The Texan Podcast - Polling the Curtain Down: Smoke Filled Room Ep. 20

Episode Date: September 1, 2025

In this episode of Smoke Filled Room, Brad Johnson is joined by Chris Perkins of Ragnar Research, a veteran pollster in Republican politics. They discuss Chris's career journey, his experiences in political campaigns, and the recent redistricting efforts in Texas. Chris provides insights into the Republican approach to redistricting, the implications for future elections, and the competitiveness of key districts. The episode also delves into broader political themes, including the shifting demographics, the impact of the Dobbs decision, campaign strategies, and presidential election prospects for 2028.Listen to more Smoke Filled Room podcasts from our team wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear, subscribe and leave us a review.TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Intro00:52 Chris Perkins' Career Journey02:43 Redistricting and Political Implications06:36 Texas Partisan Index and Competitive Districts13:16 National Trends and Voter Priorities35:49 Hispanic Voter Shift41:05 Political Safety Concerns41:25 The Abortion Debate42:30 Impact of Dobbs44:27 Midterm Election Analysis45:54 Challenges for Republicans48:35 Redistricting and House Control51:58 Senate Race Dynamics01:01:54 Evaluating Polls01:13:08 2028 Presidential Speculations

Hello, everybody. It's Brad Johnson senior reporter here at The Texan. And I have, this is another episode of the Smokefield Room podcast. Today we have Chris Perkins of Ragnar Research, a pollster supreme in Republican politics here. Chris, welcome. Thank you. Thank you for having me, Brad. I think this is probably what I'm going to pitch you on business because I hear you're

potentially running for House District 151. So maybe if you need a pollster, please let me know I'm available. Hey, if I can get a discount on polling, I would love that. I might need that depending on how gerrymandered this district is. So, well, yeah, thanks for joining us. You know, you've been in this business for a long time, been around the block quite a bit. I have a lot of stories we've talked about before. We'll talk about maybe a few of those, but not the super deep ones.

But first of all, first off, give us a rundown of your history, how you got started in this game and where you're at now. Yeah, sure thing. You know, let's start from the beginning. I was, you know, I was in college and was interested in political campaigns and, you know, we did some field work and, you know, fundraising and kind of anything I could get my hands on as a, you know, very low-paid, very junior staff. Ransom campaigns, actually not in the state, too, in California, before I moved to Washington, D.C., and was a junior staffer for the House majority,

leader Tom DeLay. He was the whip at the time. I started out as the guy that carried his bags and then rose to, you know, running the political side of the majority leader's office. After that, went to the NRC, the Senate committee in Washington for Republican senators. And then I've been a pollster since 2009. So it's been, yeah, it's, it's been a bit. 16 years in the polling business doing, you know, basically polling for Republican candidates all across the, it's, it's been a bit. It's 16 years in the polling business doing, you know, basically polling. from dog catcher to U.S. Senate and everything else in between the United States President, everything, you know, then kind of some non-political work that requires public opinion for research. But it's been a ride. Did that dog catcher win? He did. He did. Yeah, by a couple

votes. Polling mattered there. First time I ever heard of Chris Perkins. I was new to the state in 2019 when we were founded, but it was when our founder, Connie Burton, told us that, yeah, she used Chris, and he was the only one that told her she was going to lose in 2018. For better or worse, I'm going to tell you the truth. Well, hey, I'm glad it happened. Sorry to Connie, but I wouldn't be here without that. So she'd still be in the Senate, probably. We all love Connie.

Hey, everything happens for a reason, right? So the big news that you and I have talked about a lot and that everyone is talking about right now, and actually the governor just signed the congressional map this morning, this redistricting fight. You have a different view because you're more D.C. focused. than state ledge focus. So, you know, give me your top line thoughts on, first of all, how this played out, why it happened in the first place, and was it necessary? Sure. This is, it's a lot of deja vu for me, frankly. This was probably the first, I kind of was talking about my early career. I was working for the majority leader, Tom DeLay. So for those that remember in 2003,

there was a mid-decade redistricting very, very similar to what we just went through here. And I was basically the staff guy that was conveniently sent to Austin to help Shepard through the maps as a staff person that represented the congressional delegation. Expected to be down here about six weeks, it took seven months. Seven months I finally got to go home. So I have it. It's very deja vu for me. I would say just bigger picture, I thought the way that the state leaders, the state legislators and the leadership in both the House and the Senate shepherded through the map was incredibly good.

That was something that I had, it took me seven months to actually get, you know, a map finalized with the state leadership and with the congressional delegation. It was, it took a lot longer. So that process to me is very different than what I had to go through and that it was pretty quick. Like the process of the map was a lot more streamlined, for lack of a better term. So I credit the state leadership for getting that process done. And then there's the political implications of it. you know without looking at the previous map and the current you know some before i ever really

got to analyze what the new map would look like i admittedly was um skeptical um that we could get the five seats on our side of the aisle or draw five districts that are that would either lean our way on the republican side or we have a real advantage or we have a competitive advantage in and they did a great job. I'm very happy of the map from a standpoint of we are, we always knew the two in South Texas. We're going to be competitive. Those were going to be competitive under the old lines or the new lines.

They were going to be competitive anyway. But to add a sure fire district in the Dallas area, which will, you know, regardless of the way the political winds blow, we will get. And then two competitive seats, one in Houston, one in the San Antonio area, area that are leaning our way, at least on data, I think they did, I got to tell you, I think they did a great job.

I'm very happy. And as you know, we're talking kind of worst case. I mean, midterm elections aren't always beneficial to the party in power. Yep. But I would, I can sit here confidently and tell you no matter how the political winds are blowing in a year from now, we will end up gaining at, we will end up in a net positive out of Texas. So credit the state leadership for drawing that map in a way that was, that was, it's, it's helping Republicans. There is two new majority Hispanic districts there that weren't

there before. And so, there are also two more majority black districts. Correct. That's exactly right. So I mean, credit the state leadership for, for doing that. I, as a Republican poster, I think it's a great map. So we, we do the Texas partisan index here. It's an average across, of all statewide races in every district across two cycles, right? And if I're off top of my head, the ratings, CD9 in Houston is actually now an R-60. So that is, unless catastrophe for Republicans happens, that's going Republican, right? You mentioned the one in Bear County or outside of Bear County. 35th. 35th. That, I think that's R-55. So that's a bit more tenuous, but like you said, Leans Republican. The one, 34, the one of the two in South Texas, that is,

R53, I think. So that also leans Republican. But then it was interesting, the 28th, that was seemingly the easiest to get based on how the election went last time with Quayar barely escaping upset. That is still leaned down. It actually got more Democratic slightly. It went from D51. Like a point.

Yeah. So I think two points to D53. Yeah. So clearly, I mean, obviously the talk the entire time was we're in. indexing this based on the Trump 2024 results. And all those seats are at least Trump plus 10, but Trump's not going to be on a ballot. So, you know, from a Republican perspective, how confident are you that even in a midterm election without Trump on the ballot that those two South Texas seats go Republicans' way?

