Sunday Supremely Funnies

Really.

A suicide hotline operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs allowed crisis calls to go into voicemail, and callers did not always receive immediate assistance, according to a report by the agency's internal watchdog. 

The report by the VA's office of inspector general says calls to the suicide hotline have increased dramatically in recent years, as veterans increasingly seek services following prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the aging of Vietnam-era veterans. 

The crisis hotline — the subject of an Oscar-winning documentary — received more than 450,000 calls in 2014, a 40 percent increase over the previous year. 

About 1 in 6 calls are redirected to backup centers when the crisis line is overloaded, the report said. Calls went to voicemail at some backup centers, including least one where staffers apparently were unaware there was a voicemail system, the report said.

Sometimes the Funnies are no laughing matter.

Scattershooting while we wait for Nevada caucus and SC primary results

More on that if you need it here.

Update, 5:15 p.m. CST: About an hour ago the networks called it for Clinton, who at this posting leads 52-48 with 80% reporting.  She's currently giving her victory speech.  She's still scheduled to be speaking in Houston in a few hours.

Update, 7:40 p.m.: Jeb Bush brings an end to his White House campaign after finishing fourth in South Carolina, well behind Trump, Rubio, and Cruz.

==============

-- Bad news for Hillary Clinton: Chris Bell has endorsed her.

So as Democrats, can we maybe try to take advantage of the situation — even here in Texas? We have become the mainstream party, and it’s time to start acting like it. If we nominate Bernie Sanders, we will forfeit any advantage we might have gained. While he has certainly struck a populist nerve and I appreciate many of the positions he has taken, the American people are not going to elect a socialist as president. It’s that simple.

Bell -- like almost all Americans -- is a card-carrying socialist himself.

I am certain he does not realize it.  There's a lot of things Chris Bell doesn't get, though, much like his fellow traveler, Ted at jobsanger.  In 2006 Ted spent a lot of time and effort promoting Kinky Friedman for governor and attacking both Bell, the Dems' nominee and the Democratic Party ... the same party he vigorously defends today from the evil, Not-A-Democrat Bernie Sanders.

You cannot plumb the depths of this hypocrisy with a nuclear submarine.  Like Clinton herself, both men have "always tried to" tell the truth, at least in their own minds.  (I thought Hillary was a Stars Wars fan.  Did she miss Yoda's exhortation to Luke Skywalker during his Jedi training on Dagobah?)

The only question I have left is: why didn't the Houston Chronicle run Bell's op-ed?

-- I'm not sure I understand how Bernie Sanders is going to be able to ask his support network to line up behind Hillary Clinton after this:

"I chose to run proudly in the Democratic primary and caucus and look forward to winning that process. But clearly, as a nation, I think we flourish when there are different ideas out there," Sanders said during MSNBC's Democratic presidential candidate forum in Nevada on Thursday.

"Sometimes the two-party system makes it very, very difficult to get on the ballot if you are a third party, and I think that's wrong. I think we should welcome competition."

That, as loyal readers know, is what I have been saying for some years now.  It's just not what the DNC or the TDP is willing to acknowledge.  They seem to be hoping that people won't remember their cyclical, abject, repeated failures to motivate their base to turn out.

Is Steve Mostyn still paying BGTX's bills, and if so ... why?

-- Donald Trump has to hold off a hard-charging Ted Cruz in the Palmetto State (just as Hillary is "trying to" do with Bernie in the Silver State).  Those apes have been throwing their feces at each other for a week now, since last Saturday night's debate.  Where Marco Ruboto and John Lobster Hands Kasich and Jeb Zombie Walker Bush finish will allegedly be a story.  Do you care?  I don't.

Clinton and Sanders on immigration

Clinton's Latino Congressional surrogates -- Luis Gutierrez, Julian Castro, Delores Huerta -- are doing her dirty work this week in Nevada.  When I first read the accusations against Bernie, dug out of the ten-year-old archives of Senate voting records, it sounded pretty harsh.

On a call with reporters Thursday organized by the Clinton campaign, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, and civil rights organizer Dolores Huerta slammed Sanders' record on immigration, particularly his vote against the failed 2007 immigration reform bill. 

