A Muslim terrorist... or a closeted, self-loathing gay man?

Who might have had some daddy issues, who beat his ex-wife, and who was investigated by the FBI for terrorist sympathies but whose case was ultimately dropped?

The gunman who attacked a Florida LGBT nightclub had attended the club before the attack and had used a gay dating and chat app, witnesses said.

Kevin West, a regular at Pulse nightclub, said Omar Mateen messaged him on and off for a year before the shooting using the gay chat and dating app Jack’d.

But they never met – until early Sunday morning.

West was dropping off a friend at the club when he noticed Mateen – whom he knew by sight but not by name – crossing the street wearing a dark cap and carrying a black cellphone about 1 a.m., an hour before the shooting.

Orlando gunman used gay dating app, visited LGBT nightclub on other occasions, witnesses say:

At least four regular customers of Pulse, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender nightclub where the massacre took place, told the Orlando Sentinel on Monday that they believed they had seen Mateen there before.

"Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent," said Ty Smith, who also uses the name Aries.

He saw Mateen at the club at least a dozen times, he said.

"We didn't really talk to him a lot, but I remember him saying things about his dad at times," Smith said. "He told us he had a wife and child."

He physically abused his former spouse; his father was a minor-league crackpot.

FORT PIERCE, Florida — Years before he shot up an Orlando gay club in what became the largest mass shooting in American history, Omar Mateen regularly picked up lunch from a drag queen at Ruby Tuesday. He may have even gone to see a drag show or two, a former high school classmate told The Daily Beast.

About 10 years ago, Mateen, a few years out of high school, was working at the supplement store GNC. Samuel King, a year ahead of him in high school, was working next door at the restaurant chain. Mateen was a few years out of playing football in high school while King, who is openly gay, had long, flowing extensions, and prettier hair than most of his female co-workers.

“He always had a smile on his face,” King told The Daily Beast on Sunday. “Maybe it’s because he was working in customer service.”

Ex-wife: Mateen had 'gay tendencies', used dating app Grindr

Former classmate says Mateen was gay

So do you draw 'jihadist' from this?  It appears the FBI did not consider him a menace to society, despite their attempts yesterday to cover their asses by saying he was 'radicalized'.  Conservatives are religiously avoiding using the G-word to describe Mateen but have rushed to judgment on 'Islamist terrist', and are vigorously defending their 'Raght to Keep N Bare', both of which are the most predictable of responses.

What if Mateen was just conflicted, awkward socially, a little strange, someone who was mocked as an adolescent and who became resentful and socially -- ultimately socio- and psychopathically -- dysfunctional as an adult?  What can we do for a person like that (besides not letting him buy guns)?  Maybe 'love IS the answer', but it seems as if Mateen had that externally... but not internally.

I'll save any more shade-tree psychology for additional facts to come out, but IMHO we still need some sane Republicans demanding sensible gun safety legislation.  The GOP electeds just won't listen to anybody else.

Update: Amanda Marcotte picks it up and adds the GOP critique.

Stupid things allegedly smart people say, RNC convention edition

(This is Part Two, Part One was here.)

"How the GOP could Dump Trump in Cleveland":

Do we think that the Republican Party will ditch presumptive nominee Donald Trump at its convention in July and select someone else to replace him — a notion that seems to be catching on among conservatives and commentators in the wake of Trump’s controversial remarks about the Mexican-American judge overseeing his Trump University suit?

No, we do not.

And yet, if there were ever an election weird and wild enough to make such a switcheroo possible — just barely — 2016 would be it.

Cleveland is a long way away. A lot can happen between now and then. So what would have to happen to make “Dump Trump” a reality?

To give our fellow convention fanatics something to fantasize about for the next 40 days, Unconventional has assembled a step-by-step instruction manual for dumping Trump. If any of these steps are skipped, the whole chain reaction fizzles out. But if every one of them is completed, there is still a chance — a very, very slim chance — that Donald Trump won’t be competing against Hillary Clinton in fall.

Tenuous and ignorant premises out of the way early; on to the jokes.

Step One: Trump keeps saying offensive stuff

Trump has said plenty of objectionable things since launching his campaign last summer: the Mexicans-are-rapists thing, the John-McCain-isn’t-a-war-hero thing, the Muslims-should-be-barred-from-entering-the-U.S. thing, and so on.