I'll take it two ways. I think they're separate seats. So I'll go one by one on what you were talking about in the 28th. And then get him, I wasn't drawing the map. So I will speculate, but I'll give you kind of my take on it. it. You know, that the old way that was drawn had big chunks of San Antonio and Bear County. They are no longer there. So there's also a, I mean, there is a new district, the 35th, that has a lot of San Antonio. So just from a map drawing perspective, kind of putting my map drawing hat back,

you know, many, many, 22 years ago, it's, I just don't see how you, the, Math doesn't work out for 28 to go into Bear County anymore. It's what had to come out. Having said that, it is predominantly rule in ex-urban, and there's going to be some candidate quality. Always, right. That exists in 28 just because of the situation with the current incumbent member. So we can't predict what's going to happen with that.

but I think I think the I'll speculate on the theory of 28 is if the trend line continues then we should be at a competitive advantage as Republicans in that district at some point maybe it's the cycle maybe it's not I hope it's the cycle we just don't know because if you look at the way 28 is drawn and you go back to like 2018 data I mean base Republican number there is 28. And so you can just see that there's been a gradual movement in a district in the way that 28 is drawn today towards the Republican side. So I would assume that's that, I mean, as a poster, I'm always looking for trends. Like, that's a good trend for us. Yes, the current data makes it competitive. And frankly, South Texas is always going to be competitive. I don't know

that, that we can draw a, you know, a district in South Texas that's just deep red. It's that would be very difficult. I guess it's technically possible. But they're always going to be competitive down there. But the trend line on 28 has moved our way every single election going back 18, 20, 22, 24. So there is a trend line. Yes, it's competitive. And that's fine. Like, we're not opposed to competition. Yeah. And you're just counting on that, that trend to continue. I don't know if we're counting on it. That's what we're hoping. Yeah. I mean, if we do our job, if we continue kind of the messaging that we've been doing, you know, to the Valley. to that region of the state, then the theory is we would continue the trend.

34, I think, is a little different in that, you know, visually it doesn't look much different. It's very, if you just look at it visually. All they did was pull up to New Aces County. Correct. That's right. Now, out of Hidalgo County. Now, 34 as drawn beforehand, if you go back to the way the 34th was drawn in 2011, it was drawn as a hard Democrat seat. one that they were going to easily win.

And then we've made gains in that district. Candidate nearly won it. Trump did win it. Mara Flores, who's back running in that, I think she went from losing by, what, 12, 13, 14 points? Six to two. Lost by six and lost by two. That's a huge gain, right?

And then the top of the ticket, we did phenomenally well in that district. So that didn't take, that wasn't going to take much. anyway. I mean, we're talking from a redistricting point of view, minor tweaks to improve the Republican number in 34. 28's a little different. That's a little bit harder because of the way of the region, but 34 was just not going to take very much. I mean, it's just, you know, you, because of the way it was drawn, it was drawn specifically to elect a Democrat back in 2011, not so much anymore because the trend lines have come our way. I was talking about the trend lines have moved our way.

Part of the reason why we did redistricting, I would assume, is because we've seen an interesting trend that before the districts were drawn in 2011. Well, he's... I mean, this whole time, Republicans have been talking about, we're drawing it based on political performance, and we're drawing it to reflect the increased Republican majority in the state, which, you know, I mentioned our TPI, the state from the 2020, 2020, 2018 TPI was R-54. Recently, it went to R-58.

So the state is getting redder. You know, there's a lot of talk about, oh, demographics or destiny, it hasn't happened. Texas is redder than it was six years ago. Yeah, I've listened to Democratic pundits back, you know, since the early 2000s talk about why Texas will go blue, why it will go blue. And we're 25 years later still waiting. And all of it had to do when they first kind of started talking about the turn Texas blue piece with growing minority population. That was always their silver bullet. And that is going the wrong way, especially with Hispanic voters.

Where was it going with this? I guess it's one of those things where I've been hearing this so long that I've been hearing this so long that I'm just kind of used to it. We are getting redder. It's kind of like white noise at this point. This is exactly right. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with with redrawing districts based on political and partisan point of view. I mean, we want to gain seats. We have watched other states, specifically Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York. I mean, you know, when it comes to when it comes to partisanship in redistricting, that's the nature of redistricting. And there is a lot more blue states that do hatchet jobs way worse than this.

I mean, if you visually look at this map, it looks pretty clean. Go look at Illinois. Go look at Maryland. Give me a break. Like so if there is the Democratic, the Democrat talking point on partisan gerrymandering is hollow because they are way worse out of the dust. We draw fair districts in the state of Texas that look nice and clean and we gain seats. They have to draw stuff. Yeah. Look at the Illinois map, I've joked. And Maryland, too, yeah.

The Illinois one, it looks like, if you look at Chicago, it looks like the back of Medusa's head with the tentacles going everywhere. And then you look at the 13th, and it looks like a dogleg-right fairway, you know, on a golf course. I encourage you to look at Maryland, too. Maryland, okay. I mean, like you said, there's nothing more partisan than what we do than redistricting, right? And there's no getting it out of that. And it's totally fair for Illinois to draw the map the way they do, right?

Exactly. Illinois and Maryland have majorities. They have strong majorities of Democrats at the state legislative level. Go for it. There was a lot of talk, especially after the map finally passed. Governor Abbott kind of stoked the flames of this a bit by, you know, saying during the corn break that we might ramp it up to 7, 8, 9, 10 seat game. it seemed to be five was pretty difficult to get to in the first place. In your mind, how difficult or impossible is it to get anything higher than that up to 10?

It would be difficult. It would be difficult. I mean, we are, if we were like Illinois and Maryland, and we didn't have the Voting Rights Act, which they don't have in those states, they're not. Because they're northern states, right? They're northern states, so there is no voting voting rights application. They can break up, you know, minority communities and everything with no problems. We can't really do that here because that's against the law.

We're still under the Voting Rights Act in Texas, and that's fine. It would be difficult to get, I wouldn't say it's impossible. I mean, in theory, we could probably get a sixth. As somebody that knows the data, I could see a sixth. I don't know how much more we could get out of that. Hard to say. But I think part of where the state did so well with these maps is none of the current sitting Republican members of the congressional delegation lost of their political base. So each one's, because you'd get into a situation where if you were to try and cram in more districts, which, you know, in a great year we'd be fine with, you would be, you would be putting current members of the delegation at risk where, you know, it's like we gain here to lose here.

We draw this to potentially lose this. There was a lot of question of whether Beth Van Dyne's district, which was very tight in 2020 before the redraw, would go back to being that. And clearly she'd have no interest in that, right? I would assume I haven't talked to Beth about it, but her district was great. In this map, I mean, I noticed every single incumbent member's political base is still intact, and none of them were thinned out to a point that it put a member of the current delegation at risk. another phenomenal job by the state because that is when you start getting into the sixth seat and the seventh seat and the eighth seat that is where you would have to go there would be some that you'd have to just I couldn't tell you where but you know you can go back I was you

encourage you to go back to the election results of 2020 that is basically where you see I mean there was what six I believe it's six members current members of Congress who are Republican that won with either 52% or less, six of them. There was a lot of them. There was quite a few. And so that is where we're talking about having to replay that by being the theory of, oh, yeah, you can get seven or eight seats, but how many did you just put in play?

