Monday, December 14, 2015

Stage set for last GOP debate of 2015 tomorrow night


Vox:

This debate (the fifth for the GOP) will feature nine candidates on the primetime stage. Just five of those nine managed to qualify by topping 3.5 percent in an average of national polls — Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush. However, CNN also took polling averages in Iowa and New Hampshire into account, so Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, and Rand Paul also made the cut (though CNN had to bend its rules a bit to get Paul in).

Four other candidates — Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, and George Pataki — will be relegated to the earlier undercard debate. The other GOP candidate still running, Jim Gilmore, failed to qualify.

CNN will host, broadcast, and stream for free to non-cable subscribers.  Wolf Blitzer will moderate, Hugh Hewitt (you may recall he and Trump have some contentious history from September over terrorism) and Dana Bash will offer a few questions.

As far as as I'm concerned, the viable field of potential nominees consists of Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Christie, whose rise to second in NH may carry him into the spring and the Massachusetts GOP primary on Super Tuesday (March 1).  But after that, it's a long way to the NY primary on April 19 and the New England Super Tuesday on April 26, and there's no other states that vote before then in which I see him competitive.

So call it Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Fat Bastard by late February, rolling toward South Carolina.

With concerns from the RNC and “establishment” conservatives such as Mitch McConnell, Trump is privy to a new level of internal scrutiny, facing the prospect of a brokered convention if he’s successful in the primaries. Trump has spoken of running as an independent, which was echoed on Friday by Ben Carson, who threatened to leave the Republican Party if he deemed it too unfriendly to less orthodox candidates.

With Cruz surging in the Iowa polls, endorsements rolling in, and conservatives starting to treat him as a sober alternative to Donald Trump, a strong performance on stage will likely propel him that much closer to winning the first round of 2016. Trump has insisted that the moment he starts attacking Cruz, the Texas Senator will suffer (he referred to Cruz as a “maniac” Sunday morning), but Cruz has shown durability as a Trump alternative. He took a commanding lead in Iowa polling over the weekend. There’s only one Republican debate after the next one before Iowans flock to the caucuses.

The Democrats will debate on Saturday night.

Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley will debate this Saturday at 8 PM at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. The debate will be hosted by ABC News, the New Hampshire Democratic Party, WMUR-TV, and the Union Leader. David Muir, Martha Raddatz, and Josh McElveen will moderate.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance congratulates Houston Mayor-elect Sylvester Turner as it brings you this week's lefty blog post roundup.


Off the Kuff examined the legal arguments in the latest voting rights case before SCOTUS.

Libby Shaw, contributing to Daily Kos, notes once again how Governor Greg Abbott brings out the absolute worst of Texas. This time it’s an attack  on Muslim families.

Socratic Gadfly offers up an environmental twofer. First, he looks at the Paris climate deal and calls it toothless bullshit. Second, he reviews a new book about the attempt to ban fracking in Denton, which includes comments from TXSharon.

And TXSharon (BlueDaze) has been in Paris for the climate change negotiations, and her organization, Earthjustice, had this press release at the conclusion of the negotiations.

In a post about the GOP squandering the youth vote (along with women, minorities, and even sane Republicans) PDiddie at Brains and Eggs suggests a ready-made platform issue for progressives: hiking the minimum wage.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is actually shocked at John Cornyn's hypocrisy over a Senate confirmation. Shouldn't be surprised, though. Hypocrisy is a Republican stock in trade.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston takes on arbitration clauses in retail contracts.

nonsequiteuse has a few snapshots of Abigail Fisher's childhood.

Neil at All People Have Value expressed hope that Houston Mayor-elect Sylvester Turner has the insight and imagination to look past the insiders and organized interests that seem to form his outlook, and to instead see the whole of the great City of Houston. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

Wendy Davis and Hillary Clinton are equal opportunity opportunists, writes Somervell County Salon.

The Rag Blog's Ho-Ho-Happy Hour is the week before Christmas and features Jonah Raskin, author of a dozen books including biographies of Allen Ginsberg, Abbie Hoffman, and Jack London, as well as being the former Minister of Information for the Youth International Party (Yippies).

Trail Blazers catalogues the short journey of Garland's Katrina Pierson, from tea party star to "So, what, they're Muslim" fame.

Rick Green, a longtime associate of extreme fundamentalist Rev. David Barton, will run again for the Texas Supreme Court (via TFN Insider).

The Lunch Tray calls for a truce in the mommy food wars.

Fascist Dyke Motors has a question for you.

David Ortez wants to know why DPS is more likely to stop and search Latino drivers.

The San Antonio Current documents a racist meme (and the excellent reply to it) making the rounds about the first turbaned Sikh basketball player in NCAA history.

Mary Flood gives us the top ten Texas legal stories of the year.

Newsdesk and the Press were on the scene at the "mass shooting" protest and farting counter-protest in Austin.

And Eater Houston was first with the heavy snark about the Waller County sheriff having his arsenal of weapons stolen from his truck while he ate lunch.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Turner wins tight race for Houston mayor

State Rep. Sylvester Turner won the Houston mayor's race with a down-to-the-wire finish to edge businessman Bill King Saturday.

At one point, with 53% of precincts reporting, Turner had a 500-vote lead over King.  That was half the number of undervotes in the contest at that time.  Later, with 82% in the can, King pulled ahead by 1600 votes in Harris County, but was still losing the race by about 1800... thanks to a 3400-vote lead in Fort Bend County, with predominantly African American and middle class precincts in Houston proper.  Turner got 93% of the vote there.

Turner wound up carrying all three counties narrowly, but it was the cushion in Fort Bend -- and the pathetic 4% turnout in Montgomery County, which gave King a 100-vote margin -- that made the difference.  In a race this close, though, almost anything could have changed the outcome.  In Harris, for example, 208,600 votes were counted for the two candidates, and Turner carried the county by less than 700.  But 1,188 Houston residents did not vote for either candidate, and -- even weirder -- 6 people voted for both of them.  (Don't ask me to explain this.)