"He really set us back, you might say, a decade by not supporting us on the immigration bill in 2007," said Huerta, a who led the United Farm Workers alongside Cesar Chavez in the 1960s. "His reputation as being a super liberal, many people followed his guide on that. That was just a devastating blow for all of us who were fighting for immigration reform and for immigrants' rights." 

Gutierrez stressed the 2007 vote as well as the fact that Sanders appeared on the television show hosted by Lou Dobbs—a prominent anti-immigration hardliner. "In 2007, when there was a way forward…he stood with the Republicans and went on Lou Dobbs' program," said Gutierrez. 

Sanders was one of several liberal senators who opposed the bill. Some labor unions opposed it, as well. At the time, Sanders described the bill as a threat to wages for American workers. More recently, he has justified his opposition to it by citing the bill's guest worker provisions, which have been described as exploitative. Sanders has repeatedly pointed to a Southern Poverty Law Center report that said the working conditions in those programs would be similar to slavery.

More recent statements by Sanders provide a clearer picture. This Politico article describes the relationship as 'complicated'.

For all his rhetoric in 2007, Sanders didn’t oppose a pathway to citizenship or efforts to boost border security. That chapter in Sanders’ immigration record reflects less on his support for the issue and more on his alliance to labor — and key unions also opposed the 2007 legislation.

“Sanders was basically one of our only allies … especially for low-skilled workers” in 2007, said Ana Avendano, a former top immigration official at the AFL-CIO. “He adamantly put his foot down and said these kinds of programs [allow] employers to bring in more and more vulnerable workers.” 

In fact, many immigration activists were themselves conflicted over the legislation.  To her credit, Clinton has promised to be a better advocate for immigrant families than the night-time raider Obama ... though that hasn't been her recent position.

When reporters asked about Clinton's record—and specifically about her recent support for sending immigrant children who fled violence in Central America back to their home countries—Castro repeated his belief that Clinton would be most likely to actually move forward on immigration reform if elected president. Sanders brought up this issue during the last Democratic debate and argued that the child migrants should be allowed to stay in the United States. 

Are the accusations made by Clinton's surrogates similar to Bernie's calling Clinton out for her 15-year-old Iraq war vote (for which she has now apologized)?  Are these John Kerry-styled "I voted against it before I voted for it" flip-flops by both candidates?  With respect to "sending the children back", is Clinton criticizing the president, of the kind she has attacked Sanders over?

What's true and what's campaign bluster seems to be in the eye of the beholder.  Stace had a good post six months ago about this.  It seems we're still not having the right conversation about the many complicated facets of US immigration policy.

Update: If you needed additional role reversal, then Clinton is cast as the idealist and Sanders the pragmatist as a result of the exchange in last night's town hall.

Update II: Ted being shallow and awful again.

Just don't understand the vitriol

When you read this, it doesn't make any sense why Hillary Clinton and all of the people who stand behind her are acting so nasty.  Is it just their nature?  Are they warming up for Trump (or Cruz, as the case may be)?  Do they think they can win in the fall without many of the Sandernistas, or will they simply bludgeon them into submission with the "SCOTUS" cudgel?

After a pretty massive defeat in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could use some good news, and she got a bunch of it on Wednesday. According to a new set of polls released by Public Policy Polling (PPP), Clinton leads Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 10 of 12 early March primary states, and in nine of those, she holds double-digit leads of anywhere from ten points (in Michigan) to 34 (in Mississippi and Georgia). Sanders leads only in his home state of Vermont and its neighbor, Massachusetts.

Go, click over to PPP.  Ted's got a lot of bar-graphing to do.

State	Clinton	Sanders	Spread
Alabama	59%	31%	Clinton +28
Arkansas	57%	32%	Clinton +25
Georgia	60%	26%	Clinton +34
Louisiana	60%	29%	Clinton +31
Massachusetts	42%	49%	Sanders +7
Michigan	50%	40%	Clinton +10
Mississippi	60%	26%	Clinton +34
Oklahoma	46%	44%	Clinton +2
Tennessee	58%	32%	Clinton +26
Texas	57%	34%	Clinton +23
Virginia	56%	34%	Clinton +22
Vermont	10%	86%	Sanders +76

Meanwhile, Primo at Juanita Jean's has caught up with me.

I'd like to see some cessation of hostilities from Clintonites from here on.  Can they manage it?