Yeah. Well, back in 21, the reason that other than partisan improvement for Republicans in Texas, reason there was so much meat on the bone to grab new seats is because they went for incumbent protection in 21, right? Because there was a lot of members of the delegation that barely won re-election in 20. And that costs money from the national apparatus. They don't want to do that, right? They want to avoid it if at all costs, right?

So, you know, like you said, were involved in the 03 fight. There were a lot of similarities between then and now. Yeah. In fact, the 03 fight was invoked quite a bit. bit, quite a bit this time, because they were talking about, well, Republicans were drawing a map for partisan performance. The state flipped. The state legislature was unified Republican, but the congressional map did not match that. Actually, Democrats had a majority. It tells about that whole fight, and obviously now you have all this software that's really helpful. It's better.

What was it like back then? Oh, yeah. We had software then. We actually did. In 2003, we did have computers and software. Didn't have iPhones yet. So that was, yeah, smartphones were not, we're not a thing back then. So we couldn't take pictures of the map and send it around. So I had to physically walk the map down the hall to show somebody. Wow. The difference there for today is what I would basically say what we're doing today is, you know, we are looking for a partisan gain over a shifting demographic since in Texas since 2021. If you go back to two, 2003. And this is, we're going to get, you know, telling old stories from, from me here. The Republicans at the congressional level hadn't drawn the congressional map,

dare I say, ever until that point. Wow. Because in 2001, when the state was still, when the, when the House was under Democrat, state house. So the State House was still Democrat. Speaker Pete Laney, they refused to pass a congressional map at all. They just didn't do it. And so a three-judge panel confirmed what was the Martin Frost gerrymander of 91. They basically just took the same map, cleaned it up, added two new seats, and that was it. So there was no redraw. It was a court-ordered map because the state didn't do their job and pass a map. So that was where basically the delegation asked the new speaker, Tom Craddick, to, could you help us do a map? Because to me, that's the state's, the state is punting their obligation.

The Constitution says state legislative bodies draw congressional maps. That is not independent commissions. That is not three judge panels. That is specific to the state legislative body. So that was the difference in 03 was we were able to gain, I believe it was six seats. I think it was five we gained and then won like a cycle later, something like that. I remember drawing it as a plus six map. But that was the difference then is that we were working under the current map was so heavily Democrat that we, I had a lot more tools in my chest to be able to use.

because it was like just an open map. Versus now we've got a robust congressional delegation. All good men and women who represent the state at the congressional level. So we had to take them into the equation when drawing maps or they did. I didn't do it. Back then, we didn't have as many. So we had a lot more space and kind of filled the space with drawing the map back then. So it was a different animal because 2003 was,

literally the first time that Republicans got to draw a congressional map, I would say ever. Yeah. But I don't want to say ever because I'm sure maybe four hour later time. Back to Reconstruction. Yeah, reconstruction. Maybe so. Yeah. That's so far back.

Yeah. I don't know if the House Journal is really that enlightening if you go back that far. Right. So one of the contentions Democrats have made after this quorum break that just delayed the map. Like I said, the map just got signed. We'll see how it does in court. but one of the arguments they've made is they brought national awareness to this issue that most people either don't care about or don't know anything about previously.

You know, as a pollster, do you see this thing really having much, you know, penetration into the thinking of voters when they go make a decision next year? The short answer on that is it depends on the voter. But the long answer is no. I mean, when you're talking to average voters that are swing voters nationally, whether it's Texas or whether it's, you know, Florida or Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Nevada, I mean, swing voters aren't sitting there thinking about redistricting. They're thinking about, you know, the cost of goods, you know, safety, schools, health care. Redistricting is a microphone for the activists on both sides. That's who cares.

The Republican activists, the Democrat activists, the hard right, the hard left, the conservatives, the liberals. I mean, you're talking about the activists care about that. I have never seen ever where redistricting is actually used in a paid political campaign to move numbers ever on any side of the eye. I mean, if that's what they claim, fine. You know, it didn't, we wouldn't have gone there. But, I mean, they, they, the state of New York literally did this last year. They did it last year. They redistricted for partisan gain.

And they still, they picked up two of the three seats they wanted kind of deal. But we didn't use that. We have talked about cost of goods and crime and things like that and things that benefit us. And they're going to talk about those things. That's fine. That's what we, that's what we should be doing. But no, I am not buying it. I mean, I don't know if that's a talking point and they just think it and they're just saying it to fire up the base.

That's what I suspect. But, I mean, they believe that it's penetrating to independent swing voters and to make re-districting an issue. Nah, not happening. Okay. Yeah, I heard it argued yesterday that independents because they're arguing that they're fed up with the, the partisanship on either side, which is why they're independent, right, that this might, you know, break that level and get to them as a mover. Yeah.

I mean, I would, if we were to walk next door and do a focus group of independence right now, and I ask them their most important issues, I don't, I think I'd had to get about 28th to even hear the word redistricting. I'm I I I respectfully disagree there is you know we are still going to be talking about what we've done to improve the economy how we've secured the border you know what we've done for schools and the Democrats will talk about what they're doing and health care and other things that benefit them that is that is going to be kind of the the framework of messaging if they want to talk about redistricting I welcome that well you know you look at the the list of items I'm talking about talking to the public polling now, you probably have seen similar numbers, but if you look at the list of priorities you've got in Texas, the border, right? Right below that is always the economy. Those are one A and one B, everything else is pretty far below. Is that what you're seeing, too? Yes, in the state, that's true. Now, I would tell you that schools and education is a very clear top

three issue. Okay. You're talking about basically the economic piece, you know, the small businesses, improving economy, lower taxes, that all kind of wraps into a single unit that I call kind of the economic message. Then there's border security, which is always one, two. And then there is education in schools, which is a third. So those are the three at the state level that I'm seeing. And it's not a ton different nationally. You get into, health care is a top four message. It's the same ones. It's kind of an economy message. And then in some states, it's a border security message. In some states, it's a crime, but there's a safety message that's there, or an issue that's there. So you kind of see the economic peace, safety, schools and

education, health care, or your top four nationally. I would say in three, in Texas, yes, it's the economy, the border, and schools. Okay. Because of your top three issues, very consistently, very consistently. We don't know exactly how the economy will be looking like in a year and a half from now. And obviously that's going to determine a lot. It's the economy stupid. James Carville, right? He's not said that. What are you seeing in voters' view of the economy right now

and their outlook on both what the Trump administration is doing and just generally how things are going? Sure. And I'll kind of talk more nationally on that side. I mean, as a political strategist and to grow the Republican Party, to increase seats in Congress, state ledge, wherever, in the Senate, you can just, from a broad national view, we have to talk. We have to be able to go into the midterm with a very good economic message on we've delivered X. Have to. And last year, y'all were campaigning

against the status quo, and it was very effective. That's exactly right. Inflation, cost of goods. I think what we need to do is basically just that. You know, if we can communicate to the American people that the cost of goods is going down, inflation is decreasing, small businesses are growing, taxes are lower, your pocketbook is in better shape than it was two to four years ago, that is what we need to be able to say. I don't know, I can, I'll go back to other issues, but when it comes to the economy, there is no stranglehold that one party has on that, because we've seen that flip and flip and flip. If we go back to the midterm, so probably three years ago, the midterm, that would be 2022,

where Republicans did okay, but not amazing. The reason we did not do amazing was because we won with the economic voters, but we didn't really make the major case. We were basically nationally somewhere about 55 to 60 percent. of winning economic, those that said economy, when we really needed about 75. The reason Trump won, so did so well in the most recent election is because you saw all these these pre-poles, like before the election, that essentially suggested that Trump was doing decent with economic voters, but in reality, he won about 75% of them.