Chris Brown defeated Bill Frazer to be the city's controller for the next four years in slightly more comfortable fashion, 52-48 or about 8K out of 179K cast, with nearly 30K undervotes.

Mike Knox defeated Georgia Provost 52-48 in AL 1, incumbent David Robinson prevailed over Willie Davis 54-46 in AL 2, Amanda Edwards trounced Roy Morales with 62% to win AL 4, and shitty Jack Christie got 58% against shittier Sharon Moses in AL 5.  The real news in these citywide races was the massive amount of undervoting; AL 2 and AL 5 both had over 45,000 'none of the aboves', more than 20% of their total.

In the district runoffs, Mike Laster won easily with 65%, Karla Cisneros beat Jason Cisneroz by a 55-45 spread, but incumbent Richard Nguyen was defeated by Steve Le 51-49 in one of the uglier contests in recent memory.

HISD incumbents Rhonda Skillern-Jones and Manuel Rodriguez held onto their seats as well.

Thus Council gains a TeaBagger, Knox, to replace the moderate Steve Costello, gets a little more liberal with Edwards replacing C.O. Bradford, and we'll wait to see what we get with Le replacing Nguyen.  The rest of the new faces may be a wash, ideologically.

The deadline to file for the 2016 primaries is Monday and we'll quickly turn our local and statewide attention to that.  I'll have more shortly about Nile Copeland, the Democratic judicial candidate for Court of Appeals in 2012 -- a fellow I endorsed and spoke highly of  -- who's running for a state district judgeship as a Republican in 2016.  He's on the right in the photo below from Bill King's defeat party last night.  On the left is Tex Christopher, who's running for the chairmanship of the Harris County Republican Party.


This feels like a larger betrayal than even Chris Bell's, to be honest.

It's Election Day

Republicans are turning out their vote.



Charles and Free Press Houston have the pertinent data if you still need it.  You have my recommendations.  You gonna let a little rain today stop you?

What I will be watching for as the returns roll in is turnout in places like District C (Chuck again) and the undervotes in all races, but especially AL 5.  Most are too close to call, but if push came to shove I'd say we'll have Mayor Turner and Controller Frazer, with AL CMs Provost, Robinson, Edwards, and Christie (yuck) joining district CMs Le, Cisneros with an 's', and Laster taking seats around the horseshoe.  That would represent little ideological change from the previous Council, with the exception of the Republican in the bean counter's office.  If I'm right, we might see some flinty sparks between Fraser and Turner (scroll to the end) in 2016 and beyond... the next four years, as you may remember.  I could, of course, be wrong about some of these predictions (or all of them).

Recall also that Bob Stein, the cycle's most accurate pollster, thinks King has won the early voting and Turner will win today.  The final question is who won by how much.  So when Clerk Stanart finally flashes the EV to HarrisVotes.com shortly after 7 p.m. this evening, you'll have a pretty good idea how late you want to stay up, election night parties or no.

There's a very Merry Christmas in store for a few folks, not so much for some others.  About twelve hours from now, we'll see who got sugarplums and who got a lump of coal.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Republicans also losing the youth vote

That is, in addition to women, minorities, and those sane Republicans still left out there.  A couple of Texas anecdotes worth repeating.

Just over a month ago C.J. Pearson was a 13-year-old conservative social media sensation, booming support for Sen.Ted Cruz. Now, he has not only disavowed conservatism, he is the new youthful voice of the Sen. Bernie Sanders campaign.

“They used to call me a conservative wunderkind. Now, I’m just CJ. The semi-exciting independent from GA feeling the Bern,” Pearson wrote, in his updated Twitter bio.

Pearson shot to conservative stardom in February with a viral video questioning President Barack Obama’s love for the United States. It gave Pearson a massive social media following, which Cruz targeted in September when he named Pearson the chairman of Teens for Ted.
 
Pearson’s stuck with the Cruz campaign from Sept. 8 to Oct. 31. He abruptly left the position, asserting that Cruz “wasn’t doing enough to address the issues important to young people like student loan debt and youth unemployment.”

And this one.

The Texas state director of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's young donor program has quit and is planning to join the campaign of Democrat Martin O'Malley.

Shooter Russell, a University of Texas sophomore who since June had held the formal role with Bush's "Mission: NEXT program," told the Houston Chronicle he made the switch because of the GOP's opposition to people fleeing war-torn Syria.

"The final nail in the coffin were Trump's comments on Muslims, the inaction by the party, and our very own state's actions on blocking Syrian refugees," said Russell, who added that he has cousins who do mission work in the Middle East.

As state director, Russell said he oversaw about 80 volunteers at 15 chapters across the state, set up phone-banking plans and helped organize an event featuring Bush's son, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush. Now, he said, he is planning to travel to Iowa to campaign for O'Malley...

Probably doesn't mean much of anything, a 13-year old high school freshman or a 19-year old college undergrad changing their minds and  switching parties.  After all, they're no Sarah Slamen.

In a related post, Zach Taylor points out that if Bernie Sanders is on the ballot, then so is the minimum wage, and there is evidence demonstrating that issue drives non-voters to the polls.  How many young people of voting age work for minimum wage?  Glad you asked.  Pew Research tells us that the number of Americans aged 21-30 who work for more than the minimum wage but less than $10.10 an hour (which, coincidentally, happens to be very close to what the minimum wage would be if it only kept up with inflation) is 35.2%, using year-old data.

If I were supporting Hillary Clinton, for example, I might concerned about the fact that she supports a minimum wage increase to $12, while Sanders calls for $15, and a productivity adjustment from the late 1960's to 2012 would dictate a minimum wage of nearly $22 dollars an hour.

We're also not going to entertain any whining from the "job creators" when there is proof of prosperity for all when the wage gets raised, and especially not when they're stashing trillions offshore and performing mergers and tax inversions as fast they can.

