Texas gubernatorial Democratic candidate Wendy Davis talks to the media after casting her vote on the first day of early voting at the Charles Griffin Sub-Courthouse, in Fort Worth on Monday. (AP Photo/The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Max Faulkner)
Wendy Davis has two main campaign thrusts that, on occasion, cross paths.
One is that Greg Abbott is a corrupt schmo who would be the ruination of Texas. The second is that she’s for strong public education, while he isn’t.
Conventional wisdom might say negative campaigning works, but Davis’s attacks on Abbott have been turgid and monotonous. Her people look desperate to find good material, most recently insinuating that he might be a closet segregationist who’d defend a state law against mixed marriages. That’s a hard one to make stick against an Anglo who’s married to a Latina.
Before that, the Davis campaign burned up a lot of calories on his alleged lack of scrutiny of Texas Enterprise Fund applicants. That was too complicated to make a dent in Abbott’s lead, and it fell of its own, complicated weight.
If Davis wants to make headway among swing voters on top issues identified in polls, she’s without a legitimate opening on most of them, given her Democratic politics. Likely voters in the Lyceum Poll cited immigration, border security, education, jobs and health care — in that order — as the top problems facing Texans.
She was never going to offer stiffer medicine on border issues than Abbott, and her economic policies amount to an endorsement of the low-tax status quo. Since Abbott carries the GOP standard, he’s running as Mr. Status Quo. Abbott’s got her there without trying. If you think Texas is heading in the right direction economically, Davis hasn’t made the case to switch parties.
That leaves education and health care for Davis, but health care has “Obama” written all over it, so it’s not a horse to ride to victory in Texas.
That leaves education. Davis’s strategy breaks down like this: 1) Insist she’s more serious about education than he is, and 2) use his record against him.
Davis talks a good game on public ed. She’s more aspirational. She aims for a Mars landing with her call for all-day universal pre-K. She wants to pay all teachers near the national average. Trouble is, her lack of attention to the bottom line makes her look un-serious. She’s never been able to answer why she hasn’t developed a strategy for funding, complete with price tag. Problem is, it probably runs into many billions, and she doesn’t want to go there.
In contrast, her fellow Democrat Leticia Van de Putte, running for lieutenant governor, aims for a mere Moon shot with her call for fully funding half day pre-K. That’s something that’s do-able in Austin next year, she says. The contrast makes Davis looks like she’s overreaching, possibly for effect.
That leaves Davis relying on the ploy of accusing Abbott of personally gutting public education to the tune of $5 billion-plus, as alleged proof that he’s not serious about educating kids. That has three problems with it.
First, Abbott can defend himself with his detailed, costed-out plan to boost public ed.
Second, Abbott didn’t have a vote in the Legislature and didn’t cut the money out of the budget. Yes, he defended the defendants in the suit against the state’s funding formula, but I think swing voters can distinguish between cutting the budget and serving as the state’s lawyer. Her argument turns to white noise. It’s something that may fire up a few somnolent teachers, but it doesn’t lure persuadable voters to her column.
It pains me to write about the last problem with her education strategy. It boils down to this: I don’t think most voters care so much about public education that they’d want the state to write a bigger check.
It hurts to say that, because I’m married to an educator and my son is a teacher. I’d love for them to take home paychecks that reflect their value, commitment and contribution. But that’s not going to happen any time soon.
The public, I think, has become acculturated to think that teachers are out for the steady paycheck (such as it is) and the summers off. Blame Arne Duncan and other “reformers” of both political parties. Dallas Super Mike Miles once estimated that a third of DISD teachers aren’t up to standards.
“Reformers” will have you think that bad, lazy teachers are the cause of low performance in public schools. They’ll have you think that unions call the shots in public schools. People even think that about Texas, where membership in teacher groups is voluntary and where there is no collective bargaining for them.
When voters identify “education” as a top issue in polls, what do they mean? I wonder. I think it’s a reflex, borne of negative news stories about student achievement. Or it’s a sympathy vote for the neighborhood school. Or it’s a protest vote against “too much testing,” which has become a bi-partisan talking point.
I do not think most people consider schools underfunded, by and large. Superintendents and school boards aren’t out there crying for money. In the courtroom, yes, but not in the public. They’re making do, because they have to.
The result is the appearance of stability. There’s no apparent financial cliff. Districts are taking bond proposals to voters. Class-size waivers have leveled off since the budget cuts of 2011. When is the last time you heard of a laid-off teacher? Did the public even sympathize with laid-off teachers during the depths of the recession?
No, Wendy Davis doesn’t have the appearance of an education crisis to campaign on, and it’s hard for a candidate to gin one up.