So those that were saying the economy, he did well. He probably outperformed the Republican midterms by about roughly 15 to 20 points. But that shifts. I mean, that is always the issue that neither party has the strangle hold on, but that needs to be the one we win. We do very well with border security voters, those that say that's their number one issue or immigration or safety crime. We do very well with those. The Democrats do very well with health care. There is a reason why they are starting the tacklines now on cutting health care benefits, et cetera, et cetera, whether that's true or not.

they're doing it. There's a reason they do that because if they can increase the Annie, increase the awareness or issue kind of matrix, for lack of a better term, on health care, they're going to do well. So there's advantages that both parties have that we have as Republicans on certain issues that they have as Democrats on certain issues. The economy is the one that is up for grabs. And it is always, it's either going to be one or two, it's always a top two issue,

period, regardless of the political. climate. So it's who can win on that issue. Who can right flag. We need to say we are lowering costs. Inflation is down. Small businesses are growing. Taxes are low. And they need to say, no, they need to say it's not. Do Democrats have the advantage on the education issues or is that kind of split? State to state. It really depends on the state. I've seen that's the one issue that you consistently see as a top three or four issue, but I could almost tell you. like this state is really heavy here or this state's here. Democrats used to.

If you go back, you probably kind of at the beginning of Trump's first term, there was a, I mean, the education issues was not great for us. It was more of a defensive issue. That has come around. I think the parental rights in schools, what the left's narrative on, um you know the the LGBT stuff in schools and and and more the social side of social side yeah this is really pissed off a lot of of just independence so we have come back we've gone from a very severe deficit 10 plus years ago on the education issue to being about dead even uh which is great um so

we do not have to seed that is an issue any longer. I mean, years ago when we would get hit on it, we would play defensive posture and try and change the subject. Now we don't necessarily have to. But I can tell you it's a state-to-state issue. I've seen it where ours have a big advantage in state X on education and Ds have a big advantage in a completely separate state. Here it's about, I would say in Texas it's about normal.

We can play. We expect at the state level for the Democrats to hit us. But we're ready. Yeah. So one of my going theories, and I'm curious your thoughts on it generally, but also there's a specific example that comes to mind. So the two parties, the polls are kind of flipping. The Republican Party used to be the more ideological party.

The Democratic Party used to be the more coalition party. We're kind of seeing that change where a great example, I think, is, you know, Trump's appeal and Republicans increased appeal to unions, blue-collar unions. Yeah. Am I on the right track there, or is, obviously, it's not entirely flipped yet, but I kind of see a trend developing. What do you think? Yes, I mean, in the current, in the current environment, there has been a lot more of kind of your, let's call it, it's more of a socioeconomic side. that the blue-collar workers and blue-collar voters

had trended more towards the Republicans. And that, you know, they love to beat up Republicans on top 1%, et cetera, et cetera. But the more really high-income, really high-income voters have trended more towards the Democrats. Whereas they used to be very heavily Republican. This big Republican, heavily Democrat, so that's been, it's been a bit of a shift. I don't know, I can't sit here and tell you that I have the answer for that. I think there's two reasons.

Mainly it's because they see, the blue-collar workers see the Republicans as more of the ones that will actually help their job and help them, you know, keep their job, et cetera, et cetera. It's more of a jobs issue, you know, when you, when, you know, when, you. Before this shift started, you basically saw the first thing of, you know, Green New Deal and getting rid of fossil fuels. And, you know, we can't have oil and gas drilling anywhere or offshore drilling anywhere at all. We've got to shut the industry down, which I think started the process of kind of your blue-collar work. And being like, wait, really?

We're going to start kicking tires looking at the other way. I don't know the reason for the shift for the very high-income. dumb boaters, very high, towards Dems. I would assume there's probably a bit of tone that has to do with that. I can't sit here and tell you. I know, I think a lot of that is less a policy, and it's probably more of tone that they like, they like, they may not like the tone. And that's, that's reasonable.

No, we'll get through that. Whether it's reasonable or not, that's how they feel, right? That's how they feel. Yeah, you know, I can't tell them otherwise. Right. So there's been a lot of ink spilled about the Hispanic shift in Texas. I'd like your thoughts on that generally. You know, how actually thorough is that towards Republicans?

But also just there's got to be more than just that going on in Texas. Oh, yeah. What are you seeing? It's going on nationally. Yeah. It's not just Texas Hispanic voters that have shifted towards the Republican, more conservative side. This is going on everywhere. This is not an anomaly. We are not an anomaly in this state. This is happening nationwide.

And I mean, and I can kind of tell you, so we've known for many years, many years. This is not a new thing that when I've, when I've done polling, we can see Hispanic voters for many years have been pretty culturally conservative. Yes. So this isn't anything new. We've all, so I guess it's one of those things where when we go back in years, we can look at it. We always knew they were kind of, they were culturally conservative. So there was always a dialogue we could potentially have with them, but they just were still voting Democrat because they saw the Democrat party and or the Democratic candidates as someone who would be more supportive of someone like them. I don't think that's an ethnic side. I think that's just what they saw.

They're like, okay, even though we're culturally probably a little bit more right, you know, they, they, that's party, the Democrats, is more likely to, you know, be the party that would support someone like me. It's also just tradition, right? Yes. Going back centuries, the Democrats have owned that, right? Now as we, and this is a while ago, we're talking a decade plus. Yeah. As we shifted forward, I think two things happen. And one I've kind of already said, especially in this state, I think the assault on the oil and natural gas industry started this, the Green New Deal.

There is, when you look at, you know, oil and gas workers in South Texas, West Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, anywhere. There is a lot of Hispanics, a lot of hardworking blue-collar Hispanics, and their party that they've been voting. for is trying to take away their job. That is what, I think that's, I believe that's what started this because that was one of the first kind of big progressive things is the Green New Deal and you saw it get pushed by national media. You have Time Magazine's person of the year was Greta Thunberg. That's ridiculous.