Clinton, surrogates continue to take down themselves, her campaign, and the Democratic Party

I'm not seeing a unification of smiles and joy after all this.

-- Bill Clinton compares the Sanders revolutionaries to the Tea Party.  And Cory Booker can't take the flak he's catching from Joe Scabs and Mika Mouse about it.

-- Blue Nation Review (they've been mentioned here before) goes after Killer Mike with the sexist card for quoting 'a woman' (Jane Elliott, for those not in the know) who said that a 'uterus isn't a qualification for the presidency.'  Leela Daou -- no idea whether she's connected to Clinton flack Peter Daou, another person I once had great respect for -- does the dirty work this week.  I'm confident that Killer Mike's got this.  All by himself.

Update: Roqayah Chamseddine at Shadowproof pulls together many more of these 'sexist' tropes and methodically knocks them all down.

It may be the fact that Sanders has pulled even in Nevada, or that the race in South Carolina is tightening that produces all this panic and lashing out.  Or it may just be the Clinton way.

Turnout in the caucuses and primaries so far suggests that Democratic enthusiasm already lags that of the GOP, and the margins aren't insignificant.  This news is not being mentioned at the usual Democratic sources yet; even the mainstreamers haven't picked up on it.  But the Republican media sure has.

The first EV numbers from yesterday here in Harris County reveal the same thing.  This is an ominous trend for Dems, in a presidential year especially.  I doubt they can beat that "Supreme Court" dead horse hard enough to pull in the voters in elections past who've given up on them.

Let's keep an eye out and see if anybody else starts talking about this.

Update: Socratic Gadfly has a whole lot more.

The P Slate for the Texas D primary on March 1st

I'll be voting tomorrow morning, at the earliest possible moment in the Democratic primary, which will eliminate me from all but press credentials in terms of participating in the Harris County Green Party's county, state, and presidential nominating conventions (to be held this summer right here in H-Town).  Here's a few people who have earned a vote on my ballot, and some who've earned a thumbs-up from me that aren't, and a few that don't.  YMMV, and if you don't like my options, pick your own from the League of Women Voters' Guide.

I'm predicting the following two winners in the Texas presidential primaries:

I don't mean to imply that they're the same person; they're just the two people most likely to emerge victorious. Or if you prefer...

Scary, I know.

For President of the United States: Bernie Sanders.

Plan A is in effect.  Plan B is on deck.

For US Congress, Seventh District: Nobody.  I've expended too many disgusted pixels blogging about John Culberson and James Cargas.  Cargas is, in fact, one of the most significant reasons why I'm a DINO.  This is an undervote in the primary and in the general.

Not on my ballot but having earned my support for his personal outreach is Adrian Garcia over Gene Green.  Green is just too embedded in the establishment, too wedded to the fossil fuel operators that line the Houston Ship Channel, and much, much too conservaDem for my taste.  I have written a lot of very mean things about Garcia during his tenure as county sheriff and in his mayoral bid, but he never complained to me about it, never stopped following me on Twitter or unfriended me on social media.  After last year's mayoral election he sent me a kind note unrelated to politics via LinkedIn private message, and and I wished him luck in his race for Congress.

Garcia may or may not be a better Democrat these days, but he endorsed Sylvester Turner for Houston mayor while my choice, Chris Bell, endorsed Bill King.  That's good enough for me. Sometimes that's all it takes to earn a vote, folks.

For Railroad Commissioner: Lon Burnham.  I'll probably vote again for Martina Salinas, the Green candidate, in November because Burnham -- one of the most staunch progressive Democrats in the Lege until his defeat a couple of years ago -- has reached out to people like Bill White and Wendy Davis to help him get nominated.  As such, I'm voting for one of Burnham's primary challengers.  Not Grady Yarbrough; Cody Garrett.  Burnham is a good enough choice, as evidenced by this Dallas News op-ed; but he lost my vote when he could have held on to it.

For Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 2: Lawrence "Larry" Meyers. The Republican-turned-Democrat on the Court of Criminal Appeals lost in his bid for state Supreme Court two years ago and is running for re-election this cycle.  Democrats really need to turn out the vote for him in November, as he is the state's highest-ranking Democrat (by virtue of his party switch).  If he falls short in a presidential election year, with a Clinton-Castro ticket at the top ...

