June 20th, 2017 – Second Reading Podcast

[0:00:00 Speaker 1] welcome to the second reading podcast from the University of Texas at

[0:00:03 Speaker 3] Austin. The Republicans were in the Democratic Party because

[0:00:10 Speaker 4] there was only one party

[0:00:11 Speaker 2] chart. Tell people on a regular basis there is still a land of opportunity in America. It’s called Texas. The problem is these departures from the Constitution. They have become the norm.

[0:00:24 Speaker 4] At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room

[0:00:33 Speaker 1] by there? And welcome back to the second reading podcast. This is Jim Henson again. And this week, as promised last week, we have a special presentation of the Trib cast as the second reading podcast. So what follows was recorded at the Texas Tribune. It features myself, Ross Ramsey, Darren Shaw and Josh Blank talking about the just released University of Texas Texas Tribune Poll. Enjoy this, and Josh and I will be back next week.

[0:01:01 Speaker 3] Takes What was that? Hi,

[0:01:21 Speaker 5] everyone. And thanks for tuning in for this special edition of the Texas Tribune Strip cast, where I’ll be talking to our pollsters about the latest University of Texas Texas Tribune poll. We’ll get going here right away. Um, I’m Ross Ramsey. It’s the third Tuesday of June with a special edition. I’m joined by Darren Shaw, government professor at the University of Texas at Austin and co director of the poll. Jim Henson on their co director of the polling head of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. Hollins. Your business card in the longest business card of all. Josh Blank, manager polling research at the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. Anything anymore to it. It could be the whole thing. So, uh, we rolled the pullout over four days, like we usually do. We started with the president of the United States and who remains popular. Yeah, five months. And he looks pretty much like he did five months back. And like he did on Election Day, the numbers held pretty well for him.

[0:02:17 Speaker 0] Yeah, I think the the interesting thing Ah, that you see nationally is Chris. The absence of any kind of honeymoon period for Trump Texas is a little quirky, given the distribution of partisans within the state. I mean, the main dynamic that we’ve seen is sort of a solidification of support amongst Republicans on its Not that his numbers were bad, but there’s a lot of soft support, particularly aftermath the election. I think a lot of Texas Republicans probably sort of held their nose and voted for what they consider to be the lesser of two or three or four evils

[0:02:49 Speaker 5] voting against somebody rather than for somebody,

[0:02:51 Speaker 0] right? And the funny thing funny odd is that as Trump has had these sort of Siris of controversies unfold over the 1st 3 or four months, Texas Republicans have moved a kind of lock stock to support him. I’m not quite sure whether that was inevitable or whether it’s a reaction to the way the media’s frame things. I It’s not clear, although you can’t help him look at it and think they were gonna move behind the guy almost no matter what I mean. It just has that field to in some ways,

[0:03:20 Speaker 6] yeah, I mean, I think to some degree, the reaction to these results are not surprising in that, you know, there’s this idea that he’s had a rough go of it to start the administration so, you know shouldn’t use Isamu no reduction in his support but that also like assumes that, you know, things were going so well before that or something, where there’s new information that people are incorporating. But nothing has really changed, right? You think about the campaign to the transition period to the beginning of the administration. I certainly there, you know, you could argue about the relative. You know, it’s a seriousness of the different, you know, issues that have come up over those over that time, period. But it’s not as though Republicans in Texas are learning new things about. This is sort of the

[0:04:01 Speaker 5] argument that the ingredients were right there on the side of the box the whole time. Yeah, yeah, and I would

[0:04:05 Speaker 1] I would point out that there are his overall numbers move. Not at all, statistically there. But there was a little bit of, ah, a wavering in the intensity. His strongly approves went down decently and remember how much

[0:04:19 Speaker 6] and that’s similar was going on in national polling,

[0:04:21 Speaker 1] right? And so I think we would you know, we would expect that to happen, but yeah, I mean, I think overall, you know there’s partisanship is driving this and any idea that somehow Republicans in the state are changing their attitudes towards trump. And sitting around pining for Ted Cruz isn’t happening.