You paying attention, Democrats?  Here's another clue to electoral victory in 2016.

Since nonvoters tend to be younger, less white, poorer and more mobile than voters, this isn’t entirely surprising. But one reason these findings are so striking is that voters and nonvoters hold broadly similar views on a range of other controversial issues. Christopher Ellis, an assistant professor of political science at Bucknell, tells me that gaps on issues like abortion, immigration, and gun control are comparatively modest (he is supported by Pew research). But economic issues are different.

It's always been the economy, stupids.  People vote their pocketbook, and when nobody's talking about their pocketbook, they don't vote.

Progressive candidates -- from the Democratic or the Green Party -- who can speak with conviction about raising the minimum wage, who can contrast the overwhelming majority of all Americans who support raising it against the corporations who oppose, while renouncing their U.S. "citizenship" and shifting profits offshore to avoid paying their fair share of taxes (a tab the rest of us have to pick up) as deserters, or traitors to America ... win.

That's a campaign platform all by itself.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

TX Railroad Commission: Porter out, Patterson in (maybe); Naishtat retires from House

We haven't had any Lege business to blog about since the end of the regular session in the summer, so this filing news today, mostly broken by Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report, reminds us that a lot of this shuffling is going to happen between now and next Monday's deadline.

-- First: RRC incumbent David Porter, a beancounter by trade and an industry flack by choice, finally realized the jig is up and is sliding out the back door.  He's got an unable and unworthy replacement considering a jump back onto the state's payroll.

Texas Railroad Commission Chairman David Porter on Thursday morning announced he is withdrawing from the race to serve another term at the state’s oil and gas regulator.

Moments after the announcement, former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson told Quorum Report he is considering a run for the seat.

“This decision was not an easy one, but I feel that all the goals I set out to achieve were accomplished during my tenure,” Porter said. “Now is a good time to focus on my family and my return to the private sector. Effectively managing the agency as Chairman, updating Commission rules and regulations, and continuing the diligent work of the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force will be the top priorities for the remainder of my term,” he said.

Patterson told QR he is making calls and trying to figure out what kind of support he would have if he announced for the seat.

“My experience is deep and wide. I will be able to perform the duties of Railroad Commissioner on day one,” Patterson said.

Patterson was fourth out of four in the running for lieutenant governor in the spring of 2014, and threw barbs at Dan Patrick in the runoff.  He's always been known as a straight shooter, but this is the season of Trump for Texas Republicans, and Patterson hasn't demonstrated enough meanness in the recent past.  Porter already had two low-grade contenders -- see here -- for his seat.

Update: Current GOP state Rep. Jim Keffer and former state rep Wayne Christian -- who mounted a failed bid for the RRC two years ago -- are also reported to be in or close to getting in.

-- The strongest liberal Democrat in the Texas House pulls the chain.

State Rep. Elliott Naishtat won’t run for reelection after all.

After indicating last week that he wouldn’t run and then saying earlier this week that he would, the 70-year-old Austin Democrat said Thursday that he is withdrawing his name from the ballot.

[...]

Naishtat called several local Democrats who may be interested in his seat to tell them about his decision. Potential candidates include: political consultant Katie Naranjo, Austin school board President Gina Hinojosa and legislative aide Huey Rey Fischer. Austin City Council Member Ann Kitchen, who was rumored to be mulling a run, said Thursday she will not get in the race.

Naishtat had a minor health scare in the summer of 2014, so this may have figured into his back-and-forth about serving another two years at 70.  He wasn't one of those Texas House Dems who voted against Denton's fracking ban, nor has he endorsed a Republican for Houston city council.  He was always the guy who could be relied on as a progressive who voted his conscience over political expediency.  Like Lon Burnham, he'll be greatly missed in Austin.  Big shoes to fill for whichever of those challengers emerges from the primary.

Update: Naranjo is out, Fischer is in, and several more ins and outs from Harold Cook.

Some of yesterday's enduring images



Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Today's "Hillary Clinton is terrible" post

But there is some sunshine at the end for New Democrats.

A couple points to ponder, and a reminder that with the SCOTUS about to decide on one man/one vote, how critical it is for Democrats, new and old and otherwise, to figure out how to motivate non-voters.

Anybody want to answer some questions?

This one will just make you mad.  Maybe as angry as a Trumpublican, I don't know.

Some sharp criticism here and here of how she has conducted herself recently that demonstrate why those two guys who wrote the pieces above are so negative.

Now for the good news, Hillarians.  You can replace every single disgruntled progressive vote with perhaps as many as five or even ten Latino ones, once she taps Julian Castro as running mate and with solid Hispanic candidates downballot, like Ed Gonzalez for Harris County sheriff.  So -- really -- go ahead and tell us 20-25% or so of your former base to pound sand if we don't want to cast a ballot for Clinton.  We're old, white, and in the way.  Isn't this why you call yourselves "New" Democrats?

I think you're safe.  That is, if you can turn out the brown vote the way it needs to, and ought to be, turning out.  Maybe Marc Campos can help with that.  He's going to be a Democrat again after the mayor's race finishes on Saturday, isn't he?

Mayor's race tied, Gonzalez in for sheriff, and more *updates*

-- The unaffiliated-with-any-campaign poll shows it 38-38.

The Houston mayor's race appears to be a dead heat after the close of early voting Tuesday, according to a new poll and political experts who have reviewed ballot records, setting the stage for a four-day campaign sprint to usher voters to the polls on Saturday.

More than 113,000 voters had cast ballots by the end of early voting Tuesday. Through Monday, turnout had been concentrated in the same African-American and white conservative precincts that vaulted state Rep. Sylvester Turner and businessman Bill King into the runoff to succeed term-limited Mayor Annise Parker.

The end of early voting coincided with the release of the first independent poll of the runoff, showing Turner and King tied at 38 percent support among likely voters.

"I've never seen a race this close this late in the election," said Rice University political scientist Bob Stein, who conducted the survey for the University of Houston's Hobby Center for Public Policy on behalf of KHOU-11 and Houston Public Media.