For State Senator, District 13: Rodney Ellis.  With much regret, as he no longer wants this job, preferring the high-dollar gig on Harris Commissioners Court.  Ellis, a longtime elected official, doesn't respond to my constituent e-mail and doesn't follow me on Twitter.  In most other cases I would not endorse or vote for that level of representation, and I might have to withhold voting for him for commissioner if I cannot get his attention any other way.  But I'm going to give him one last vote and see what happens.  Hellllo, Senator ...

For Sate Representative, District 146: Borris L. Miles.  Pretty much the same personal experience with him lately as Ellis.  If you search the archives here you'll find dozens of glowing reviews of Miles dating back to his first challenge to Al Edwards.  I've been his guest on a bus back and forth to Austin for opening day and for lobby days at least twice.  But he's gotten a little crazy over the past few years,  and when he voted to strike down Denton's fracking ban in the last session -- and then didn't return several of my calls to his office for explanation -- I had to step off.

Now he wants Ellis' job.  He won't get my vote for that if I don't see some greater effort trying to earn it, particularly since it's rumored he will have formidable opposition.

For Chief Justice, First Court of Appeals: Jim Peacock.  Peacock fell short of getting elected to the Harris County bench in 2014, collecting 45% of the vote in his bid for the 157th District Court against Randy Wilson.  This cycle he's stepping up to be the general election foe against Republican Sherry Radack.  If Hillary Clinton's coattails are long enough, there's a chance.

For Justice, First Court of Appeals, Place 4: Barbara Gardner.  Long favored and previously endorsed in this space, Gardner is top-shelf.  Let's take this once-every-four-years opportunity to get some Democratic representation on the Court of Appeals.

For Justice, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Place 2: Jim Sharp.  I still like Sharp even though he's been a loose cannon, to understate the case.  Harold Cook -- whose political opinions I have disagreed with perhaps more than any other Democrat in Texas -- does not.

Between the two, Cook is the bigger egotistical jerk.  Vote for Sharp.

I'm undervoting the Place 5 CCA where Betsy Johnson is the late filer.  She's not qualified.  She was recruited at the last minute by the TDP so that the Green, Judith Sanders-Castro, wouldn't be unopposed in November.  That's bullshit (here's what I wrote about that back in December).

Read more about the candidates for Courts of Appeal in both major party primaries on your respective ballot from Bob Mabry.

Harris County

For District Judge, 11th: This contested primary is very close to call.  I'm going with Jim Lewis, whom the Chron recommends.  Stace has nice things to say about Rabeea Collier.

For District Judge, 61st: Dion Ramos.  I like Ramos over his two female challengers because he's been a district judge previously.  I have also snarked on him in the past (scroll to the end, watch the video), and his opposition is worthy, but Ramos has made the personal touch that the others haven't.  (You may be noticing a trend in my endorsements.)

Vote also for Democratic incumbent Judges Larry Weiman, Kyle Carter, R.K. Sandhill, Michael Gomez, Jaclanel McFarland, Mike Engelhart, Robert K. Schaffer, Alexandra Smoots-Hogan, and for former Judge Josefina Rendon over Ursula Hall. (Hall isn't as bright as she claims.)

I also like these candidates in contested and uncontested judicial D primary races: the Honorables (past and present) Hazel B. Jones, Shawna Reagin, Randy Roll, Steven Kirkland, Herb Ritchie, and Maria Jackson.  Like the Chronicle, I prefer JoAnn Storey over incumbent Elaine Palmer.  Palmer was bad news before she got elected.  I'm also taking Kelli Johnson over Lori Gray, who like Palmer is financially supported by the odious George Fleming.

The Harris County District Attorney's contested race features Lloyd Oliver, Kim Ogg. and Morris Overstreet.  I'm voting for Overstreet because I just don't think Ogg can beat Devon Anderson.  Anderson is covering all the Democratic bases, from indicting the Planned Parenthood sting videographers to collecting an award from the NAACP, for which that organization has been criticized.  The only question is how many Republican votes the incumbent DA stands to lose.  She's uncontested for re-election in the Republican primary.