[0:04:36 Speaker 0] I don’t recall a lot of state level polling data from previous administrations of the idea of a honeymoon is old, But the idea of polling, the magnitude of the honeymoon is relatively new. So we have some decent numbers at the national level. I’m curious in some of these state level polls, both Texas and elsewhere about you know what What are the internals of this right? You know, Bush or Obama? Actually, Bush out of limited honeymoon as well. But Obama had very, very high numbers after the inauguration. The swearing in We’ve been interesting to go back, and there might be a few of these t look at some of statewide numbers and seen, uh, you know how much variance there is there because, you know, you might think that well, Blue State would be off the charts forum and a red state less so

[0:05:20 Speaker 3] I’m not

[0:05:20 Speaker 0] sure that’s the way it would go it. It strikes me that, you know, to the extent that a president goes to 60 65% approval, it’s probably concentrated in states with thoughts of independence and out partisans who kind of cut the guy a break for a little while and then come back to Earth once

[0:05:36 Speaker 6] That brings up a key point to which is that you know, to the extent that his numbers look, you know, let’s say weaker here than you might expect. A lot of that is the fact that he’s not getting the honeymoon with Democrats, and that’s happening in Texas as elsewhere. So I mean, in some ways you focus on the Republican strong support for Trump. Maybe the exact same is what we wish in the other

[0:05:53 Speaker 5] side. Didn’t say, Well, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for a minute. Yeah,

[0:05:55 Speaker 6] I think so,

[0:05:56 Speaker 0] Yeah, I think that’s almost certainly true.

[0:05:58 Speaker 5] So what about the related stuff? You know, there were a bunch questions in here about not just Trump’s popularity, but the Russia thing with the FBI thing. Um, somebody jumped. What about it? I mean, there’s the warm on the hook, Somebody Well, I mean, I

[0:06:15 Speaker 1] think I The Russia thing is fascinating to me, and I think it’s, you know, you have to be careful with what you do with that.

[0:06:22 Speaker 5] Okay, so I get to my number 40% of Republicans,

[0:06:25 Speaker 1] right? Your numbers at 40%. It’s our number 40. We’ve all talked about this, you know, 40% of Republicans air with kind of withheld judgment on Russia, right in the favor in favor item that we had

[0:06:38 Speaker 5] My view is neither favorable nor unfavorable

[0:06:40 Speaker 1] or or they said that or no. And that’s you know, I mean, even setting you can’t really set trump aside on it, but it’s a pretty interesting historical artifact toe look at that number in conjunction with the fact that right negatives towards Russia were higher among Democrats and they were among Republicans. That is apparently water

[0:06:59 Speaker 5] online, one

[0:07:00 Speaker 1] that’s unimaginable outcome 15 years ago.

[0:07:04 Speaker 0] But this is a prime example of what we referred to in political science is motivated reasoning. It’s sort of plays into all these more complex notions of public opinion. I say complex just because they’re relatively sophisticated, theoretically, but they’re actually pretty intuitive. And, you know, I really hold out hope for the American in the Texas public in a lot of ways. But, man, you look at these numbers and you can’t help but think they just They have a guy right there. Guys in their guy has taken a position, and they are. They would rather sort of, you know, adapt their position on Russia, change their attitudes on Russia than change their attitudes on their guy. And it’s not just the right, so left as well. You know, we have chicken I grew up during, you know, Rocky, 44 out of film. It’s just hard for me to imagine. You know, Republicans suddenly deciding that you know Putin, we should we should work with them and it’s It’s it’s odd during the Apollo Creed guy,

[0:08:03 Speaker 6] huh? Democrats and liberals or the Hawks now?