24% of voters who describe themselves as having "already voted in the runoff, or were certain or very likely to do so" are undecided.  That's a weirdly high number of people who seemingly won't make up their minds until Saturday.   

Update: Kuff and KHOU. If you watch the video at the teevee station link, it shows that 'undecided' is actually 13% and 'refused to answer' is 11%.  This reminds me of all the undecideds in the HERO polling before the general, and as Kuff also wondered: why are people who are likely to vote refusing to answer the question?

-- Ed Gonzalez for Sheriff.  That's an early Christmas present for local Democrats.

City Councilman Ed Gonzalez,  an 18-year Houston Police Department veteran, announced Tuesday that he will run for Harris County Sheriff next year.

Gonzalez is finishing his third and final term as councilman of District H, the majority Hispanic district that includes the Near Northside and the Woodland Heights, in addition to some neighborhoods north of the 610 Loop. Gonzalez currently serves as mayor pro tem and chairs the council's Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee.

"My passion has always been public safety, it's been kind of my wheelhouse," Gonzalez said. "It's something that I just feel, as a someone who cares about public safety, I want to continue to serve in this capacity. ..."

Gonzalez has a big mess to clean up over there, but you can rest assured that voters next November are going to assign the job to him.  With Hillary Clinton and Joaquin Castro at the top of the ticket, the Third Way Dems can ignore the protests of progressives and replace all of their votes and then some with Latinos.  (I'll have more on this shortly.)

-- Will people who do not vote continue to have representation in Congress and the state legislatures? The SCOTUS is going to let us know some time next year.

Sue Evenwel, a conservative activist from Mount Pleasant in rural Northeast Texas believes it isn't necessarily fair to have the same number of people in every legislative district in the state.

She thinks the Texas state Senate map should be based on the number of eligible voters instead - to ensure that every vote counts the same. Last year, she and another conservative voter from Montgomery County sued the state in an attempt to force it to change the way it draws its legislative districts.

On Tuesday, U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in her case, a challenge that has become a national flashpoint in the debate over minority voting rights and undocumented immigrants.

The arguments were closely watched by activists on both sides of the political divide, particularly by Hispanic groups who say her plan would dilute the Latino vote by excluding children, legal permanent residents and those brought into the country illegally as children.

Analysts say it would also greatly diminish the political clout of Democratic-leaning cities like Houston, while increasing the influence of rural white voters who skew Republican.

For the justices who will rule on her challenge, the case also raised fundamental questions about the very nature of political representation in a democracy.

"Well, it is called one-person, one vote," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "That seems designed to protect voters."

Kuff's post is a great place to find info for a deeper dive.  Taking CJ Roberts' words at face value, it seems possible that voters might be the only ones who count, but as with the gun case earlier this week, there could also be a chance for the less partisan justices to demonstrate their temperance to their freak right colleagues.

My humble O?  No matter which way the Supremes go, it makes Democrats' job to turn out their vote more critical than ever.

-- The Republican judge presiding over Ken Paxton's trial is running for the state Court of Criminal Appeals, because he thinks -- as a result of his recent experience with Paxton's lawyers -- that justice is threatened in Texas.

In legal filings and court hearings, Attorney General Ken Paxton's legal team has taken a scorched earth approach to attacking (Judge Chris) Oldner, accusing the veteran Republican jurist of orchestrating a Machiavellian plot to get Paxton indicted by the grand jury that he oversaw.

"It's a common tactic for criminal defendants; when they have reached a desperate place, they attack the process," Judge Oldner said in an exclusive interview with News 8. "They attack prosecutors, they attack law enforcement, and they'll even attack the judge."

But Paxton is no common criminal defendant. As the attorney general, he is the state's top law officer.
Paxton's legal team has accused Oldner of — among other things — improperly selecting the grand jury, entering the grand jury room when he shouldn't have, and leaking confidential grand jury information to his wife, Cissy.

Last month, Oldner announced that rather than running for his current judicial post — a job he's held for more than a decade — he was going to run for the Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal appeals court.

"Right now, we are facing an unprecedented time," Oldner said. "The system and the integrity of the system is being attacked, and I think it's important for strong, good, ethical judges to stand up and push back against the special interests."

Oldner talks of "dark money agenda groups who use massive email lists and web sites to push an agenda."

"When you face bullies, you have to stand up and push back," he said.

Land O'Goshen, this could be a Republican I could vote for.

-- The state Republican party douchebags are going to keep fighting over secession and equal rights and a few other things nobody else in the state of Texas gives a damn about.

Anger is building among some in the Republican Party of Texas over the way the State Republican Executive Committee meeting this weekend was handled by new Chairman Tom Mechler. But others are thankful he presided over the death of a controversial ballot resolution on secession that critics said caused the state’s governing party to be a “laughing stock” for most of the past week.

The anger now festering among some conservatives is the type of ire Mechler has been largely successful in containing since he was installed earlier this year by the SREC after former Chairman Steve Munisteri retired.

But some believe Mechler’s prevention of the steam from being released now could ultimately cost him the party's top job next year when he’s expected to face a fiery challenger at the 2016 RPT Convention in the Metroplex.

Longtime observers of the inner workings of the state GOP noted that exerting control in the midst of an executive committee meeting is very different from fending off a challenge from the far right at a convention. That is especially true for a rural chairman – Mechler is a businessman from Amarillo – at a convention held in one of the state’s major cities dominated by urban and suburban delegates.

Jared Woodfill thinks he can do a better job than Mechler.  It's as big a clusterf as their presidential nominating contest.  Days like these are when it's hard to believe that Democrats are getting their asses kicked by these clowns.

Updates:

-- Should African Americans boycott Mattress Mack for his support of Bill King?

-- Marc Campos rumor-mongers that Adrian Garcia will primary Gene Green.

