Endorsements in the Houston Mayoral Race: My Take on the Tally to Date

Earlier in the week Carl Whitmarsh, a Democratic political activist, forwarded a list of mayoral endorsements to his 8000 plus Internet list.  Most of the groups that formally support candidates in Houston city elections have made their calls, with a few exceptions like the Houston Restaurant Association, while others like Planned Parenthood’s PAC have passed because they like the issue positions of all the major candidates in the race.  What, if anything, can we learn from the endorsements to date?

First, let’s review the endorsements.  Gene Locke garnered the most groups (13, counting the two Teamster and Longshoreman locals as one), while Annise Parker shagged the second largest number (8, counting the Hope/SEIU/UNITE HERE combination as a single endorsement).  Peter Brown was endorsed by one group (Texas Society of Architects) and claimed more than 100 African American preachers as supporters.

Locke’s endorsements reflect the dual strategy his campaign is pursuing.  The former city attorney is trying to augment his expected strength in the black community with support from downtown players and business leaders to get a decent share of the white vote.  Critical to this working was getting the backing of the two public safety unions with a long history in city elections (the Houston Police Officers Union and the Houston Firefighters) and business associations with major interests at City Hall like the Houston Association of Realtors and the Houston Apartment Association.  He passed that test by getting the nod from these players.

Annise Parker would have liked, of course, to get support from these heavyweight political groups, and sought all their endorsements.  However, her campaign is considerably less dependent on such groups’ support than is Gene Locke’s because she is better known to voters, and has won a couple of hard-fought city-wide elections for council and controller over the last 12 years.   The endorsements Parker has won, with the notable exception of the relatively new HOPE labor group, are from partisan and issue oriented groups like the Harris County Democrats and the GLBT Political Caucus (the acronym is for Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender).   This points to a very different strategy than Locke’s for winning the big job at 901 Bagby – more akin to what Kathy Whitmire did back in 1981.  That is to bypass the downtown players and put together a coalition of liberals and progressives, feminists and gays, civic activists and moderate Republicans (especially female Republicans) sufficient to assure a place in the expected runoff and build on that toward victory in the December finals.  Like Locke’s, her endorsements reflect progress in achieving her goals.

And Peter Brown?  Obviously, group endorsements are not his strong suit.  The Texas Society of Architects endorsement can be discounted because they have no track record as a player in Houston city elections, and their support of a fellow architect is a dog-bites-man non-story.  A hundred black ministers is OK, but the other candidates have hundreds of individuals supporting them that they are not touting in the group endorsement game.  Don’t mix apples and elephants together.

The good news for Peter Brown is that endorsements are overrated in politics.  Voters make up their minds based on a number of factors, and many candidates that score big endorsements falter at the polls. 

Despite the general overrating of endorsements, they are important in the 2009 Houston mayoral election.  In many elections the candidates are identified by political party affiliation, and the D or R by a contestant’s name is a far more powerful cue for voters than group endorsements.  But Houston elections are legally non-partisan so voters cannot avail themselves of the party label to sort candidates out.  Plus, this year all three major contenders are Democrats, so that cue would not help anyway.  Not only are Parker, Locke, and Brown associated with the same party, they also have not differed much on city issues.   Nor any of the three held the powerful office they seek, so voters cannot cast a ballot based on how the incumbent has been doing his/her job.  Meantime the retiring popular mayor, Bill White, has remained strictly neutral in this contest.  Former mayors Kathy Whitmire (1982-1992) and Bob Lanier (1992-1998) are respectively supporting Annise Parker and Gene Locke, but both left office years ago.

Finally, in an election cycle where money is much tighter than a few years ago, candidates cannot hit the airwaves heavy and often with television and radio ads touting their qualities.  Peter Brown has begun a moderate television campaign, but Parker and Locke are yet to air commercials.  Deprived of paid advertising, group recommendations become somewhat more important than was the case, say, in 2003 when well over ten million dollars was spent in the competitive mayoral contest between Bill White, Orlando Sanchez, and Sylvester Turner.

The bottom line on endorsements this year:  No change in my original forecast that Annise Parker enters the race with such strength that she is almost certain to make the December runoff, and that Gene Locke has an easier track to securing the second spot than Peter Brown.   Of course voters decide elections, not commentators, so let’s sit back and watch the 70 day campaign that is about to unfold.

Dr. Richard Murray

Comments

[Eric]

If unions support a candidate, I discount that candidate immediately.

[Sarah]

I agree 110% with Eric. I don't need anyone telling me who I need vote for, and such endorsements from unions, give me that feeling. No thanks!

[Cassey]

Wait.....Unions!? You mean to tell me Gene Locke and the entire downtown-"Mayor Bob"-establishment are the same person!? NOOOOOOO!

[jmf]

Hey Dr. Murray..

I was wondering if you can explain the following.

My neighbor just came by, she is an educator at a high school, and explained how there have been parents complaining about President Obama to the schools. The parents have stated that if the school plans to air a speech by the President then they will keep their kids at home. Due to these complaints the PUBLIC schools have decided to BAN playing any of the President of the United States of America speeches.

How can a federally funded group ban the president of our country and get away with it?

Thanks,

Your old student.