County Attorney Vince Ryan, Harris County's highest-ranking Democrat, is unopposed and will face whichever Republican emerges from that party's contested primary: Chris Carmona or Jim Leitner.  Carmona has a handful of failed city council bids on his resume' while Leitner has an English surname, which appears to be his strongest advantage.  Murray Newman doesn't like Leitner but Murray Newman's pain-in-the-ass blogging antagonist certainly does.  Big Jolly's GOP endorsements spreadsheet has Carmona in the lead 4-1, with Leitner's lone backer being Dr. Steven Hotze.

(I report, you decide which Republican is worst.)

I'm voting for Ed Gonzales, Harris County's next sheriff.  I have no recommendation to make in the Justice of the Peace Precinct 7, Place 1 contested primary.  I can only winnow the field down to Not Hillary Green the incumbent, and Not Keryl Douglas.

That leaves County Tax Assessor/Collector, and I'll be supporting Ann Harris Bennett over Brandon Dudley.  This one was very simple: Dudley, as Rodney Ellis' chief of staff, never made sure my inquiries and entreaties to the senator's office got answered.  Dudley may be all that and a bag of chips, but I just wouldn't know.  Bennett, on the other hand, has long been this blog's preferred candidate, and she barely missed in 2012.

Sometimes votes are won and lost as easy as that.

The Weekly EV Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance reminds you to get out and vote, starting tomorrow, in the 2016 primary as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff published interviews with three candidates vying to reclaim HD144 for the Democrats.

Libby Shaw. contributing to Daily Kos, warns Republican governance can be deadly. Literally. A Tale of Two Cities: Flint, MI and West, TX. How GOP governance can be deadly.

It felt as if there was a turning point in the last Democratic presidential candidates debate, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs has the details.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is appalled that Texas Republicans are giving $.5M taxpayer dollars to help Blue Bell after they spent years delivering deadly listeria to its customers.

SocraticGadfly asked that we not have any unseemly faux mourning over the death of Nino Scalia.

The Lewisville Texan Journal has the early voting details for that city.

Txsharon at Bluedaze posts the call to action to stop fracking America's public lands.

Egberto Willies has video of the NBA All-Star Celebrity game's MVP telling America it could learn something from Canada. ... right before ESPN cut him off.

Neil at All People Have Value took a picture of a very cold Ohio River, at Cincinnati. APHV is a part of NeilAquino.com.

And Stace at Dos Centavos filed a review of Los Texmaniacs, appearing at Houston's premier dive bar, Under the Volcano, in Rice Village.

=======================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Culturemap Houston had the early confirmation of the University of Houston' hosting of the February 25 GOP presidential debate.

Moni at TransGriot reminds Republicans that they lost, Scalia is gone, and Obama gets to pick his replacement.

The Rag Blog is being hopeful about a Sanders-Trump general election.

The state of Texas is charging ahead with its plan to redesignate immigration lockup facilities as childcare centers, according to the Houston Press.

Lone Star Ma focused on the 7th of the United Nations' new Sustainable Development Goals: Ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.

D Magazine asks whose fault it is when a pedestrian gets hit by a car.

Better Texas Blog reviews the proposed rules to qualify for a high-quality pre-kindergarten grant.

Doyen Oyeniyi searches in vain for an actual "sanctuary city".

The Dallas Observer does not like the way its mayor talked about the now-banned Exxxotica convention.

Keep Austin Wonky examined how city council there can use the 2016 presidential election to enhance Austin’'s mobility.

Pages of Victory remembers his big brother.

Finally, the TPA congratulates the Rivard Report for achieving its goal of becoming a non-profit.

Valentine's Day Funnies

No massacres (unless you're in a GOP debate), just laughs.

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

Justice Antonin Scalia, on capital punishment (not the actual words, but certainly his intention).

Rest in peace.  May your god have mercy on your soul.  I have none to give.

The ramifications for the Supreme Court's workload, the Supreme Court's future composition and without question the 2016 presidential contest are enormous, and just beginning to be calculated. Some are detailed in Laura Clawson's post here.  Republicans have already promised no new justice will be confirmed while Obama is president.  Think Progress:

The longest it has ever taken to confirm a Supreme Court nominee is 125 days. Obama has 361 days left in office.

And hey, this is as good a time as any to emphasize the importance of a Sanders presidency ...

Update: SCOTUSblog answers the questions about what happens with this term's cases.