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

"Just let the Republicans win: Maybe things need to get really bad before America wakes up"

Those of you who read all the way to the end of this post on the Texas Republican secessionist movement -- which failed to get on the state GOP primary ballot in a vote taken by the SREC -- will note that  a significant crossroads is coming up fast, and not just for the GOP and conservatives and TeaBaggers.

Liberals and progressives are right on the verge of separating themselves from the Democratic Party in the simmering feud between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.  Shane Ryan at Salon sets it up with an excerpt of Thomas Frank's decade-old warning about conservative, corporate, Republican Lite Democrats.

“The Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton…has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far out-weighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and—more important—the money of these coveted constituencies, “New Democrats” think, is to stand rock-sold on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation, and the rest of it…. Democrats no longer speak to the people on the losing end of a free-market system that is becoming more brutal and more arrogant by the day.”

-- Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas, 2004

Can you believe that it's been over ten years since those words were written?  The year the ultimate elitist, Boston Brahmin John Kerry, failed to fight back against the Swift Boat smears and was defeated by George W. Bush, Ohio voting irregularities not withstanding?

As in 1980, when Ted Kennedy battled with Jimmy Carter all the way to the end, and to paraphrase the extreme conservative Republican who won the presidency that year... here we go again.

Lately, we’ve witnessed a rash of Bernie Sanders supporters declaring that they refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. Some are defiant, and some are surprised at themselves — they never expected to be so turned off by a Democratic candidate. This has, in turn, produced a backlash from Democrats of all stripes who are terrified of a progressive revolt that divides the left in 2016 and leads to a Republican presidency. They paint the Sanders heretics as selfish and petulant — a bunch of sore losers who are prepared to destroy the country by omission. What they don’t consider, and what I hope to argue, is that there may be a rational, tactical justification for abandoning Hillary in the general election.

That bold emphasis is mine, since it underscores what I have been saying for six months.

Like most political arguments in America, the debate has become instantly polarized, and has planted the seeds of bitterness that may well bear fruit if Clinton wins the nomination and the intra-left schism comes to pass.

As a Sanders supporter and a political progressive, I haven’t yet decided whether I’ll vote for Clinton if she holds her lead and wins the nomination. 

As you should already know, I have decided, and will not under any circumstance vote for her.  I also won't be sitting out the 2016 election, and I certainly won't be writing in Bernie Sanders' name.

When I convey this uncertainty to fellow Democrats, I get one of two reactions. From progressives, mild to moderate agreement — it will be agonizing to abstain, and equally agonizing to vote for Hillary. Centrist Clinton supporters have a very different reaction, which I can only describe as form of exasperation that puts them at serious risk for tearing their hair out with both hands. They make a few emphatic points, and we may as well rehash them here:

1. By not voting for Hillary in a general election, you’re contributing to the potential reign of a Republican president, and everything that entails, for at least four years. Is your memory so short that you’ve forgotten the awful consequences of George Bush beating Al Gore because of a few thousand Nader supporters in Florida?

2. The next president may well appoint multiple Supreme Court justices, which would influence our national politics well beyond one or two terms.

3. Hey, idiot: No matter how much you dislike Hillary, she’s going to be miles better than some Republican! Even your own candidate says this!

4. We would vote for Bernie if he won.

And these are all good points. More importantly, I understand these points. I understood them from the start, in fact — they’re intuitive — and I’ve factored them in to the calculus.

Nevertheless, I still see it as a difficult choice. You might call this essay an exercise in confession — I know the potential disasters an anti-Clinton revolt entails, but I have to insist that for progressives like me, choosing whether to support her is not as simple as “fall in line or open the castle gates to the Republican hordes.” There’s strategic nuance hiding behind the façade of this binary thinking, and the consequences of throwing Hillary to the wolves are not as straightforward as many would like to believe.

These are divisive times on the left, and though the anti-Hillary movement is still marginal among progressives, it’s growing, and it needs to be understood on its own terms to prevent a party-wide schism.

Candidly I don't believe the schism can or even should be avoided, for the ultimate betterment of progressive populist voters, be they Democrats, Greens, Socialist Workers party, Working Families Party, Justice Party, or wherever they choose to place themselves.

Others have already written extensively on the issues that make her a deeply unattractive candidate to progressives; on how she’s not just dishonest — a description that applies to even the best politicians — but strikingly dishonest … as in, so comprehensively dishonest that dishonesty has become her unofficial modus operandi, to the point that when she defended her career-long support for Wall Street by invoking 9/11 and gender in the last debate. It seemed so perfectly Hillary-esque that most Sanders supporters didn’t blink; on how she and her husband used coded race-baiting in an attempt to destabilize the Obama campaign, and is employing a watered-down version of the same dirty game to imply that Sanders is sexist; on how her campaign has colluded with the DNC to reduce the number of debates — and to stage those few on awkward Saturdays — in order to limit Sanders’ exposure and prevent a repeat of Obama’s comeback; on how she has tacked leftward merely to combat Sanders’ progressive momentum — going against a lifetime of pro-Wall Street, pro-business action — and not because she actually espouses any of her shiny new positions; on how she will abandon even the rhetoric of reform the minute she wins the primary, as she and the rest of the New Democrats abandoned workers and the middle class long ago.


Yes, all of that is enough for me to reject Clinton.  I've got plenty of other reasons, though, most of which include wars and drones and bombings and assassinations under the pretense of "keeping Americans safe".  We're seeing how well this action is working lately, don't we?

But here's the real question, giving proper deference to the 'lesser of two evils' argument.

And with that unpleasant business out of the way, we arrive at the second assumption of this “cutting off the nose to spite the face” charge — that a Republican victory would be far worse, to the point of disaster, than a Clinton presidency. Bernie Sanders agrees with this, and in the short term, any left-leaning person with a brain would be a fool to disagree.

So: Do we choke back our principles, hold our noses and cast a vote for Hillary in the general? Or is there a long-term argument to be made for withholding our votes and letting the Democrat lose?

Here we go, Hillarians.  Hold on to your seats.