[0:08:06 Speaker 0] Yeah, right. You know, Russia’s bad and the world is upside down. But it’s it again, I think is an example of the public responding to stimulus provided by elites,

[0:08:17 Speaker 5] right? Yeah, right. The Texas voters don’t seem convinced that this election influence thing is the thing. I mean, the results there were a little bit mixed and and again, you Well, there was a lot of partisanly going back, right? Right. Yeah. I mean, all the way through this poll, I mean, just put a marker in there all the way through this poll, through this and through issues. The, um separation by flag is really, really strong. It seems to be

[0:08:44 Speaker 0] Yeah, and more so maybe in Texas than we’re used to. Um, you

[0:08:49 Speaker 3] know, maybe,

[0:08:49 Speaker 6] maybe a little bit, but a matter of degree, Not not different. Take

[0:08:53 Speaker 0] on the red on the red meat issues what we’re talking about, the stuff that gets nationalized, that is, by definition, nationalist, the Russia stuff, meddling in the election. I mean, we’re I only say that I appreciate Josh’s skepticism, but I only say that because Texas, Texas Democrats, but Texas Democrats, however, he just lied on the national podcast. They tend not to drive the agenda. So they a lot of ways they’re reactive issues that Republicans want to talk about. A lot of those issues or kind of, you know, Republicans like to put out issues that are sort of divisive to Democrats

[0:09:26 Speaker 1] to split the difference. I think what I would say is that it’s you know, it’s Maurin, the national issues, and it is on the States. It’s evident in some of the state’s stuff, but it really still is more powerful and I think more powerful in the national things. As we get into the issues, we’ll see some of the issues. It’s not quite it’s pronounced, but it is, yeah, something that we see pretty consistently.

[0:09:43 Speaker 6] I mean, Republicans are driving the agenda here, obviously, and so it’s not surprising to see Democrats generally dissatisfied with those items. But the issue here that we were kind of all we have to break up. You know, for people who aren’t attuned to this is the Texas Democrats just tend to be a little bit more conservative. So you know, that’s why I say it’s more of a degree thing than an outright difference. I mean, generally you see a certain amount of conservative Democratic support for in the Republican agenda. It’s minimal, but it’s their right. It’s not non existent. It’s, you know, in this poll there’s probably a little bit mawr just clear separation that I think that we normalcy definitely on the national stuff a little bit on the state stuff, but it’s still there. What

[0:10:19 Speaker 5] does she look

[0:10:19 Speaker 1] at? And you look in, you know, social media, You look at some of the responses is we’ve released the polling this week. One of the little sub themes has been one of the things Josh is talking about people either being skeptical or or skeptical of the result, or surprised at the phenomenon that right? You know, more than 20% of Democrats thought about, you know, some sort of bathroom legislation was important, for example, and we see that all the time that you know, I mean, there’s a nontrivial minority of Democrats that take positions that you would not identify with. The national liberal Democratic position sounds like

[0:10:57 Speaker 5] the name of a block nontrivial minority of Democrats. May I remind the Facebook viewers that if you post your questions in the comments will try to get to them? Let’s transition over to personalities. Talk about the people at the top of Texas government in particular, and, uh, Darren Shaw’s personal favorite that John Cornyn number.

[0:11:17 Speaker 0] Ross. I do it. I just continue to be amazed at how polarizing John Cornyn seems to be, given that we’re comparing him with people like Tan Patrick and Ted Cruz. And yet opposition seems to have centred on John Cornyn. For some reason,

[0:11:33 Speaker 5] he’s hardly the firebrand. You would have acted Yeah,

[0:11:36 Speaker 0] he He seems to have, ah, harder time consulting the love and affection of conservatives, although it is quite well there. But he doesn’t do like, you know, cruiser. Ah, Patrick. And

[0:11:46 Speaker 5] he’s got that. We should say he’s got the biggest gap between his favorable and unfavorable rankings of any of the top officials we pulled here.

[0:11:53 Speaker 0] And this is a guy who, you know, we all sort of know when seen John Corn and make real efforts to reach out to the communities that Republicans are traditionally accused of ignoring or being hostile to. You know, he goes to the border, he talks to, He sort of puts, puts out initiatives, but he can’t seem to get any traction with independents or Democrats. They you’ll sort of attribute all the negatives associate with Republicans on point, and

[0:12:15 Speaker 1] I think those efforts then hurt him with Republicans.

