In the race to lead the Lone Star State, the choices are getting hairier and hairier…literally.

Picture one 2010 scenario: The perfectly-coiffed Rick Perry, longest-serving Governor in Texas history, squeaks by to win the Republican Primary to face-off against Democratic multi-millionaire hair exec, Farouk Shami (think BioSilk and the CHI hair-straightening irons) or an even hairier opponent, Kinky Friedman, whose cult following has expanded with each bid for Governor.

Seriously, in the “anybody-but-Perry” category, there are no standouts among the motley crew of Democrats. They desperately need a candidate who captures the hearts and minds of Texans or the race for Governor will be decided in the Republican Primary with the promise of orchestrated thrills and chills like Friday night wrestling: Smack-down 2010, Welcome to the Thunderdome.

The Politics of Indecision

U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison aims to send Governor Perry into early retirement and she has the money to make it happen. Kay’s problem is that she suffers from the politics of indecision.

In 2006, she intended to run for Governor, and then sat out the race. Some say that the state’s conservatives sent her a message: Not now Kay, next time. She says that the Governor pledged to retire in 2010. Either way, she’s a candidate now, and has yet to announce her retirement from the Senate, leaving politicos in limbo questioning when the Governor will appoint her replacement and who that might be… Kay, it’s time to make a decision already.

Kay’s campaign is all about pointing to Perry’s failures and saying that he’s been there too long. Tough talk coming from a Washington insider. Her 16 years in the U.S. Senate make for a tough sell as she tries to distance herself from Washington and its policies.

Without a clear campaign strategy, she’s tried to out-right Rick Perry and it’s backfired. Labeling Perry “governor-for-life” isn’t enough for Kay to win. She needs to claim the party moderates and change the face of the GOP primary. At risk is her base of women. In particular, those women whose support she won when she voted against overturning Roe v. Wade, and who may cross party lines to vote for her.

Compounding Kay’s ability to connect with Texas women is mounting speculation that Governor Perry may name the first Latina to the Texas Supreme Court in a move to solidify Hispanic voters who are still stinging over the Senator’s snub of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Though recent polls give Perry a lead over Hutchison, they also show large numbers of undecided voters. Enter Debra Medina, a Ron Paul Republican who chairs the Wharton County GOP (near Houston). Count on her to split the conservative vote. More importantly, she’ll dip into Kay’s base of women and join Perry in branding the Senator a flip flopper who shouldn’t be trusted to lead Texas.

Flip Flopper

Former Forth Worth State Representative Tom Schieffer may lead the field in flip flopping. The two-time Bush appointee and former George W. Bush business partner (co-owners of the Texas Rangers baseball team) has Democrats questioning his pedigree – it’s a bit too red for most of the party faithful to sign on to his gubernatorial bid. His campaign spends most of their time trying to prove their credentials leaving little time to articulate a vision or to connect with Texas Democrats.

Most voters stay home during non-Presidential elections or sit out the primary and cast their vote in the November General Election. This means that candidates must increasingly target their message and presence on the many social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to turn out primary voters.

Take Hank Gilbert, the highest Democratic vote getter on the 2006 ballot. A lifelong Democrat who ran for Agriculture Commissioner, Hank’s a simple man, a farmer chock full of Texas grit who lacks the resources to spread the word about his campaign for Texas Governor. His social media strategy amounts to four photos on his Facebook page (let’s hope the beauty queen in that photo is related). Democrats may need to forfeit the social media advantage to Kinky. There are at least five Kinky Friedman groups on Facebook, 478 videos on YouTube, and Kinky’s crew tweets to boot.

It’s time candidates move forward to fully embrace 21st Century American politics in Texas.

In this new political landscape, shifting demographics and social media have changed almost everything in Texas, although a good media strategy doesn’t guarantee victory. Candidates who ignore these new realities are sure to lose. Remember Tony Sanchez?

Lone Star Latinos

Since 1977, I’ve had a hand in scores of campaigns from school boards to presidential elections and have seen record numbers of Latinos running for office and turning out to vote throughout the country. Nowhere is this truer than in Texas.

Texas’ Hispanic population is the second largest in the nation with roughly 3.6 million Latinos registered to vote. The largest voting blocs – Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso and the Valley — boast burgeoning Hispanic populations with the fastest growing numbers of Latino voters.

This is good news for Democrats who are focusing new resources on Lone Star Latinos. Democrats are getting a much needed boost in 2010 from the Democratic National Committee. This week Virginia Governor Time Kaine became the first DNC Chair to ever visit South Texas holding the quarterly meeting of the 300-plus DNC members in Austin this weekend for the first time since the 70’s. Proof of their commitment is the team of 10 full-time political strategists on the ground working everyday to turn Texas blue…and they’re still hiring.

Democrats are banking on the fact that Texas is trending blue in a historically red state. The current Gallup poll (Hyperlink: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Party-Affiliation-States-Blue-Red-Far.aspx) ranks Texas as competitive – 42% of Texans call themselves Democrats; 40% Republican. While Democrats are much better than Republicans at losing statewide elections, both parties have a decent shot at losing the important down-ballot races for the Texas House – Democrats are two seats shy of a majority.

Hispanic candidates rarely fare well in GOP primaries, and this year Latinos have little reason to vote Republican …wait, there’s Ted Cruz running for AG, another Republican with good hair.