The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court.  Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void.  Of course, if Justice Scalia’s vote was not necessary to the outcome – for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices – then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court. 

If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four.  In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case.  Because it is very unlikely that a replacement will be appointed this Term, we should expect to see a number of such cases in which the lower court’s decision is “affirmed by an equally divided Court.” 

The most immediate and important implications involve that union case.  A conservative ruling in that case is now unlikely to issue.  Other significant cases in which the Court may now be equally divided include Evenwel v. Abbott (on the meaning of the “one person, one vote” guarantee), the cases challenging the accommodation for religious organizations under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, and the challenge to the Obama administration’s immigration policy. 

The Court is also of course hearing a significant abortion case, involving multiple restrictions adopted by Texas.  In my estimation, the Court was likely to strike those provisions down.  If so, the Court would still rule – deciding the case with eight Justices. Conversely, the Court was likely to limit affirmative action in public higher education in the Fisher case.  But because only three of the liberal Justices are participating (Justice Kagan is recused), conservatives would retain a narrow majority. 

There is also recent precedent for the Court to attempt to avoid issuing a number of equally divided rulings.  In Chief Justice Roberts’s first Term, the Court in similar circumstances decided a number of significant cases by instead issuing relatively unimportant, often procedural decisions.  It is unclear if the Justices will take the same approach in any of this Term’s major, closely divided cases.

Update: Brad Friedman with the definitive piece.

A turning point

... for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination seemed to have occurred in the wake of last Thursday night's debate.

All day long I was antsy about it, and when debate night finally arrived, it was -- as they have all been -- substantive, snappy, a little snarly, certainly contentious, and finally a bit agreeable.  It was important for Bernie Sanders to do well in the debate (but that alone isn't good enough); overall I really thought it was going to be the pivotal moment in the primary contest, and it looks as if I was more correct than even I thought.

I promise at the end of my first term we won't have more people in jail than in any other country.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) December 11, 2015

Uh oh.

As Mark Kleiman, Leon Neyfakh, John Pfaff, Chris Hayes, Tim Murphy and German Lopez all noted, this is not simply a very ambitious goal. It is absurd, outlandish, ridiculous, disconnected — you name it. And not for the usual reasons that people say such things about Sanders’ promises, either. Not because it’s hard to imagine, but because it is impossible, full stop.

Read Kleiman in particular, or if you only have time to read one.  Update: More on Kleiman's POV from Socratic Gadfly.

Unlike his promises regarding health insurance and secondary education, then, Sanders’ promise concerning mass incarceration doesn’t irk because it refuses to grapple with “political reality.” It irks because it refuses to grapple with reality, period. 

As much as the idea of a “political revolution” may strain credulity, you could at least imagine how a mass movement might usher in a new Great Society. A liberal Congress is swept into office, one itching to make good on the promises of the new democratic socialist president. It’s extremely unlikely, granted, but at least you can conceive of it. With all due respect to the power of popular democracy, though, there is no movement — no matter how massive — that can defeat the stubborn insistence of basic facts. 

So is Sanders’ campaign doomed, now that he’s revealed himself to be either disingenuous or ignorant when it comes to mass incarceration? No, not remotely; Clinton, too, has made promises it is incredibly hard to imagine her being able to keep. What the strong pushback his proposal’s received from many sympathetic pundits does suggest, though, is that their patience for his idealism is not unlimited. 

And if the press decides that it no longer sees Sanders as America’s cranky but lovable socialist grandpa, and that it no longer sees his promises as ambitious rather than demagogic, then it could turn on his remarkable presidential campaign — hard and fast.

Hillary's also 'found her voice', according to her very large support network in the media.  So no matter the DNC stacking the deck against him in terms of both superdelegates (Nate Silver gives a glimmer of hope here) and lobbyists and super PACs, no matter Hillary's own truly wretched and severe shortcomings, the potential for Sanders being undone by his own hand is now very real.

The Clinton Machine is grinding hard in South Carolina.  It may be hitting a wall in Nevada (Crooks and Liars, in Susie Madrak tradition, throws cold water on that poll showing them tied) but the Hillaryians have an ace card up their sleeve there.  And then comes the SEC primary on March 1.