[0:12:18 Speaker 0] Really hurt him with

[0:12:19 Speaker 1] the other.

[0:12:20 Speaker 6] Positives aren’t as high among Republicans. Conservatives is, you know, sort of the other people. But you see, part of the old guard I mean, is that part of, like, the cut point?

[0:12:27 Speaker 0] Ross and I talked about this. I think he gets all of the negatives that accrue to someone who is in a position of power and establishment and responsibility. And Congress has been corrupted in Congress and he gets none of the

[0:12:37 Speaker 6] parties so in Congress

[0:12:38 Speaker 5] doesn’t have the you know. I mean, Cruz is a separate brand corn and in a lot of ways is not a separate brand from Congress. But, you know, but I think

[0:12:45 Speaker 1] there is something to the fact that, you know, Corner was elected in 2002. He succeeded with a very different kind of formula than the people that are in office now have succeeded with, You know, one might say,

[0:12:57 Speaker 5] Well, he came in. He came in with a Texas president, became the text presidents go to guy in the Senate and probably probably ran up to the power position faster than anybody in Texas since LBJ. But

[0:13:07 Speaker 3] I think

[0:13:07 Speaker 1] it’s also point out, you know, the tone of republic. The Republican public appeal in the tone of Republican politics was different in 2002. Then it was in, say, 2012 or 2014.

[0:13:21 Speaker 0] No, there’s no question, I think, and we don’t want Oh, look, it’s not that corn and is unpopular. As you know, he’s certainly not underwater in terms of favorability ratings. But you look at the internals and you know he doesn’t have the love and support of the tea party, the tea parties of 10 4011 phenomenon. That’s, you know, eight years after Corn and you’re gonna reach its power. So you’re

[0:13:42 Speaker 5] saying he’s a pre existing condition?

[0:13:44 Speaker 1] He’s 48 you know. He’s 48 40 years. By comparison, he’s 48. Favorable or 48 Positive job approval, 41 negative Among tea party identifiers, Cruz is 88 7 So

[0:13:59 Speaker 5] Cruz and Patrick there was an interesting number on Cruise of Patrick here, and it was that they were both very strong with tea party Republicans and less strong. Then I might have anticipated with non tea party Republicans. It’s there still strong, but their their base within the Republican Party seems a little narrower tonight. Then I guess I I thought it probably waas, especially in comparison with like Greg Abbott. I think

[0:14:23 Speaker 0] one of the really fascinating things that emerges out of 2016 is the diversity of the Republican coalition, and I mean nationally so national. You have these sort of what I would call traditional businessman Republicans. You’ve got the tea party Republicans, and now you’ve got what we call Reagan Democrats. But now we just refer to Mr Less

[0:14:45 Speaker 6] attitudinal diversity, just just to be clear, well, less well

[0:14:51 Speaker 1] educated. I think that we just call them Republicans,

[0:14:54 Speaker 0] but But they’re they’re not major players in Texas. That that element and Republican Coalition is not here. Enforce the weight is in Ohio, in Kentucky or in Wisconsin or Michigan. And so, uh, we still have this kind of bifurcated Republican party where it’s right, the more firebrands. And then you do have this, you know, just a put a visual. And I think of these sort of Dallas businessman, Chamber of Commerce timer, Commerce, Republicans, and I don’t think that they’ve never been. You know, they’re certainly not trump supporters. Um, I think they’re a little uneasy with Cruz near little uneasy with Patrick. And you know when when your party is 55 60% majority party.

[0:15:33 Speaker 6] Yeah, and it’s interesting, cause ideological. It’s not economic per se when you look at sort of the college educated. Nah, not college educated Republicans. There’s like there’s no different looks, different Democrats. It’s a huge thing. That’s a whole other other thing. But we don’t really have that. Here it is this sort of what Republicans choose to identify with the tea party versus those who don’t, and they’re actually there. You do see some of these pretty serious differences in attitudes,

[0:15:55 Speaker 1] but we should also point out that you know none of these people that maybe may find Cruz and Patrick not exactly to their liking. They’re not voting for Democrats at all.