(T)here is a good strategic reason not to vote for Hillary, and it boils down to this: If progressives fall in line, it shows the DNC and the party’s structural elite that they can have our loyalty for nothing. It sets a terrible precedent for the future. To steal a crass expression, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Rowing in behind Clinton only justifies the establishment logic — “just feed the lefties a few scraps in the primary, wax poetic about the Republican bogeyman in the general, and they’ll shut up.” Progressives would be giving something quite important — their votes — for a party that hides behind fear-based arguments to maintain intimate ties with Wall Street while ignoring its supposed base.

But consider this: What if we didn’t vote, and Hillary lost as a result? Like it or not, that makes a profound statement. It would likely force the Democratic party to move left on economic issues and, fearing another schism, throw its weight behind a far more progressive candidate in 2020. Bernie Sanders himself says that we need a political revolution to enact real change, and if progressives plan to build a lasting movement in America, it has to start with making our voices heard on a national scale. Sending a message to the party that we won’t be placated by politicians who stand in the regressive center is one hell of an opening salvo.

This is every single reason I have suggested for voting for the Green Party's candidates.  It is in fact the most important thing Sanders supporters, disaffected liberals, and some unquantifiable number of true independents, non- and infrequent voters, and even a few Republicans -- Gobsmack bless their hearts -- can do at the ballot box.  Not voting or writing in Sanders' name is foolish.

Pick up those scattered pieces of your brain matter, Blue Dogs, and finish reading.

... If Hillary lost because progressives abstained from voting, it’s possible that Republican incompetence would be laid bare, and that they’d run the country into the ground over the next four years. If that’s what it takes to show the people that a leftist political revolution is the only viable way forward, it will have been worth watching Hillary bite the political dust. Come 2020, we could be looking at a landscape where progressive politics can finally gather enough momentum to sweep the country, and usher in a new era of FDR-esque reforms.

The dark side of withholding votes from Hillary is obvious, and it has to be measured, but the longer you analyze the situation, the more compelling the bright side becomes. No outcome is written in stone, but I would argue that the mere presence of reasonable doubt may be the best argument of all — if there’s a possibility of reframing national politics, why push ahead on the rotten middle path? Why not be guided by reasonable doubt, and let it open our minds to the possibility of positive political action?

[...]

Those are the terms. Will 2016 be the year when a revolt is justified? For now, I remain undecided. But the doubt is growing, and centrists should understand that when they accuse progressives of turning their backs on the party, it’s hard not to laugh — we’re simply fighting for traction against an erstwhile ally that turned its back on us.

That's a little nicer than I would put it, but the point is still made.  Will the "New Democrats" pay heed?  About all they have to do to con liberal Democrats -- sheepdogging them onto their bandwagon -- is give Bernie a night at the convention, make promises they might keep about a President Hillary adopting some of his progressive policy plans, and stop being sore winners.  Or would they rather have their scapegoats for future failure identified?

If the revolution gets postponed until 2020, I'll hunker down and ride out four years of Trump/Cruz/Rubio and American fascism.  What I don't think I can stand is fifteen more years of whining from the Blues about those who didn't vote for their shitty conservative candidate, or who voted for someone else.  Winter is coming, and it just may last all the way through the summer and into next fall.  I'm of the opinion that nothing could be better for the Democratic Party than to cleave itself in two and see which half survives after losing next November.

Progress or regress.  Forward or backward.  That's as clear a choice as it gets, one conservaDems will try to make work for Hillary against Trump (or whomever).  That, however, is nothing but a Hobbesian choice.

If you're still reading this, you and I both know that you're too smart to do that.

Update: This guy is waaaay angrier than me about the whole history of progressives in the Democratic Party, and recounts a bunch of it, from Jesse Jackson sheepdogging his Rainbow Coalition in behind Mike Dukakis in 1988, to Dennis Kucinich doing the same for Kerry in 2004, right up to Bernie and now.  He's written nearly 70 books and holds a Ph.D., so he might know what he's talking about.  Last three grafs:

Other pundits claim (Sanders) is ‘challenging’ the Democratic Party ‘from the left’ when in fact he is doing everything possible to prevent millions of disaffected ex-Democratic voters, mostly workers and minorities, from rejecting the Democrats and joining or forming alternative political movements.

The key to understanding why millions of Americans, fed up with 30 years of declining living and health standards, deepening inequalities and perpetual wars, do not form an ‘alternative party’ is that they have been repeatedly conned and corralled in the Democratic Party by the “house radicals”.

Jackson, Kucinich, Obama and Sanders promised radical changes in the primaries and then have gone on to hand their supporters, mostly disaffected workers, over to the Party oligarchs, abandoning them without their past social movements or future hope: like cast-off condoms. Is there any wonder why so many abstain!

Update II: Why Hillary would be a worse president than a Republican

Monday, December 07, 2015

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance thinks we need fewer thoughts and prayers and more action to curb gun violence as it brings you this week's roundup.


 Off the Kuff has been following the legal standoff between Greg Abbott and refugee relief organizations with increasing disbelief.

Libby Shaw, contributing to Daily Kos, is not the least bit surprised to learn that the Texas Republican Party dances with the absurdity of secession again. We’re back in the silly season of elections. TX GOP: So it now it wants to secede?

Socratic Gadfly heard about Mark Zuckerberg's alleged shiny new charity, looked at it, and saw it was full of problems. Then, when some "pseudoskeptics" either claimed he was wrong, or else did special pleading for Zuckerberg, he took a closer look and found it was even worse.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks Ted Cruz is a mansplaining *&% for saying condoms are all a woman needs in the way of reproductive health care.

 "Thoughts and prayers" as gun safety policy from too many Republicans who are responsible for crafting laws which protect Americans.... isn't. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs would like to see something more effective to stop the carnage in this country.

Texas Leftist took note of the threats by Lone Star Republicans to state relief agencies and Christian charities choosing to assist and relocate Syrian refugees here, a threat which turned out to be a bluff.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston wants to make sure you know who NOT to vote for in the H-Town municipal runoff election.