On November 3, Houstonians will elect a new Mayor, City Controller and 14 City Council members. In the race to lead the City, all three major candidates have a decent shot at losing the election. Based on the most recent polls, not one has broken from the pack to connect with voters.

One candidate is blowing their financial advantage by waiting too long to buy media. Going on TV earlier would have given them a psychological lead and branding advantage over the other candidates. The second mayoral candidate sends daily news releases about who is working for their campaign, or “spinning” about their great campaign organization. They spend more time talking to insiders than to voters and remind me of a bad episode of the 1990’s sitcom “Spin City.” The third mayoral candidate is too worried about playing it safe to win the election.

While these candidates play insider politics and blow through their campaign war chests, they lose their chance to seize the lead and connect with voters. I should point out, in the interest of full disclosure, that I know all three of these candidates. I know that all three of the top mayoral candidates are well qualified to be our next Mayor, but I do have to question their campaign tactics.

What do these candidates have in common? They over-think their election strategy by flip flopping on issues and campaign strategies. Case in point, can anyone tell me what any of the top 3 candidates for mayor stand for? Can anyone tell me what issues they differ on? Political campaigns are about winning the hearts and minds of voters. They are about ideas and communicating your stance on issues that are important to voters. They are about leadership. But most importantly, campaigns are about building TRUST with voters.

For inexplicable reasons, some candidates don’t seem to understand these basics. History has shown us that instead of trying to prove to voters that they are the best candidate for the job, they start to worry about losing. And, that’s when it happens…they lose.

Flip Flopping

In 2004, Republicans were able to retain their hold on the White House largely by depicting U.S. Senator John Kerry as a “flip-flopper.” It did not help matters one bit that Senator Kerry uttered such dense statements as, “I voted for it before I voted against it.” The Bush campaign was able to spin Senator Kerry into a candidate who could not be trusted on national security and other issues and President Bush returned to a job he did not deserve.

As a veteran of hundreds of campaigns from school boards to presidential elections since 1976, I view the election process with a very unique set of eyes. I can guarantee that the moment a candidate starts seriously thinking about winning and losing, they have lost the heart, soul and direction of the campaign.

It’s time we move forward and embrace 21st Century American politics.

In the new political landscape, social media has changed almost everything. Candidates now post campaign themes and ideas on Facebook. Voters post comments, pictures and videos on multiple social media platforms. Rumors that can boost or kill a campaign (and sometimes facts) move quicker in today’s world than they did just a few years ago.

The real question about social media and candidates is does the number of Facebook fans translate into voters and money for a campaign? It did for President Obama, but that may not translate into voters or money for everyone. In short, having a Facebook or social media page does not win voters.

Candidates need more than a social media strategy. Candidates must learn how to connect with voters outside their base of comfort and show up to special interest screenings whether they share interests or not. Candidates can’t always buy endorsements, as some have done in the current election cycle; they need to actually talk to voters about the issues that impact their daily lives. They need to engage in grassroots campaigns. They need to have a total integrated campaign plan.

The Politics of Indecision

In 2008, the politics of indecision tanked the presidential hopes of U.S. Senator John McCain. While exit polls showed that 62 percent of the electorate ranked the economy as the most important issue, McCain famously quipped, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” . The Obama campaign made sure that Americans saw that clip on every social media outlet. McCain would go on to suspend his campaign and fly to Washington with the working theory that he would put country first, and force Obama off the campaign trail. That didn’t happen. What happen was that Senator Obama was able to forge a bipartisan compromise, and alter the dynamics of the race for his advantage. Senator Obama won the election 365 to 173 electoral votes.

As we embrace a new political engagement strategy in American politics, we need to remember that ours is a representative republic, despite the fact that only 3 of every 10 voters shows up to participate. Low voter turnout insures that political insiders become the new smoked-filled backrooms where elections are brokered.

Houston’s candidates in the November 3 election would do well to remember that engaging voters and connecting with them is still priority #1. Elections are still about ideas and values and not just a personality contest. Elections today are about using all the mediums available – direct communications, grassroots campaigning, voter outreach – and about connecting with the heart and mind of that target voter.

Candidates that do not understand this are destined to lose.

In March 15 articles, the Politico and the Associated Press forwarded the false Republican talking point that President Obama’s proposals to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers expire and reduce the tax rate at which families making more than $250,000 could take itemized deductions to 28 percent would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses. Politico staff writer Carrie Budoff Brown reported, “Whenever Republican criticize [sic] Obama’s tax-hike plans, the group they push front-and-center as bearing the brunt is small-business owners.” She later wrote: “Republicans, in turn, say that it’s Obama’s tax-plan that is providing a double-whammy to these businesspeople, not just the recession but policies that would roll back the Bush tax cuts in 2011 and fall heavily on business owners who earn more than $250,000 a year.” Likewise, the AP’s Hope Yen reported, “Republicans say Obama’s budget proposal to raise taxes, starting in 2011, on individuals earning more than $200,000 and on households earning more than $250,000 will hurt small businesses which face higher dividend taxes and limits on itemized deductions.”

Neither Brown nor Yen pointed out, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, that according to the Tax Policy Center’s table of 2007 tax returns that reported small business income, 481,000 of those returns — about 2 percent — are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected.