower four years earlier. But a group of party dissidents, led by Ninth District Rep. Coya Knutson, backed Estes Kefauver, who had made a name for himself as a crusader against organized crime. The Tennessee senator had a folksy, down-to-earth approach that contrasted sharply with the cerebral, urbane Stevenson.

Knutson, chafing under pressure from the DFL establishment, claimed that party bosses had threatened to read her out of the party for supporting Kefauver.

As the nation’s first primary clash between Stevenson and Kefauver drew closer, polls showed the former Illinois governor in the lead in Minnesota, but with his Tennessee rival starting to close the gap. In the closing days of campaign, Kefauver was drawing huge crowds in Northern Minnesota, and the DFL establishment was starting to “run scared,” according the Minneapolis Tribune. On the Sunday before the election, DFL Chair Ray Hemenway was still predicting a 3-to-1 win for Stevenson. Three days later, on March 20, Hemenway was proven wrong, when Kefauver upset Stevenson in the Minnesota primary, winning 48 of the state’s 60 delegates to national convention.

Almost immediately, Stevenson operatives in Chicago claimed that their candidate had lost in Minnesota because Republicans had crossed over to vote in the DFL primary. Critics of the primary would later maintain that the 1949 law encouraged political mischief-making by allowing supporters of one party to cross over to vote in the other party’s primary. Other critics, claiming that their privacy had been violated, objected to the procedure that required them to publicly request a ballot identified with an individual party when they came to their polling place to vote in the primary.

I thought of the ’56 election because I read about it in a biography of Hubert Humphrey I read some time back while flying to El Paso. And, it turns out, I wasn’t the only one, since the article above (found via Google search) happened to have been written only last Wednesday.

Mischief aside, there are other counties I believe we can use as an example to show that Democratic turnout will be off-the-charts regardless of whether or not Republicans try to make mischief in the primaries (although there is no doubt that Republicans are crossing over–either out of genuine support, or to prevent Clinton from being the Democrats’ nominee).

Consider, if you will, the GOP stronghold of Lubbock County. Where (grab your socks and hose and pull) Democrats are outnumbering Republicans in the early vote:

The Lubbock County Office of Elections says more than 6,500 county residents voted Democratic. That’s compared to the more than 5,200 people that have voted Republican. And those numbers are only through the close of early voting on Tuesday.

Although the TV news station that provides that report is blissfully non-specific on how many more than 6,500 and 5.200 voted, unless they transposed the numbers, that’s darned strange for Lubbock County.

Snaking down the 2004 ballot in Lubbock County’s general election, we find Rep. Carl Isett’s 2004 race against Freda McVay:

Again, in only part of the county, McVay got 14,562 votes. So, is the 6,500 total that unreasonable for Democrats, given that there must be at least 14,562 activist Democrats somewhere in some part of Lubbock County? Sure, for a county that has voted Republican as long as most people can remember, it’s damned odd. But, is it impossible? Without question, the answer is “no.” Does it mean Republicans aren’t either changing horses in mid stream or making mischief?

In terms of considering whether or not Republicans are making mischief in the Democratic Primary, you’ve also got to consider a number of other factors, not the least of which is contested GOP primary races.

In many counties in Texas–and even in GOP precincts (for our national readers, we’ll clarify this by noting we mean a “commissioner’s precinct” or a “constable’s precinct” or a “justice of the peace precinct” and not a voting precinct) of traditionally Democratic counties–some races are decided in the Republican Primary. In Smith County, the Sheriff’s race will be decided in the GOP Primary, for example. Similar situations abound across the state.

Are typical GOP voters that eager to give up the only voice they’ll have in the election to go play on the Democrats’ side of the checkerboard? I’d think, in most cases, the answer would be, ‘no.’

So, how will we tell? The scary thing is that that we won’t be able to tell until after March 4. And, the only reliable indicator I can think of (aside from exit polls, and I don’t think even if Bob Perry were running for President he’d have enough cash to run them in 254 counties) is the undervote. How many ballots will we see–especially in urban areas–where people are coming into the ballot box singularly focused on electing a president? We’d all like to think that new voters, D’s who are coming out of the woodwork, and legitimate crossover independents and R’s would look at every race on the ballot and make an informed choice. But, human nature being what it is (and some campaign budgets being what they are), some voters may not even take the time to think that there are other elections even going on. What will they do? Fill in a ballot by coin flip, or leave it blank? Conventional wisdom tells us that R’s making mischief in our primary would vote a full slate of “weak” candidates, ie: Gene Kelly’s across the board, and that singularly-focused voters who have their mind on one race and one race only would likely vote only in the one race–or in top-ballot races they are familiar with.

Once March 4 is here, I think using the undervote may (again, I emphasize “may”) be a way we can tell. Until then, it’s all speculation–educated as it may be.