[0:16:08 Speaker 5] How did these, where? These numbers take 2018 both terms of matchups statewide and at the at the top, I guess, you know, we’d sort We didn’t do any head to heads in this poll, But we did do. What do you think of Ted Cruz? What do you think of Beto O Rourke? The likely Democratic challenger at this point?

[0:16:26 Speaker 0] Yeah, I think the what I’ve seen between the other orders this Bambi is between the February and the June poll. What you saw, what you have seen is personal. Nobody knows who better work is right. You had 55% who could not offer an opinion Another 15% he said. Well, I read him kind of in the middle. Which says to me, I don’t think you really know who this guy is. Not cast dispersions, but right, I’m skeptical about

[0:16:51 Speaker 5] he has congressman’s disease, right? He’s known in one of 36 district not known in 35 districts.

[0:16:56 Speaker 0] Right? But that’s

[0:16:56 Speaker 1] not what I thought that was.

[0:16:59 Speaker 5] So you and your gut our mind.

[0:17:02 Speaker 0] So you’re talking about 70 but 70% really have no opinion. Probably don’t really know him very well. Eso that’s on the one side and then, you know, on the other side of the ledger, you know, Cruz, I think, took a hit when he lost the primary. You know, I think a lot of us were kind of impressed by how well he ran. But he lost. And when you lose, you lose in the sort of aura of invincibility. You know,

[0:17:26 Speaker 6] you’re running in presidential primary making distinction between yourself and other Republicans.

[0:17:31 Speaker 1] Well, and it was, you know, that was a tough primary waas. I mean, you know, he got a lot of he took a lot, took on a lot of water for all the back and forth on Trump, and

[0:17:41 Speaker 0] and he took a lot of positions that he needed to take nationally but may not redound to his benefit in Texas. Whether it’s on immigration.

[0:17:48 Speaker 5] One of you know, one of the things that’s interesting about Cruz is that, you know, that was his first appearance for people in 49 states from whom Beto O. Rourke is gonna be trying to raise money. I think that’s sort of an interesting aspect of this. You know, the people who have maybe the worst impression of Cruz. I don’t have a countervailing, positive impression, maybe from you know, that we have in Texas, where the Texas Republicans have.

[0:18:12 Speaker 0] But I think you know the rebound you’ve seen and it’s Jim and Josh correctly point out, it’s not like Trump was unfavourably viewed by, you know, Texans. He won the state pretty easily, but But there has been a consolidation around desert traditional Republicans, and I think if if there were a window, um, boy, it looks like it’s closing quickly in Texas. That is a statewide level. I mean, you could see something shake up, but right now I don’t know that coming out this session. There’s a lot of momentum within Texas for particular Democratic candidates to mount a real credible challenge in a very

[0:18:45 Speaker 1] tough environment. So has a really measured way of putting

[0:18:48 Speaker 0] that. Would you say it more

[0:18:52 Speaker 5] from the from the diplomatic corps or government department at the University of Texas? Yeah. So the much talked about, you know, probably counterfactual, but the most much talked about, you know, maybe have it And Patrick someday, and it’s a lot more popular. Looks like then Patrick ISS.

[0:19:09 Speaker 1] Yeah. You know, we’ve talked about this a lot. I Yeah, I think these numbers are you know, there’s a little bit of good news here for the lieutenant governor. His name recognition went up on the points, you know, a bit. And that’s I think what?

[0:19:21 Speaker 6] It’s been hard fought one

[0:19:22 Speaker 1] of the things after buddy, but he had to try, and it hasn’t been about a cost. Yeah, right. Because not all of that increase in name recognition has been positive, right?