Earthquakes in Irving have spawned a new community impact activist group in that city, writes TXsharon at Bluedaze.

The Lewisville Texan Journal has a charming story about the new Cat Corner in a local mall, where shoppers can lounge a bit with a feline friend.

Stace at Dos Centavos has a holiday opportunity for those who want to give something really big back: sponsoring a student of the Las Americas Newcomer School during their first holiday in the United States.

Neil at All People Have Value took a good picture of downtown Houston at night. Our everyday lives have a lot of value. We should assert this value each day. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

David Ortez gives three reasons why decriminalizing first-time marijuana possession cases will be good for Harris County.

Lone Star Ma highlights the Sustainable Development Goal of ending hunger.

Robert Rivard examines the science and denial of climate change.

TFN Insider asks why Greg Abbott is bullying faith-based organizations when he claims to support religious freedom.

Lize Burr delves into the Great Disappearing Condom Machine Mystery.

Grits for Breakfast discusses the role of plea bargains in unjust convictions.

The Politics of Courage lists all of the Green, Socialist Workers Party, and Working Families Party candidates who won, or did well in, their elections last week.  Yes, in America.  The list doesn't include Harris County Green Joseph McElligott, who took over 11,000 votes and 6.31% in his Houston AL 5 bid.

Dallas Morning Views opined about Lite Guvnah Dan Patrick's pushback on "thoughts and prayers".

The Texas Observer pointed out another court defeat to Ken Paxton: more than $600,000 in legal fees to the attorneys of plaintiffs in the recent challenge to same sex marriage, which is now the law of the land.

Offcite's Houston mayoral questionnaire was posted, with the candidates responding to issues like parking, parks, pollution, preservation, and more.

In light of the contract overruns associated with the tech overhaul of the state's child support network, Somervell County Salon wants to know why Texas is paying Accenture (aka Arthur Anderson before the Enron debacle) for anything.

Houston Matters emphasizes that for fans of the abstract-expressionist Mark Rothko, there are currently three locations in Houston featuring his work.

Meanwhile back at the state capital, Better Texas Blog details some of the interim charges for the 2017 legislative session.

Sunday, December 06, 2015

TXGOP flunks secession gut-check


How many delegates do you think pronounced it suck-cession?  Astoundingly, as Bud Kennedy recounts, they applied some forethought and decided it wasn't a good idea.

With the spirit of Texas President Sam Houston over the room, state party executives voted Saturday in Austin not to poll March primary voters on declaring Texas independence.

Austin Republican Mike Goldman’s voice rose as he quoted Houston’s opposition to Confederate secession and implored the party’s state committee to avert “brother fighting brother on whether they are a Texan first or an American first.”

More immediately, the vote averted a national embarrassment with implications both in March and November.

If the party had a poll on secession, that would have drawn more disenchanted independents who also support Donald Trump. (Even the Houston-area Tea Party activists behind the idea said it’d draw new voters.) That would have hindered U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s shot at claiming more Texas delegates.

So this essentially came down to a resolution failing to get on the ballot -- which supporters believed would attract new voters to their primary -- because it might hurt the prospects of their favorite son, and make the party look like a sea-to-shining sea joke.  (Clue to Texas Republicans: that ship sailed years ago.)

Then, if the referendum passed and Cruz were on the ticket, can you imagine the campaign? “Why vote for a Texas Republican? They don’t even want to stay in the Union.”

Since 1861, Texas secession has always been a farcical idea promoted by liars, self-important patriots and greedy merchandise peddlers. This year, it just happens to be a particularly self-destructive idea for Republicans, which must be why the Tea Party party-wreckers brought it up.

There was an interesting article recently that suggested the Tea Bags, while losing favor overall, still have cracking up the GOP in mind.  Psychologically, they've already quit on the party, they just haven't filed the divorce paperwork.  While I found that premise somewhat intriguing, it seems more likely to me that they -- with Trump as their tool -- will actually take over the GOP and push out the moderates, who are hesitant emotionally or physically to disconnect.  Is Lindsey Graham correct in saying that nominating Donald Trump means the end of the GOP as we know it?

Are they at risk of becoming 21st century American fascists?

Honestly I'm more focused on seeing if Hillarians are going to be successful in driving out the Sandernistas.  Democrats, after all, have repeatedly demonstrated a propensity not to vote if the candidate nominated does not enthuse them enough to do so.  This is so obviously the difference between Hillary and Bernie that I am almost surprised that so many Democrats do not get it.

If I'm right about this trend, Trump could get elected president.

Mark this post as the first time I have publicly entertained the possibility that Clinton loses in 2016.

Sunday Thoughts and Prayers Funnies



A letter to Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan from their baby, Max (Warning: language)

Saturday, December 05, 2015

Cheney, busted

In keeping with the Star Wars references, this isn't the frogmarch we've been looking for.


One of the most controversial vice presidents in U.S. history will have a permanent presence in the halls of power in Washington after a marble bust of Dick Cheney was unveiled Thursday at the U.S. Capitol. (Former president George W.) Bush, Vice President Biden and other dignitaries offered effusive praise — and polite jokes as the sculpture was unveiled.

I think the Darth Vader comparisons are unfair.  The former Anakin Skywalker fought in every war that occurred during his lifetime; Cheney was more than happy to let others fight and die in his place, many times.

The real sculpture also has a difficult time convincing me it's an accurate representation.


So do the plaudits and jokes, especially Joe Biden's.

"The way you have conducted yourself is a model for anyone in high public office," Biden said. "I'm afraid I've blown his cover. I actually like Dick Cheney."

I call bullshit, Joe.

Update: More cringeworthy satire from Slate.  "Honored for ending terrorism"...