But the Judge Curiel-can’t-do-his-job-because-he’s-of-Mexican descent thing is the first toxic thing that Trump has said since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee. The content may be similar, but the context is very different. Before, during the primaries, Republican leaders could brush off Trump’s remarks. He’s not my candidate, they could say. Maybe the voters will still reject him. And if not, he’ll probably grow up in time for the general.

Back then, Trump didn’t represent the GOP. Now he does. So now whenever Trump says something offensive, other Republicans have to choose: Do I defend this? Or do I denounce it? Hiding isn’t an option anymore.

As we’ve seen over the last week, the risk of guilt by association has dramatically lowered the GOP’s tolerance for Trump’s most distasteful remarks.

“ ‘Bigot, bigot, bigot. Racist. Racist Racist,’ ” said influential conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt Wednesday, recapping the morning’s headlines. “The Republican National Committee needs to step in and step up, and go see Donald Trump and tell him to get out of the race.”

Hugh Hewitt bailing out is huge.  Yuuuuuuuuge. 

Step Two: Trump’s poll numbers plummet

Right now, Trump is trailing Clinton by only 3.8 percentage points, on average, in the general-election polls. That’s reasonable. To be expected. He’s still “well within striking distance,” as they say.

But what happens if Trump’s numbers go into a free fall and Clinton starts to pull away? What if she crosses the 50-percent threshold and he plunges into the 30s? What if the gap between them widens — to five points, 10 points, 15 points?

Somebody else who does not understand how the Electoral College works.

This is key. 

This is not key.  Popular vote percentages -- you know, the same ones that Berners use to say that Sanders should be nominated over Hillary because he beats Trump -- might be the excuse the GOP uses to try to defenestrate their popularly elected nominee, but most DC electeds understand that's not how a president gets chosen.  And the EC numbers are grim already.

The major problem with dumping Trump is political.  It looks like GOP elites are conspiring to deny the will of GOP voters — the most galling offense imaginable in a year that’s been all about the voters denying the will of the elites.

But Trump’s plummeting poll numbers would provide objective evidence that actual voters agree with party leaders that he’s gone too far. The GOP would start to fear a down-ballot disaster. More Republicans would jump ship. Combined with a series of Curiel-like controversies, a sickening slide in Trump’s public-opinion stats might establish a new anti-Trump argument that doesn’t ask rank-and-file Republicans to reject the nominee just because establishment types like Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are doing it: Trump had his chance. Now he’s tanking — and he’s taking the party with him. 

So if you were wondering where Ted Cruz has been all this time ...

Step Three: Someone else steps up

Mitt Romney refused. Ben Sasse begged off. James Mattis said no sir. Even David French — a bald, bearded conservative lawyer that no one had ever heard of — decided against it.

You can’t fault the #NeverTrump movement for lack of effort. But so far, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and his anti-Donald cronies have been unable to convince anybody to take on Trump.

For the whole “Dump Trump” scheme to work, this would have to change. As Curly Haugland, a member of the convention Rules Committee from North Dakota, recently told the New York Times, “In order to have a contested convention, we need to have contestants.”

Some Republican politicians are starting to signal their interest in a convention challenge. As Yahoo Senior Political Correspondent Jon Ward reported (last) week, conservatives are increasingly mentioning Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker as a “possible replacement.” RedState reported (a week ago) that there are “rumors” that Walker is “open” to such an outcome. One of Ward’s sources said that Walker, who mounted a brief bid for the 2016 GOP nomination, has told those working to find an alternative that he would be willing to step up at the convention if Trump continues to implode.

The likeliest substitute, however, would be someone who can already claim considerable support among the convention delegates. Ted Cruz comes to mind. Right now, he has 559 delegates to Trump’s 1,542. But remember: Many of the delegates now pledged to Trump were loyal to Cruz (or some other candidate) first.

For his part, Cruz has kept his options open, refusing to endorse Trump and suggesting that if he sees “a viable path to victory” in the future, he “will certainly respond accordingly.”

“I am looking and listening and watching the candidates,” Cruz told CNN earlier this week. “I’m doing the same thing millions of voters are doing and … time will tell.”

"Now for the fun part", the piece continues.  I'll pass; you go on ahead.  Hint: the GOP/RNC has to rewrite their rules.  How many Trumpeters do you think will take that lying down?