[0:19:31 Speaker 6] Yeah, but he’s fine with that. Yeah, I mean, the negative negative. You know, the name aggression. Yeah, but I mean a bunch of democrats having negative attitudes towards what kind of governor is not a problem for him, especially since he’s trading off with more Republicans having positive use. Well,

[0:19:45 Speaker 1] yeah, I mean, you know, we’ve gone back and forth in this. I mean, I think you know, Greg Abbott is pretty formidable looking at his public opinion numbers, looking at his campaign bank account. And this is obviously one of the, you know, parlor games in the 10 square blocks surrounding us. But you know it. You know, it’s hard to imagine really wanting to take this on. If your lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, it seems to me it’s all hard. Imagine thinking about it all the time, Sure, and maybe even, you know, dangling out some teasers because you know, it’s a bad idea until it’s a good one. You know, should something happen or, you know, she conditions change. But what This shows, I think, in conjunction with way that Governor Abbott has handled the end of the session and the politics of this special session is that, you know, this is not something that’s gonna be easy. If you were to take Greg Abbott on particular, including if you, the lieutenant Governor you might be may be the best place person to do it, but that still doesn’t make it easier doable, particularly if you’re already the lieutenant governor, which is a pretty damn good job. If you’re in Texas,

[0:20:52 Speaker 5] right, let’s jump into some issues. We’re gonna be in special session in less than four weeks, I guess with a bunch of stuff. We pulled a bunch of issues, but let’s start with a couple that are, you know, kind of at the top of that special Senate session agenda bathrooms and property taxes. And I guess you know, to some extent religious conscience, conscience, religious beliefs versus discrimination law. Somebody want to jump one of those

[0:21:18 Speaker 6] ultimate bathrooms? Why not?

[0:21:20 Speaker 1] I don’t want to.

[0:21:20 Speaker 6] Yeah, I don’t really there about, do you? Both of you think this

[0:21:24 Speaker 3] is,

[0:21:24 Speaker 6] like this actually really hard thing to actually pull on. We’ve We’ve talked about how to do this, like more than I even want to admit. But just for the purpose of this poll, what we did was is in the February poll. We asked how important it was. The legislature should, you know, basically be regulating bathroom access and then at the end of the session, we asked again, You know, they spent this time on it. How important was it? And the main interesting finding, first of all, was that, you know, let alone the fact that people are generally ambivalent over all about this was that you know, Patrick’s call to sort of rank and file GOP members and religious. You know, people in the state worked, I mean, to a large extent. So when we had when we pulled on this in February, you among tea party Republicans, I think only look at this, get it right for you. Only 39% said it was important to regulate bathroom access, which seem really low, given all the capital has been put into it. At the end of the session, that number jumped to 70%. So I mean, we

[0:22:18 Speaker 1] almost even among subgroups, you never seen but

[0:22:22 Speaker 6] a whole session very real talking about it, actually, you know, motivated the people who he was looking to motivate behind it. And it’s kind of mean looking. It’s kind of hard looking at these numbers now to think they’re not gonna get something done. I mean, they almost seems like they always have to now,

[0:22:35 Speaker 1] right? You would think that if if their internal polling is showing the same thing, that ours is that I’m positive it is. Then, um you know, there’s gonna be fear on the floor. I mean, they’re going, you know, I mean, and that’s what motivates these guys. Their risk of hers. So clamor created, you know? I think so. I mean, you know, Azzawi is people that would be listening to this. No, there’s all these other personality factors and some people, you know, if the leadership of the house is just dug in and they’ll do anything they can to avoid this than maybe you don’t get something, But I’m kind of I kind agree. I’m pretty close agreeing with Josh in the sense that, you know, the governor is already cued up the raw material of a compromise that says, Let’s just, you know, quote unquote protect the kids in the schools that protects you, at least from some of the pushback from the business community. If you push a broader bill about public facilities and the politics maybe shake out for, you know, some people in you know things becomes one of those moments when the speaker says, Well, I’m just here to respect the will of the body,

[0:23:43 Speaker 5] right? Right. So one of the things that looks like the clamor was already kind of pre existing. Clamor was property taxes. They’ve been talking about it for years. It’s what, you know, members here about in town hall meetings that looks like voters are pretty, you know, formally united on this one. Well,