And that started to turn off the blue collar workers specifically as we're talking about Hispanic shifts in those areas. Then you add this very kind of, I guess we'll call it wokey culture roar that they keep pushing, which I still don't understand with the trans agenda and, you know, things in schools and just being very boisterous. And you add that they're not really with us on the economy anymore. They're no longer the party that would be more likely to help me. and you've got them pushing this really radical, just weird stuff. That is, I see, kind of where it all kind of came together. And then last cycle, even though we saw the shifts already before last cycle,

last cycle is where it all, like, punctuated is when we had a clear economic message and a clear contrast to the Dems, that's when they really started. shifting last cycle. I mean, it was, it was already happening. Like, so it wasn't a surprise that we did so well with them because we already saw the trend line. But when, when we were basically able to provide a very clear contrast of an economic message that we will help your businesses grow. We will keep costs down. We can help you afford and be able to put your kids in school. That is where the shift really started. Like, it really came to type of fruition. Now we just got to keep going. Yeah. What about the suburbs? Because in 18, that was where

Republicans took a big hit and that a big part of that was tone right that's it has has that changed has have Republicans you know made the gains back in that area no we have not but yes that is why you're right it tone there you basically you know upper middle class voters that are a little probably a little bit more socially liberal but there was a tone issue that is I think I would say it's improved, but I don't think that we are, I'm not sitting here ready to say that we can go when all the suburban voters back. But I do think that is an opportunity. And again, that's going to come down to an economic message. In some communities, maybe not necessarily Texas, some in Texas, we can, we as the party can talk about a crime and safety issue because that is happening in some other suburban communities.

nationally, that is starting to move them back. Now, obviously, we want to be able to protect them, so if they're not in harm's way, but it's a pure political issue, they're starting to look back our way based on the safety concerns in some of these other suburban communities. So I'm seeing that as well, purely as a political issue. Not talking public policy here.

Yeah. So another, and this is kind of health care, but it really is its own issue, abortion. Right. Democrats try and make it a health care issue, but it really stands on its own as an entirely different thing. Last year we saw Democrats, Colin Allred, Chief Among Them, really putting all or most of their eggs in the abortion basket,

and it just didn't pan out. Now, if you look at polling, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look at polling, the Republicans are behind the eight ball on the abortion issue itself standalone. No doubt. Particularly in a state like Texas, right? Anywhere. And the broad, you know, trend on abortion is Americans don't like third-termester abortions.

They also don't like restrictions on first-termester abortions, and we fight it out in between, right? Yep. What are you seeing on that end with that issue? Is it just not a big issue for, it's not the deciding issue for people? It, there's a couple ways I look at this. The first thing is, thankfully for my side of the aisle, the abortion issue has been, for the last two cycles, it was a top three issue, if not top two, since Dobbs. Before the Dobbs decision, it wasn't, you could barely find it in a poll. Right after Dobbs hit, it became a top two or three issue.

Supporting more restrictions? Yes. Yeah, that, yes, it was, it was not beneficial to the Republicans. Okay. It went from a 1% or nothing issue Dobbs hit, and it was top three. Oh, wow. Okay. And almost overnight. Naturally, because the way I look at it, if you look at the generic ballots among, you know, those that say abortion is the number one issue, it is 90 to 10 Democrat.

Yeah. So the strategy for them is to increase the awareness of the issue, because the more and more people, say, oh, that's my top issue, they have a 90% chance of converting them. Fortunately, it is dropped. I am seeing a lot less of women's right to choose abortion-related issue on top. It is falling. I don't expect them to walk away from that issue. I very much expect that the Democratic side is going to come after the Republicans

with an abortion message, I would assume they will tie it to health care because that's a little easier for them because of recent federal activities to bring it to. But they're not going to go away from it because it's basically been the one winner they've had for the past four years. I mean, it really has. So why has it works, though? Well, I think it has. I don't, I would say, I don't, I don't believe that we took, when we go back to the midterm in 2000, that would be,

2022. You know, there was, there was all this talk about a red wave, red wave, red wave. I don't know if you remember this. Nationally, we're going to have a red wave. It was more like a pink trickle because we did well, but I don't think we did. We did not maximize our gains that year. And I think abortion was a key component of it. It is a difficult issue for us because it's also easy. You know, if we want to talk about fundamental tax policy and fiscal conservatism and how we're going to improve your lives. That's hard to do in a 30 second spot. And it doesn't really make news. You say abortion and every news outlet will pick up the story and it's easy to put on the spot. I mean, it's a easy talking point. Our narrative on the economy

because it's more nerdy and policy driven is hard. They say abortion and it makes news. So it's an easier message for them to focus on. Even though we have a lot more issues on our side, that benefit us, their issues easier. So, yes, I mean, didn't work is, I would say it kind of did. I just don't think we maximized our gains that we could have really done in the midterm because of the issue. I mean, I was, you know, prior to Dobbs, I was very bullish on a big, healthy, robust majority, and we got five. But that was because of the issue. I don't think it worked as well last cycle because it was a presidential year.

But, I mean, I still think that it was relatively effective in down-ballot races. I can show you case after case where we were, you know, we lost a few house seats, not Texas, outside of the state by a point or two because of the issue. So we're, I still think we, it's been, we were, Trump was still able to win. We were still able to win with Trump because that was more of an economic message. There was very – it's hard to do a national abortion thing when it comes to presidential politics. It can be done, but it's harder, especially when, you know, you have high inflation and things like that, when their economic is driving the message. But you can still use – Democrats can still use it down ballot, and they have.

But it's dropping. So I wonder how they're going – I don't know that they'll be able to use it in such robust ways. Okay. But we'll see. Is that, is that, is the reason that it's hard to make it a nationwide issue as opposed to the economy? The economy is a nationwide thing. Whereas if you look across the country, there's all these patchworks of laws, right? So like California is very heavily, you know, in favor of abortion, whereas Texas is the opposite of that.

Is that the reason there's the discrepancy there? Kind of sort of. I mean, it's, yeah, you could play it. You could go play it on a state-to-state level, but, I mean, in general, When you get to a national presidential race, yes, you know, abortion is going to be an issue. But is it as big of an issue as in the economy? Is it as big of an issue as securing the border? That becomes, to me, it's the psychology of the voter when you're looking at a president is it's kind of like, okay, this person is going to be better for X reason.

But when you get down ballot, they could be making other decisions. They're not going to make the decision based on, okay, I voted for Trump, but then I'm going to vote for the Republican here and vote for a Republican here. It doesn't always work that way. I mean, you still have to have a brand on every individual candidate as you're going down the ballot. That's why we do polling. Because we can't just basically run every Republican in the country as a Donald Trump clone,

just like they can't run every Democrat in the country as a Kamau Harris clone. Not a parliamentary election. We've got our own individual brands that you have to do, which is why I think it's easier for the abortion issue to be more of a down-ballot issue. Okay. That makes sense. Yes, it does. It does.

You know, so the whole reason we're doing, Texas was doing the redistricting is to try and keep the House. Sure. Yes. What do you put the odds of Republicans retaining the House or losing it next year? I mean, it's a total coin flip. I mean, right, it's the thinnest majority. I mean, the Republicans are a three-seat majority. That's it.

Three. It may have changed. If there was a resignation by the time you and I've been talking, it could be two. It could be four. You never know. I mean, it's, but it's so thin that it really could go either way. We'll see when the dust settles, meaning there, I believe there is only one district in the nation that is held by a Republican, the Kamala Harris one. and there is four that Democrats hold the Trump won.