Go back to the top and read the part where they wrote, 'if any of these steps are skipped, the whole chain reaction fizzles out'.  And then read this again: 'But if every one of them is completed, there is still a chance — a very, very slim chance — that Donald Trump won’t be competing against Hillary Clinton in fall.'

No.  Just no.  And it has nothing to do with guns, or responsible gun safety legislation (which is the third rail of GOP political viability).

Sorry you had to waste five minutes reading all that.  I just document the atrocities, folks; I can't really influence them too much.

How you know Bernie's already conceded

This Weak with George Snufflelufagus may have been pre-empted in your market for coverage of the Orlando tragedy, so if you missed this, take note.

The Vermont senator also plans to meet with Clinton Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda.

On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Sanders said he and Clinton will discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."

"What I need to see [is] a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," Sanders said.

"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country." 

Sanders is done, y'all.  Fought the good fight and all that happy horseshit, but now he's tired and he wants to go to bed.  All that's left to negotiate is his severance package.  Vice-president?  I doubt it.  Senate Majority Leader?  Kinda laughable, to say nothing of that blogger's command of the English language.

Some party platform BS, BS?  Yeah, he'll take that.  A tax increase, though?  In the words* of Hillary Clinton, 'you gotta be shitting me, old man'.

Over to you, Bern Unit.

*Paraphrasing slightly.

Whose fault is it again?

It was the worst act of terrorism on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, and the deadliest attack on a gay target in the nation’s history, though officials said it was not clear whether some victims had been accidentally shot by law enforcement officers.

It's a hate crime against gays.  No, wait: it's radical Islamist terrorism -- and that means it's Obama's fault; after all, he sort of predicted it less than two weeks ago, AND Ted Cruz and Donald Trump both said so.  They're probably not altogether wrong about that, either; is this sick enough for you yet?  I just hope the president doesn't say "that's not who we are", because it's precisely who we are.

“Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” (Drumpf) wrote. “I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

'Smart' is just not going to be possible for you and your ilk, Don.  Ever.  What's your Plan B?

I'm still #FuckTheNRA, personally.

The vast majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings, including two guns believed to be used in the Orlando attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Go ahead take a look, then filter it through the reality of the same old politicos posting the same meaningless #ThoughtsandPrayers on their social media accounts while they deposit another check from Wayne LaPierre.  Keep in mind that, like Dan Patrick, some people believe their thoughts and prayers were answered when more than a hundred Latinos/as, many of them LGBT, were struck down by bullets early yesterday morning.

As an atheist, my question is: why do you want to worship such a god as that?

Want to read more Tweets like that one above?  Here you go.

Not bothered enough yet?

Some Hillbots thought it would be primo to take a shot at Bernie Sanders over his gun policy.  And some Sandernistas fired right back with a full clip at Hillary:

“This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

But those “weapons of war” have been used on the streets of Iraq and in midnight raids on the civilian population in the war there that Hillary so ardently backed.

Does she even grasp what she is saying?  She is saying that it is an atrocity to use such weapons on Americans – but not on the brown people, civilians in their homes, in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East and North Africa in U.S. wars of aggression and the occupation.   To be horrified by the use of those weapons on Americans but not on Arabs qualifies as racism of the basest sort.

Not ugly enough for you yet?  Want more?

Sorry but I can't take any more.  Here's some Onion-style satire, this is my stop.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA (The Nil Admirari) - Today, a number of Americans and corporate news outlets were not intentionally being sarcastic when they described the latest mass shooting in the United States as "unbelievable" and "shocking."

"This is unbelievable. This kind of thing never happens in the United States," said Mandy Hammer, who awoke this morning from a coma she had been in for over fifty years.

The corporate media in the United States routinely used the word "shocking" to characterize yet another mass shooting in America, which boasted a historic body count.

Maxwell Keene, a Harvard University English professor, told TNA he was unaware of changes to the English language that would make either word appropriate to use.

A press release by the National Rifle Association informed Americans more guns would fix the epidemic of gun violence in America.

Congress confirmed any meaningful gun control remained hopelessly out of reach.​ 

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance mourns with Orlando and the nation as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff wants everyone to remember that Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick stand with Donald Trump, now and always.

Socratic Gadfly takes a week off from looking at politics to note his general support for science writer John Horgan and his critique of the current skepticism movement.

Video taken at the scene of the Pearsall Energy Center by TXsharon at Bluedaze indicates that Denton's air quality is indeed being made worse by the facility, despite the company's claims.