However, in retrospect it is hard to say that Cheney's decisions were anything but deeply prescient, and one thing is certain: The invasion ended Islamic terrorism and did not create a civil war that ironically allowed al-Qaida to flourish in an area where it had no prior presence, ultimately begetting an even more dangerous and inhumane splinter group called ISIS that continues to threaten American lives to this day.

[...]

Cheney was also praised for his ethical decision not to arrange for a company which had very recently paid him tens of millions of dollars and in which he had "a continuing financial interest" to become one of the largest beneficiaries of United States federal spending in Iraq. One can only imagine the repercussions if he had actually done something like that.

Thursday, December 03, 2015

Competing polls show Turner, King with small leads over each other

Both are, shall we say, non-independent.

The Houston Realty Business Coalition (HRBC) released a poll of 300 active voters today measuring support of Mayoral candidates in the December runoff election.  

Blahblahblah.

In the upcoming runoff election for Mayor, if you had to choose, would you be voting for Bill King or Sylvester Turner?
 
Bill King                      48%
Sylvester Turner          43%
Undecided                     9% 

More at the link if you want it.  Conversely, Sylvester Turner's polling outfit shows him at 47-40, with 13% undecided.


Right down to the wire, folks.  Vote early until Tuesday, vote a week from Saturday if you don't.

Update: Sue Davis with the Turner campaign adds this (via email):

The King campaign is pushing a poll today with numbers that are drastically different than ours. But check the methodology before you take what King says at face value. His poll is a 300-sample, notoriously unreliable robo-call poll. It claims a 4% margin of error. However, in a sample size that small, according to our pollsters FM3, the margin of error should be 5.7%.

Additionally, 16% of people only use cell phones (like me). Robo-call polls are not allowed to call cell phones, so King’s poll missed out on a whole segment of voters.

"Thoughts and prayers" as gun safety policy

Working about as well as you would expect.

(Yesterday) saw not one but two mass shootings, on opposite sides of the country. In San Bernardino, California, three gunmen entered a center for persons with disabilities and killed at least fourteen people. In Savannah, Georgia, a single gunman killed a woman and injured three more people in the early hours of this morning.

There was also a shooting death in front of a Houston women's clinic yesterday.

All three Democratic presidential candidates responded to the shooting by calling for something — ANYTHING — by way of action to prevent the next mass shooting. All of the Republican presidential candidates called for prayers, and perhaps some thoughts, for the victims, their families and first responders on the scene.

It didn’t stop there, though. (Think Progress contributing editor) Igor Volsky has found 38 -- and counting -- Republican members of Congress, not counting the ones who are running for president, who tweeted out some version of “thoughts and prayers” immediately following the San Bernardino shooting. He also made a second pass through with said members’ contributions from the NRA.

Go check it out.  As the linked piece's headline so bluntly reveals, the sum of gun safety policy for the Republican Party begins and ends with "thoughts and prayers".  The New York Post also pointed out the hypocrisy of asking and then waiting for the Supreme Being to take action.


As was the case with October’s mass shooting in Oregon, the Republican party line hasn’t even included the traditional hand-waving at the need for improved mental health services — even as there are bills currently stalled in Congress that would improve our country’s mental health services! Instead, the unified message has been that thoughts and prayers are the necessary and sufficient reaction to this shooting tragedy.

You don't have to be a non-believer to understand how powerfully ignorant this is. But as expected, Christians pushed back against being shamed for doing nothing but close their eyes and meditate.

In isolation, nothing. ... (I)f you, personally, want to send good thoughts in the direction of someone who has just experienced a loss, go ahead. It doesn’t hurt anyone, although God’s continued agnosticism on American gun violence has made it pretty clear that it isn’t helping, either. What absolutely is hurting people, however, is the continued implicit insistence of the Thoughts and Prayers Caucus that there simply isn’t anything else we can do about America’s off-the-charts homicide rate.

Because when politicians offer their thoughts and prayers, they don’t do it in a vacuum. These are people charged with making sure that tragedies like these don’t happen again, and ... the same representatives who are driven to prayer by the sheer horror of this tragedy have stopped even pretending to put any effort into curbing gun violence. Hell, they’ve blocked efforts to research the issue.

This being the case, the regular call to prayer we see every time someone takes legally-purchased guns and kills a whole bunch of people with them comes off as nothing more than a dodge. Prayer is being passed off as what we’re supposed to do instead of coming up with any ideas for how to make mass shootings happen less than once per day. Given that the number of prayers being offered by various politicians seems to be directly proportional to the size of the investment the NRA has made in their campaigns, you don’t have to be all that creative to imagine why.

If you're one of those people who votes straight ticket GOP, is afraid that Bill Clinton Barack Obama Hillary Clinton is coming to take away all your guns, you might be part of the problem.  Whether you're sending thoughts and prayers to the latest victims of the most recent mass shooting, or not.

If Republican thoughts and prayers were followed up with anything by way of an actionable solution to this epidemic-level problem, it’d be one thing. But when their conversation starts and ends with an earnest, prayerful tweet, it feels like they’re sticking their fingers in their ears until the news cycle moves on. They bring no actual ideas to the table, just well-wishes. Doing nothing appears to be the line item on the party platform, but “thoughts and prayers” are scribbled into the margins in order to give candidates something to tweet out.

The Atlantic’s Emma Green is dismayed that prayer isn’t being welcomed in the political debate today, writing that “At one time in American history, liberals and conservatives shared a language of God, but that’s clearly no longer the case; any invocation of faith is taken as implicit advocacy of right-wing political beliefs.” But today, prayer really is being used to defend a particular right-wing political belief: that the only feasible solution to mass shootings is to get on your knees and ask God to let more than a week pass before the next one. One political party’s pseudo-religious commitment to that belief is indirectly contributing to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year.

If that’s what prayer is being used for, it deserves to be shamed.

Daily mass murders from high-powered weapons are officially this nation's most pressing concern, whether the shooters be Muslim or whether they are not.

I'll ask again: what do we expect our elected leaders to do about this?  I'm asking more specifically beyond thoughts and prayers.