So those five are going to be the natural battlegrounds. They're going to go after that one. Two of them are in Texas, right? Yes. Quay are in Gonzalez. They're in Texas. And Maine is the other one. I can't remember the other one has.

There's only four. So there's a really thin number of presidential party flippers to down-ballot seats out. They're so thin. So we're going to have to go back and they're going to have to go try and win. Democrats are going to have to win and gain seats in Trump Dixiris, and we're going to have to go try and gain seats in Kamala Harris districts. Boring what happens with redistricting because now there's a couple of other states that are potentially going to, you know, flip. I would say if you look at the ones that are rumored to do redistricting broadly,

you're talking maybe net ones out of all of them, California being the only wild card. Because the rest of them, you're talking about, okay, a D plus one or an R plus one, there's just not much more to get. California would be the only wild card of can they get, can one party, in this case, the Democrats get a lot. I think they're planning five, right, to cancel Texas is out. Well, first they've got to pass the constitutional amendment, and that's not straightforward, right? A whole other story. But odds, I think the odds are an absolute coin flip. I really do.

I mean, I would have said this even if it were a midterm that we're benefiting us or not benefiting us because of the House being so thin. I mean, this is four years now that we're dealing with a single-digit majority. This could go really either way, depending on how the political winds are blowing. I think it's going to be much harder for the Democrats who take the U.S. Senate. And that's based, the Senate's just based on math, just based on what's up. it's going to be incredibly difficult, just pure math purposes for them to get the Senate. But the House is, I mean, the House is always a coinflip. Just always, it has been for four years.

But we've been continuing to hold it. And, you know, getting midterms are one of those things where typically the party in power doesn't do very well. But when you look at national numbers right now, you could almost look about this time, Biden was kind of like job approval, like minus 18. Trump's kind of even to minus 2 plus 2 and the generic ballots like D plus 1 R plus 1, it's real just even Stephen at least what I am seeing as of today

doesn't matter what's today It'll matter what a year from this now Who the heck knows what that looks like? Are you following the U.S. Senate race here at all? Eventually. Okay. The bit that you do know What do you make of this so far

because Corn Camp has been making the case that Pakistan can't win a general that obviously runs afoul of the way Texas is just generally partisan-wise. Democrats are making the case that they can beat Paxton. And then we're actually seeing it looks like things getting more competitive between Cornyn and Paxton. Well, it'll be, I mean, the primary is going to be competitive. I would say from the general election perspective, yes, there are, I mean, I think there's kind of, you could say essentially both sides are right. it's there is the side that is like it doesn't really matter who the republicans put up because

Texas will always stay red blah blah blah blah and there and history does say that I mean it's been a been a long time and we've been through some real bad years where we've been able to hold all of the statewides now there has been actual polling legitimate polling that does show that john Cornyn is a stronger general election candidate than Ken Paxton. That is true. It's from a polling perspective. Does that mean someone else not named Cornyn or Paxton or anybody would lose? I don't know. I think there's a lot of other, there's a lot of other things that could be at play that we're not even thinking about today, a year from now. Yes. I mean, I can sit there and verify those polls that say that John Cornyn, as of today, is a stronger general election candidate

than Ken Paxton. Candidate quality. That's always the big question. Candidate quality. Come back to candidate quality. You know, I would also say that, I mean, again, I've just mentioned this to you at the beginning is I've been listening to the Democrats for years, you know, talk about how they're going to win this and win that and win this and win that.

I would, I'm been thrilled to see who their candidate quality is. Because if we're talking about Allred and Beto, I mean, here we go. We're going to do this again? Is this what we're going to do? I would welcome either one of those, regardless of who the nominee is. I mean, those are, there's, yeah, good luck. So you think there are better options to go with someone who hasn't run statewide before? like uh i mean you could go i i don't pretend to know what the democrats are thinking so let me

speculate sure in theory yeah a relatively unknown someone would be with without you know an established left of center brand um would probably be there that'd probably be the right way guessing i don't really know what they're thinking um but i would say i mean there is There's lots of challenges to that. That's name ID and fundraising and things like that. That just how are you going to be able to make from the Democratic point of view, Texas in play? That's, you either need a ton of money or substantial name ID to be competitive.

Okay. I mean, I think that's probably why they can. keep going back to the same old, same old, same old, same old, because, well, at least he or she has name ID, or at least he or she has money. I mean, probably not going to win, but, you know, that kind of thing. I think the Beto phenomenon of 18 was a little different. First of all, it's Ted Cruz.

Love the guy, but, you know, he's very, he's one of the national Democrats really don't like because he's such a national conservative leader that all of, you basically have your national Democrats that it doesn't matter who's running against him. They're going to help. Also, at the time, Beto was not. necessarily considered a big liberal progressive. He was not, that, that happened later. Yeah. That happened during his presidential. That happened during his presidential. He was, he was

a lot harder to pick on when he first ran because he wasn't known as some, you know, big, he was kind of in the House. He was more known as kind of more moderate Democrat. Now he's obviously not. All right not the case. I mean, he was very, he was very much known as a party line, progressive liberal person so he was a little bit easier to pick on but I just don't know where they go like it's you know I I think that they would have a better shot if it was some no name but you know who are they running against yeah and how do they get the money and how do they build name ID and there's a lot of challenges um to that in a in a state that hadn't elected a Democrat in a while I mean it's kind of one of those things where I'll believe it when I see it

I've been listening to doing them for years to say, oh, we're going to win it, we're going to win it. All right. That still hasn't happened. Yeah. Three decades later. You know, about candidate quality, generic Republican never goes up against generic Democrat.

It doesn't exist. A generic ballot test is a good way to look at things in advance. But it comes down to those candidates. And, you know, all read going into the race was looked at generally about as generic Democrats as you can get. But then Cruz and Republicans nationally started picking on his votes. You know, the, whatever the bill was related to biological men competing in women's sports, things like that. And that really picked him apart. Right. I mean, that was a very effective set of ads.

Voting with Nancy Pelosi 100% of the time. Yep. I mean, he didn't even try and hide it. Well, you can't, right? I mean, yeah, I mean, the two candidates that, that I, that I, keep hearing about that are, I haven't run statewide. Who knows that they do? James Tala Rico. He went on Joe Rogan, which gave him a bunch of, you know, a claim and name idea I saw in Politico this morning that Barack Obama actually called him to, to applaud him for doing that, going to places Democrats typically don't.

Then you got Joaquin Castro, who's been a congressman in San Antonio for a while. Any thoughts on those two? I don't. I've polled neither of them. Couldn't really tell you. What about Jasmine Crockett? Yeah, hard to say. I don't.

Yeah. All of this is a big, there's so many question marks around. I mean, if you go back to 2018, last time the Senate race was competitive, there's question marks around Better O'Rourke. Nobody really thought that he was very real. It's just like, you know, whatever, let's go. And he caught fire, probably because of fundraising. But can that be replicated without Ted Cruz on the ballot?