Clinton is eyeing the large group of southern states that vote that day, including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee. BIll Clinton is heading to Memphis Thursday and will travel to Atlanta again soon. These states, along with South Carolina, are part of her much-discussed Southern Firewall. But Clinton will need to frontload delegates at the beginning of the month, because there are only two southern states – Louisiana and Mississippi – left after March 1. 

Meanwhile, Sanders is eyeing whiter and more liberal Super Tuesday states, like Minnesota, Colorado, Massachusetts, and his home state of Vermont. Both candidates will appear in coming days in Minnesota and Colorado, two states where Sanders is strong. Clinton dominated Barack Obama by 15 points in Massachusetts in 2008, and this year she has widespread support among elected officials. 

With a whopping 222 delegates, Texas will also be major battleground, with an outright win being perhaps less important than claiming as large a chunk of delegates as possible. Clinton recently picked up the endorsement of the largest Latino group in the state and has deployed surrogates like the Sec. Julian and Rep. Joaquin Castro to campaign on her behalf. 

Sanders this week reserved TV advertising in Minnesota, Colorado, Massachusetts, and – surprisingly for one of the reddest states in the country – Oklahoma. Both campaigns seem to be targeting Oklahoma and its 38 delegates. Sanders sent his scrappy Iowa organizer Pete D’ALessandro to the state, while Clinton’s campaign set their Iowa press secretary.

Clinton's lined up almost every elected official in Texas, and some formers, including Wendy Davis, who's been onboard for the past six months.  Davis needs a job that provides a path back into electoral politics, after all, and a stint in a Clinton 2.0 administration is just the ticket.  Fresh polling from the TexTrib's YouGov is in the field (I have been polled), and that is likely to show Clinton still in control here in Deep-In-The-Hearta.

Sanders isn't in big trouble yet but he's swimming against the tide, and I don't think he's strong enough to overcome it.  We'll keep watching and waiting, but it sounds like the bell has tolled.

Grand Old Psychopaths take another debate turn

The next Republican presidential debate will be tonight at 9 pm Eastern. It will take place in Greenville, South Carolina, and will air on CBS. An online live stream will be available at CBSNews.com. 

Now that Iowa and New Hampshire have voted, the GOP field has gotten a lot smaller. Only six candidates will be onstage tonight: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Ben Carson. 

This will be the final GOP debate before the party's South Carolina primary on February 20 and its Nevada caucuses on February 23. Then there will be one more Republican debate before the March 1 "SEC primary," in which many Southern states and a few non-Southern ones will go to the polls.

That one will be in Houston, as we learned (again) earlier this week.  I'm going to apply for a media credential and see what happens.

The nomination contest has entered a dangerous phase for the Republican establishment. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump — two candidates loathed by party elites — have won the two contests so far, and by most accounts are the two top contenders in South Carolina as well. Even many who have long been skeptical of Trump's chances are starting to admit that he could really win this thing. 

But a bizarre dynamic to the race has persisted, in which all of the non-Trump candidates are still more focused on attacking each other than they are on attacking Trump. From each candidate's perspective, it makes sense — they're all hoping to end up the last non-Trump candidate standing, and to eventually take on the billionaire head to head. But as long as they all remain in the race and fighting each other, Trump seems more likely to cruise to victory.

My emphasis.  It's Trump versus Clinton in November; you heard it here first.

The non-Trump vote is so divided because Marco Rubio, the emerging establishment Republican favorite, stumbled in New Hampshire, finishing in fifth place behind Trump, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush. As a result, Kasich and Bush decided to stay in the race, which could ensure that the more mainstream GOP vote will remain divided for some time. 

One of the big questions of this debate is whether Rubio can recover from his panned performance last time around. If he manages to come off as unscripted — say, if he wins some tense one-on-one exchanges with other candidates — he could be deemed the debate's winner and regain some of the ground he's lost both in the polls and in elite opinion.

I believe all he is doing now is auditioning for vice president.  He's the obvious choice for Trump; Latino, from a swing state, needs more political seasoning, and also in need of a job once he's out of the running.

Still, the marquee contest has to be Trump versus Cruz — both are battling to win South Carolina. Things have gotten increasingly tense between them lately. Cruz is running a new ad attacking Trump over his attempt in the 1990s to use eminent domain to take an elderly widow's home so he could build a limousine parking lot. And Trump has been striking back against Cruz on Twitter, asking on Friday, "How can Ted Cruz be an Evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is so dishonest?" We'll see how their rivalry plays out during the debate.