[0:23:58 Speaker 6] um, you’ve written about this. I mean, the fundamental problem here is you go into the session and you ask Texas voters, what should they focus on? And they always almost inevitably say, property taxes and schools, Right? And I don’t think that people say

[0:24:11 Speaker 1] and no new tax

[0:24:12 Speaker 6] and no new taxes, right? No new raising funds. So it’s sort of like, I mean, you’ve sort of pointed this out, and I don’t think that most average Texas voted understand the linkage between these three things and why it’s so difficult, which leads in a lot of ways, the legislature kind of doing these weird end around kind of measures to try to lower property taxes so that they say that they did something they just guess I can’t say they did something.

[0:24:34 Speaker 0] Well, I’ll actually chime in on behalf of the Texas public here. Pick my shots in that regard. But it is more complicated than that. I would suggest it’s It’s more complicated than the Josh is described, which is pretty complicated. And that is, you know, I come from a fairly property rich, very mom over Nene’s and means. Look, voters basically look at this and they say, If you give you whatever you cap it at, that’s what they’re going to increase the property tax to any given. So there’s a sensitivity to this. They know that reflexively, whatever the top limit is what they’re going to do, and you don’t have a lot of control over that. Now there’s no income tax, there’s only sales tax. But there are these bond initiatives, and I think what you get in some of these localized communities, particularly the more affluent areas, is a preference for bonds over your property taxes away to fund the schools. These now that’s not an option in other parts of Texas, but you know, for those sorts of areas and there are lots of those areas, they’re very politically powerful. I think it’s not that they don’t want to pay for the schools. I think they strongly object to the sort of lack of control they have in the belief that they never get a fair shake from the time. I mean, you go to these meetings and or even go go downtown when they’re the complaints, that right, how much? Every they’re all from, You know, these

[0:25:54 Speaker 6] Maybe, but it may give you the preference for bonds over property taxes. Then you probably also realize that your property taxes are going to pay for other people’s school district’s, too. I mean, those things are still connected. But

[0:26:04 Speaker 5] you do get these. I mean, to this point. I mean, you do get these funny elections where you know you have a price sensitive electorate and you know they don’t want taxes to go up. And then you say something like, You know, you’re in Allen, Texas, or Katy, Texas, and you say, How about a $60 million football stadium? They go, Oh, that’s cool, right? So you know, sometimes they’ll go for a specific idea,

[0:26:23 Speaker 0] but this is, you

[0:26:23 Speaker 5] know, this is it’s not just a tax increase for general use. Its for Oh, we get that particular thing,

[0:26:28 Speaker 0] right? I mean, I don’t disagree with Josh. I just don’t There’s no contradiction. I mean, you know, the question is, why did you know Why do you support, uh, you know, more funds for education, But you don’t support property. I think it’s the mechanism, um, in. You know, I think what’s become interesting in Texas politics is the extent to which these local bond initiatives become very interesting. Strategic games in which the local school boards will laden into these bond initiatives, you know, four things that voters really like. And then one thing they don’t necessarily like, whether it’s a thing of

[0:27:00 Speaker 5] the board really wants.

[0:27:01 Speaker 0] Yeah, exactly. And then the question is, are you willing to support the $30 million bond initiative even though it’s got tax in it and that that’s become a lot of the action when it comes to taxes in Texas?

[0:27:12 Speaker 6] Yeah, I mean, is one of few areas where I feel bad for the Texas Legislature just in the you know. I mean, it’s just a certain thing where they’re basically tasked recession up with some with somehow trying to lower property taxes, rights, and they can’t do it. And they have to come up with some convoluted way to do it, at least as far as we’ve tested it in the past. If they do accomplish it, people kind of don’t really notice because it doesn’t work that way. The property rates go are the property values go up and then, you know, we start all over again.