That's frankly, the way I see. It's a lot harder, you know, because we can always raise a lot of money against Nancy Pelosi. We'll never beat her in her own district. But we can raise a lot of money just because of who she is. I don't – does the boogeyman exist in Texas this year? That's a lot more – that's a lot difficult. That's very difficult when they've got to, you know, try and – if they're doing the math, they have more opportunities in Maine and North Carolina while still having to defend.

in Georgia, it gets tricky. I mean, I try, you could put, there's probably good and bad things about those candidates on the Democratic side that you name, but, I mean, until they can build a statewide profile with name ID and have a, and have a significant amount of money to be able to communicate, I'm just, I'm still, I'm still not buying it. Well, I mean, they have no bench, really, which is, like you said, why they keep going back to Beto and All Red. But it kind of seems that maybe a better strategy would be to go after a lower ballot statewide.

One that comes to mind is the AG race. You've got Nathan Johnson there. Joe Jaworski ran last time and lost. But Johnson is widely considered as a very formidable just politician. He's very polished. He's very intelligent. He comes off very well. All the eyes are on the Senate race and the ability to maybe take out Ken Paxton.

If there's a win to be had, is it a lower ballot statewide? Sure. I mean, you know, I'm not advising Democrats, but if I were, that's probably what I would do. I would be like, you know, because to win a U.S. Senate race with national implications, yes, the likelihood I still think is slim. Just because of everything we just talked about, I do think there is more opportunity at a downback. valid race. That I do agree with. Now, I don't have a reason as to why. I think that, you know, there, you can, if you raise a lot of money, you can, you can kind of manufacture it because there will be less attention on it. Yeah. Because there's going to be, even if they were to get a strong

U.S. Senate candidate, you're talking about national. There's the amount of news that will be the coverage of that race will be very intense to where that's. kind of all anyone's there and talk about politically. When you get into a down-ballot race, you know, take your pick, the coverage on it is just not nearly as intense because they will be focused on one

race. So that's what, that would probably be the strategy I would take. Now, I don't know if they're going to do that. I have no idea. Who the heck knows at this point? I really don't know. I mean, it seems like they're putting all their eggs into the U.S. Senate basket and, you know, they keep hoping to replicate 2018.

Maybe they do. But it hasn't happened yet, right? Yeah. So I have two more things I want to touch on. First, as a pollster, when you see polls put out, you know, obviously there's garbage poles, there's good polls, there's internal polls, public polls. When a poll lands on your desk about a race you care about, how do you read it? What do you look for to show either it's bunk or it's legit?

it's very difficult for the average person who doesn't work in this like we do to sit down and see anything other than the top line. So what's your advice on that? So this is, you'll have to start over again. So this is a poll that lands in my lap. So this would be not mine. This would be like some other poll that would like a media poll or. Yeah, let's do that.

The first word of advice, never make strategic decisions on polls you didn't pay for. so that's the candidate advice the campaign and most campaigns get that like it's it you know they're there is there is strategic decisions that need to be made and if you're if you're seeing polls in the paper and you think oh we've got to do this because that poll says it there's a lot of differences so i'll answer your question a very long-winded way it mean based on what i do versus what the media does or excuse me not the media it's polls that the media reports on are very there are two very different things. I mean, there's, I'm a private pollster for a reason because we can take a very rigorous approach into making sure, um, that the top line results are going

to be accurate. And that's, that's costly. Um, and there's, the, the surveys that you see and the polls that you see that the, the media reports on are done for a reason. They're done inexpensively, kind of cutting corners. And they're done for a reason. It's a narrative. They're, they're putting it out publicly because they want they want attention they want a story based on the results um and back to texas i mean texas is frankly one of the most difficult states to poll which is why you yeah i mean texas is the state i see the most inaccurate public pollsters um because of a lot of reasons i mean we're there we're we're a top five in cell phone only households that's tough for a lot of pollsters not for me but for a lot of them they are um we don't have

party registration. There's only 19 states that don't. So you can do partisanship by party registration in every state. And we're the most ethnically diverse. And we're huge. So all, a cobble all into that. And that's why, that is the reason why most of the public polls in this state are not accurate. Because it's hard. Yeah. I mean, it's a, it's a lot harder to do a accurate survey in the state of Texas than say, I don't know, Minnesota, Rhode Island, South Dakota. I mean, it's just, it's a lot harder. And so I always say, I mean, a lot of times when you say a poll hits my desk,

when I do it, you usually pitch it in the garbage, honestly. Like, I mean, like, if I have internal polling, I already know what the race is. I don't really care what this poll says or that poll says. So that's, I mean, I get asked this all the time. People are like, oh, you know, what do you think about this poll. I didn't. I didn't think about it. I saw it and just said, move along with my day. Now, I would say there's a couple of things to look at. So from, you know, from the average reader who is, you know, not a political professional, but likes to read polls from time to time, I would say there's a, there's a couple of things. There is, how long did it take to complete? If it took any more than a week, it's crap. If the sample size is very relevant. I mean,

I've seen some of the most recent ones at like 400 statewide. I'm like, come on. It's just way too small. That's way too small. I mean, that's a, that's a congressional district, not a statewide. So the sample size is real. You want to see in the state of Texas, you want to see at least 800, at least, a bare minimum. Methodology is the most important, in my opinion. A lot of, and that's supposed to be disclosed. Anytime you see. see an online panel, red flag, because internet polls or emailed polls are, you are basically getting activists. And my job as a pollster is to try or is to put together a survey that encompasses the highest amount of your average voters as possible, because that's who we need

to be talking to. That's who we need to develop a messaging strategy to. And that's frankly who we want to see the results with. When you start instituting online polls and even large quantities of text to web, those aren't average voters. Those are activists. Those are people

looking to take a poll. The heavy majority of voters, this is not unique to Texas, this is everywhere, aren't exactly looking to take a poll. You've got to actually hit them and then get them to take the results. And the average voters don't pay attention until the election until about two weeks out.

But we still need to know how to communicate to them. So anytime you see, you know, lots of, oh, this was an online poll. I mean, that means that's activists. That's activists that are taking to your survey. I didn't think about that slant before with, you know, priority on actually answering a poll. Yeah, that's exactly right. Yeah. Yeah.

So live dials are still live interviews. are still going to be the best methodology to maximize the number of your average voter, which makes up a huge majority of every state's electorate. The activist piece is really small. It's shockingly small. And that's who you're getting when you're doing other types of, you know, they sounds real need online polls, but that's, yeah, you're getting a bunch of activists in that. You're not getting real valuable public opinion because you're getting the,

smaller piece of just activists, not the average voter. So, anyway, probably a long-winned way to answer the question. That's fascinating. Yeah. So when you're, as a paid pollster, when you're designing a sample, how do you go about that, especially given what you mentioned about Texas being so diverse and so massive? It's rigorous. I mean, it's, this is why there's the difference.