Trump's also thinking of filing a birther lawsuit against Cruz if Ted doesn't stop running attack ads against him.  Oh what fun.

I am of the opinion that establishment Republicans, given the choice ultimately comes down to either Trump or Cruz, go with the billionaire because: a) they don't want him on the outside of the tent pissing in, b) the GOP "superdelegates" -- I refer here to the party's insiders and elected officials, not the same as the Democrats', to be clear about the contrast between the parties -- dislike Cruz more than they dislike Trump, and finally c) even at this late date, Trump could mount some insurgent third-party bid with his money and enthused supporters.  Even the smallest effort in that regard threatens a Republican Party nominee who has no votes to lose electorally.

It's still Clinton-Castro 2016 IMO, especially after last Thursday night, about which I'll have more to say in just a moment.

Henry Kissinger is nobody's friend

-- Socratic Gadfly scores last night's debate.  He speaks for me (and saves me a lot of time and effort), but I'll go ahead and post what I saw anyway.

-- You'll never guess where Hillary last wore that yellow cape.

She just doesn't get it.  Since you can't really believe what she says, you have to rely solely on her actions.  And those betray her words over and over and over.

Let's be clear: all those Tweets about Big Bird and bananas and Colonel Mustard's wife and Kim Jong Ill (as in vomit) are, in fact, sexist.  Pointing out that she wore the same thing twice in two public appearances might even be sexist.  Bernie Sanders looks like he slept in his car last night.  Is that sexist?  What is it called if women Tweet that his finger-wagging is "old man" behavior?

Meh.  Juvenile is what I'll call it.  Let's move on.

-- Here's the exchange on money in politics.  It's worth reading entirely.  And the back-and-forth on foreign policy likewise.  Your takeaway:

"I don’t know who you get your foreign policy advice from,” Clinton quipped. 

“Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger,” Sanders replied.

-- Any additional questions about American foreign policy past, present, and future should be answered here, but Juan Cole is there for you with something more even-handed.

-- While Sanders and Clinton seemed to battle to a draw on interventionism and hegemony, Bernie really got the best of the debate on immigration.  Long excerpt:

In the final debate before Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders face off in states that feature the most diverse voting electorates yet seen on the campaign trail, the candidates went on the attack to cast doubt on their opponent’s dedication to the pro-immigrant cause. 

Clinton was cornered Thursday night into defending past calls to deport waves of Central American children, an issue that was hotly contested at the time but is now deeply unsettling for immigrant communities as fresh rounds of deportation raids sweep the country. 

The former secretary of state had taken a hard line against the thousands of unaccompanied minors that flooded the southwest border in 2014. And though Clinton has since dramatically softened her tone on how the U.S. should address the aftermath of the humanitarian crisis at the border, she was put on the defensive to explain why she supported deportation then, but opposes the raids now. 

[...] 

But the Obama administration shocked pro-immigrant organizations last month when it began carrying out deportation raids to sweep up families and deport them back to Central America. The raids have stoked fears from the immigrant community and resentment from congressional Democrats who vocally opposed the administration’s position. 

“I am against the raids. I’m against the kind of inhumane treatment that is now being visited upon families, waking them up in the middle of the night, rounding them up,” Clinton said. 

Sanders was forced to face his own vulnerabilities on immigration, namely his opposition to a 2007 bill to pass comprehensive immigration reform, a lingering problem that most Latinos agree needs to be solved. 

“I voted against it because the Southern Poverty Law Center among other groups said that the guest worker programs that were embedded in this agreement were akin to slavery,” Sanders said. “Akin to slavery. Where people came into this country to do guest work, were abused, were exploited. And if they stood up for their rights, they would be thrown out of this country.”

More from Politico, here (the conservative POV reflected here is: "horrified") and here (more blow-by-blow, underscoring the differences).  Sanders is moving farther and faster than just debating the issue.

-- Vox has five key moments, Think Progress laments there were no climate change questions, and Fusion slammed both Sanders and Clinton for not saying the word 'abortion'.  If you want to read the full transcript, here you go.