Texas Vox passes along a link to the remarks by the National Transportation Safety Board's former chair, who said (in the understatement of the year) that transporting crude oil by rail is just not a good idea.

Worn out from Texas' never-changing political climate, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs takes a look at Ohio, which is going to be a battleground state for both the White House and the Senate.

Egberto Willies updates the ongoing saga of the Humble ISD parents who are trying to save their kids from a dysfunctional school superintendent.

Before taking a break, South Texas Chisme takes note of the location recommended by Cong. Filemon Vela to Donald Trump regarding where he could put his border wall.

Neil at All People Have Value walked the streets of Houston with his sign regarding the value of long-term relationships in our often short-term society. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

Grit for Breakfast spots another incomprehensible SCOTX ruling: illegal searches are OK in asset forfeiture cases.

Protests against Donald Trump  when he visits Dallas this week may also target the restaurant hosting him because of their large number of Mexican employees, according to Trail Blazers.

Swamplot reports that the toxicology studies on the San Jacinto River's waste pits are on hold until the river's floodwaters recede.

It's not 'terror' so much as it is rage, says Prairie Weather.

Zachery Taylor says if you're taking any prescription medication, you might Google the name of it and the words 'lawsuit' or 'legal settlement'.

Robert Rivard urges investment in mass transit in San Antonio.

Kriston Capps observes that if Texas had spent as much on flood mitigation in recent years as it has spent on toll roads, we'd have far fewer floods.

Better Texas Blog notes how incredibly difficult it is to qualify for Medicaid in Texas.

BOR cheers the nomination of a Democratic presidential candidate who supports repealing the odious Hyde amendment.

Nancy Sims pauses to review history and the centuries-long fight for women's rights.

The Makeshift Academic examines whether transitional insurance plans are driving losses on state exchanges.

The Rag Blog's Dave Zirin eulogizes Muhammad Ali.

And Somervell County Salon's summer project has been building a new dog shelter.

Sunday Funnies

Unity, Democrat-style

-- This is how you do it, Democrats:

JUDY WOODRUFF: How much do you think, Mark, the fact that they sort of — the White House orchestrated this, this week, in a way that they just — they gave Bernie Sanders gave the space to get out when he wants to.

MARK SHIELDS: Democrats, historically, when they form a firing squad, form a circle. This was a total exception.

It was brilliantly choreographed. In addition to the president’s endorsement, a man not noted for his self-doubt, to say that she was the most qualified presidential candidate in his lifetime was quite an admission and statement.

I thought the other part of it, Judy, was the deference and respect and space they gave — given to Bernie Sanders, that he’s paid homage, he’s paid tribute, and I think deservedly so. He lost the nomination, but he won the future of the Democratic Party.

... and this is how you don't.

I keep John around on the blogroll feed in the right-hand column -- he's long gone from my FB and Twitter feeds due to being much more obnoxious even than this -- because I like to laugh at his thinking he's full of wit and his 5th-grade spelling and language skills, not to mention the logic he employs.  As the strongest Hillary sycophant that I have found, he's just too dense for me to be concerned with any longer.  And lately I feel the same way about anybody who takes his political opinions as anything but a joke.

What John will seemingly never understand is how Bernie Sanders made socialism cool.  And that genie ain't going back in the bottle.  Four years from now, when President Hillary Clinton is thrashing around like a drowning woman because of a failed Iran war, a turd-filled economy, an approval rate in the mid-20's and losing badly to whomever the GOP nominates, he's going to be blaming "soshulists" -- anybody but Democrats -- for her one-term failure.  Bookmark this post.

No hope and change on the horizon

Scattershooting while we wait for Bernie Sanders to make up his mind ...

-- Kuff wrote a good post -- maybe I should say Will Saletan and Josh Marshall wrote good posts that Kuff aggregated and excerpted and then added a paragraph at the bottom, worth about 15% of his post -- regarding the Trump University scandal that Drumpf has broadened into a racist diatribe spewed at the US judge presiding over the fraud lawsuits ... which has blown back on him even from some GOP tongue-cluckers (not GOP voters so much, to be certain).  Kuff dutifully tied in Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick for their endorsements of Il Douche, even mentioned Ken Paxton's 'cease and desist' order in passing, but left out the Florida attorney general's not-insignificant involvement.  There is -- and has been for awhile -- a national story here, which several of the bigger dung beetles in the media have finally hopped on and dug their pincers into.