I mean, that's why we're not necessarily cheap. Yeah. You get what you pay for, right? You get what you pay for. No, I mean, I'm no different than any other, the partisan poll. We have a very robust data team that puts together that handles with rigor designing and understanding what the voter file looks like before we make a single call. And that's age, ethnicity, gender, and geographic. So I can sit there and, I mean, I could show it to you, we're all nerds here,

what it looks like. It's a very robust spreadsheet where we have to have quotas behind every single demographic group and do it over three days. It takes time. Versus, you know, a public pollster just kind of opens the phone book. They do however long it takes and then they wait it to what they think the election will look like or what the story is that they're trying to drive. So that's why they're not handled as well. We've got private pollsters have a very robust data team. and rigor behind how they are going to ensure every single small piece of age, gender, ethnicity and regional votership is distributed. And that's a lot of work.

That's basically the way it works. Because a lot of times you'll see these, well, you're quoting an age group at 2%. Well, that's too small of sample size to... to look at. That's true. But when the 2% and the 6% and the 8% and the 11% combine all into one, we've got to make sure it's accurate. I've got to be confident that I can give you the accurate results with a margin of error of, you know, usually it's three for larger polls. But those 1, 2, 3% count when you're hitting them. Because a lot of times, oh, we just missed them, you just wait it, which is what the public polls do. It's a lot of waiting. And we try and

minimize the weights. We have to wait sometimes, but it's not, we minimize it to make sure that we're getting what you're paid for. Yeah. Well, the other key aspect is, you know, shaping questions, right? And some of these polls you see, especially if they're push polls, questions are just asinine. It is absurd. But you, you know, you want to see what it actually looks like. So you've got to ask a question in a neutral manner. That's right. Unless you're doing a messaging poll. Right. So what, how rigorous is that? How much time do you spend crafting questions to make sure you get an accurate result? Sure. Yes. And like you said, it's the, my job is to tell you the truth, not tell you what you want to hear. Yeah, when it comes to the messaging polls,

I mean, the push polls are things that people utilize to get a story out. You know, would you support this if you knew that and that you know if it's disclosed and they want to put it out in the public domain that's their call I mean like I would recommend that somebody not do that but that's you know somebody else's call as long as it's disclosed now crafting messages I will tell you I'm the kind of the math nerd usually when when we're polling we're working with a team it's not just me with on a campaign there is you know there is a strategist there is a creative team and so usually the creative ones are more likely to write those. I mean, I'll write them, and I think that here's what I'm seeing.

I'm seeing a health care message, an education message, a border security message, a property tax message, a small business message. So here's the things that I'm generally seeing, and then here's some biographical information on he or she as a candidate or as a member and some accomplishments if it's an incumbent that, you know, he or she did this bill or passed that bill or authored this, whatever, and just kind of put it all together. and then just template it. I don't pretend to be the creative person,

but a lot of times that each individual campaign as somebody that's better on the communication side that will edit those. It's not just me. It's a collaborative. Yeah, it's a team. It's a team effort into getting a messaging survey ready and go because that's essentially as a pollster.

That's the framework of what your campaign is going to be. It's usually very early. And even if we're down 30, you know, but there's a path based on messaging, we want to, we've got to know. Yeah. Because that influences every decision you make going forward, right? That's right. The last thing I want to ask you about is the 2028 presidential.

Obviously, it's a long way off. And, you know, whenever people ask me about presidential campaigns, especially this far out, I remember that, you know, after Romney lost, the two guys that were the go-to, that were expected to be the two frontrunners for 2016, Bobby Jindle, Chris Christie. neither of them came anywhere close to winning the Republican nomination. Where do you handicap this at, obviously, very early, though? Sure. It is just very early, so we're going to sit here and speculate.

You've got to assume that if the Trump second term is successful, that J.D. Vance, if he is even interested in the position, would be. the front runner. Sure. I mean, you've got to assume that he is. I don't think there's any way that he wouldn't be the frontrunner in the event that they have a next successful, you know, three plus years. I think he would absolutely be the frontrunner. I think it would just be a question of does he want to run for it? Does he not? Outside of that, you know, there, I don't, it's hard to name individuals. But is somebody in this? the kind of age group of J.D. I could see as being real. Some of these people may not even be in office yet. But there's been a number of kind of like up-and-coming members at the Senate, excuse me, at the federal level. It would be potentially interested. And, you know, we'll see how the governor's races shake out this year. Governors always do very well in primary.

And there's a lot of, I mean, this is the midterm. So most of the gubernatorial elections are going to be up this year. Is that across both parties? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, because there's, you never know. I think governors of states always do very well in presidential primaries because they have a kind of unique perspective versus just kind of the federal stuff.

They're also an executive. That's right. Right? Applying for an executive job. Sure. And so I think they're, I mean, most all of the governor's races are up this year, tons of them. Not literally every, all 50 states, but a lot. And so there will be, there could be some shifts on who the executives on the individual states are all over the place.

And maybe somebody we're not even talking about. I still think, though, it's, it's Chatee's to lose. Yeah. because he's, he's, if you, if you look at his, he's, he's very popular with Republican primary voters right now. I mean, his image is phenomenal. His job approval is phenomenal. And the president says too. So there you go.

If you, if you, if you, if he has a successful second term, then you would assume that if he wants to run, he'd probably, he'd probably be the nominee. Yeah. But hard to say outside of that. I mean, there's, there's, you just never know who's. going to pop. But I kind of like the profile of somebody in the J.D. Vance age group. Okay. No, just his age, regardless of gender, just that age group seems to be appealing to our side right now. The two names that you always hear floated from Texas, potentially looking at that, making

that jump, are Ted Cruz, who already ran for president, and I think it's pretty clear wants another shot. Who knows if it's there for him? And then Governor Abbott, who has the governor advantage you were talking about. Can they stand out in a crowded field? What do you think of their potential chances? There always has to be a lane. And Ted Cruz knows this because he ran. That was bolstered on the presidential campaign, one of them.

There's, and it kind of depends on the type of year it is. there's there's there's kind of lanes lanes for lack of a better term to occupy in the event that you start getting six say 10 12 12 race what type of voter are you looking at and in the when you're when you're looking at states like iowa and new hampshire are both pretty different before heading west to go to nevada and then back to south carolina there is basically kind of the lane that you want and in the past there's always been the okay you've got the social conservative lane the physical conservative lane the national security lane I think the lanes have changed now but I don't know which ones of those exist that's the that's I think

that's we don't have those anymore you can't say oh well the social conservative person is going to do great here the fiscal conservative I mean I think kind of we're all we're all similar there's no a clear rick santorum lane that right exactly I mean because Because those that are fiscally conservative are also social conservative or also, you know, pro-safety, there's so there's not, I don't know that the lanes are open yet. I mean, it's kind of like they're still under construction. We'll see in three years which lanes open up and who can actually occupy them. So regardless of whether it's somebody from Texas or, you know, whether it's somebody from New York, I mean, I guess it really kind of depends. I'd still think it's JD's to lose. Yeah.

No. Well, a lot of time between now and then, and obviously we have the 26 midterm coming up, and it's going to be fascinating to watch, as it always is, because this is a constantly changing game. That's right. You have to run scared otherwise you're going to lose, right? Exactly. Chris Perkins, thanks for joining us.

Brett, thanks for having me. Thank you.