[0:27:39 Speaker 5] We’ve just got a couple of minutes left. I wanted, um, police scratch the paint on this one because it it’s the kind of issue that I think so to keep turning up religious beliefs in anti discrimination laws, religious conscience laws, you know, all the way from the Oregon bankers to you know, the idea of foster care being dependent on the intentions and religions of the parents under the kids. Um, talk to me about how this poll

[0:28:04 Speaker 1] Well, we should lay out. This is something, you know, it’s sensitive. We should lay out exactly how we ask. That is sure. You know, we asked people where they agreed or disagreed that a sincerely held religious belief is a legitimate reason to exempt someone from laws designed to prevent discrimination,

[0:28:19 Speaker 6] right? And a part of this. Is this a score for the underlying theme of the session? In some ways, these amendments coming up to creates or religious exemptions for people, whether you know we’re talking about adopt people, trying, adopt Children or lawyers. You know, all these sorts of groups. And if you ask people about these individually, there’s kind of the point. But the idea here is to get it. The the concept, you know, sincerely held religious belief laws designed to prevent discrimination. You know, Is this more important than this, right? That’s

[0:28:47 Speaker 0] what I think. What’s fascinating about it is the party breakdown. Once again, if there’s almost unanimity on the Democratic side that no, you shouldn’t do this. And on the Republican side you see a little more head origin a little more difference. And I think two reasons for this are fairly obvious on the on the left, I think for most Democrats, for most liberals, this is simply, um, you know, a matter of discrimination and it’s real. You can’t discriminate against people. I think the issues that come to embody this our issues where the leftist fairly unified. I would be interested in the framework to change. There was some home high profile issue. Oh, our episode where say it was Islamic police or there was a racial ethnic minority practicing a particular

[0:29:31 Speaker 1] you know, you know, eventually one would be actually would be the original consumption of conception of sanctuary cities. Yeah, should a church be exempt from enforcement, you know,

[0:29:40 Speaker 0] should as it stands right now, the marker issues, they’re all kind of frame. There’s sort of religious conservatives attempting to get around as they see it. Some sort of law and the leftist has no tolerance for that particular kind of application. Whereas on the right, there’s this sort of you believe, respect for rule of law, right, which is part of the you know, if we believe the political science, literature, right, conservative orientation. But then there’s also this attachment to religious preferences and respect for the sort of freedom of religion. And so it’s sort of divides the right, but at least as currently framed left is fairly unified.

[0:30:18 Speaker 1] One of the really interesting aspects of look at this is look at College Republic, non college educated Republicans and college Republicans. So among non college educated Republicans that split 39 39 among college educated Republicans, 55 agree that it’s okay for religious trump anti discrimination. So so, in this case, Mawr college education. Actually, my my gut feeling to this is that you know, there’s a kind of MAWR organic intellectual training among college educated Republicans to sift this out a little bit. It’s interesting.

[0:30:52 Speaker 6] I think that’s one of most interesting results in the poll. That’s why, thank you. Well, now why not liberalising effect education? Except with

[0:31:01 Speaker 5] that, with that final pitch for higher education, we’ll close it there. That’s all the time we’ve got. If you like listening to the trip cast every week, please do us a favor and leave us a review on iTunes. Our regular trip cast will be tomorrow about noon, actually, a little bit early tomorrow. Those ratings help us reach more listeners like you. If you value the Tribune’s nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom, please consider making a donation at support dot texas tribune dot org. All of our poll results, the questions, the cross tabs and all of that are online. Texas tribune dot org. And at the Texas Politics Project, Jim Henson’s eyebrows almost went through his hairline there. Thanks to shiny ribs for our music. On behalf of Darren Josh Gym and our producers, Todd and Bobby, this is Ross. Thanks for listening. Yeah, that’s cool.

[0:32:08 Speaker 0] I like paper from me. I like to crank load, so it becomes a real clear on the podcast. Thank you very

[0:32:14 Speaker 1] much. Second reading podcast is a production of Texas Politics Project and the Project 2021 Development Studio at the University of Texas at Austin.