Is it possible that no matter who gets elected president, both are going to be facing some measure of criminal justice shortly before or after they're elected?  This is a hideous development for Trump, the GOP nationally, and Pam Bondi in particular, but it won't be so much as a shoo-fly for our Texas fascists to have to wave away from their faces.

-- And Bud Kennedy knows better than this -- as well as do the poli-sci profs he quotes about the possibility of Texas turning blue because the Libertarians might get 10% of Trump's vote -- but like many of us political bloviators, he's running out of things to write about and we're still five months away from the election.

I'll just rewrite the following sentences: Texas has the worst conservatives on the planet, both Republican and Democrat.  And it's going to be that way for years to come.  The Republican voters aren't changing it, and the Democrats who bother to vote can't.

So in the absence of meaningful news or dialogue, we're going to get fair and balanced items like Mark Cuban's Tweets trolling both Trump and Clinton.  Fun!

I'm looking forward to reading a lot of stupid things written by otherwise intelligent people in the months ahead.  The Libertarians are benefiting from the dearth of two-horse race developments, but my guess is that there will continue to be only a little speculation about the Green Party's prospects, even as mockery or criticism, at least until they come to town in August to tap Jill Stein as the November standard-bearer.

They're still trying to move beyond "First they ignore you" stage among the binary thinkers in the media, large and small.

A, o, way to go, Ohio

It was the difference in 2004 for W Bush (maybe we should point out Ken Blackwell's unique role in that) and it is likely to be once again.

-- Latest polling in head-to-head matchups between Drumpf and Clinton have her taking a small lead.  Remember that this was Kasich's big win as favorite son in the spring GOP primary.  Clinton took 56% of the vote against Sanders in mid-March.  Future polling that includes Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should be even more interesting.

-- They have a high-profile US Senate contest on the ballot, with incumbent Rob Portman (R) facing former Gov. Ted Strickland (D).  That race is tight as a tick.

-- There are two indies and a Green running with Portman and Strickland.  Scott Rupert, the most conservative of the two independents, ran in 2012 and got 4.5% of the vote.  That's going to be bad news for Portman, despite his clinging to Trump.

-- Sen. Sherrod Brown has been lightly rumored as Hillary's running mate, and has made some short lists of late, but Elizabeth Warren has a better chance of being picked because it would be less likely that her Senate seat is lost to the Republicans (in the long run).  If Brown should wind up as her running mate, though, the GOP is absolute toast.

-- The big thing for Buckeye Staters in November 2016 is fair trade.  Via Thom Hartmann ...

Don Gonyea on NPRs Morning Edition talked to a former steelworker and lifelong Democrat in Canton, Ohio who is supporting Trump in this election based on his rhetoric on trade.

Other steelworkers told Gonyea that they would have supported Bernie Sanders because he was as clear as Trump about trade, but that given a choice between Trump and Hillary, Trump is more outspoken about how badly the middle class has been hurt by our disastrous trade deals.

And if anything should worry Democrats about the general election, it should be the very real possibility of losing the votes of rank-and-file working people and lifelong Democrats to Donald Trump and other down-ticket Republicans who might start parroting his anti-trade rhetoric.

Ohio's courts have recently turned back voting restrictions attempted by state Republicans, another good omen for Dems.  And this Hill piece is excellent if you want to get deeper into the Buckeye weeds, with the urban vs. rural county divide and GOTV efforts keying on the trade issue.

Even the tenth most populist county in the state, Mahoning County, the heart of the Mahoning Valley, an area devastated by trade deals, new technologies and the home of the remains of America’s once mighty steel industry.

A Democrat powerhouse of voters with Youngstown as its capitol – it went big for Obama in 2012 but the primary results in 2016 showed a big win for Trump and a lot of cross-over votes for the controversial Republican presumptive nominee.

In the primary in March, Ohio saw a tremendous number of Democrats crossing over to vote in the Republican primary said Sracic, “Statewide, about 6 percent of Republican voters in the primary in Ohio were formerly Democrats. In Mahoning County, nearly 27 percent of voters in the primary were previously Democrats,” he said.

“If Trump were to somehow win this county, the election is over,” said Sracic, “I still think that is unlikely, what may be more likely is that Trump performs as well as Reagan did back in the 1980's,” he said.

In 1984, Reagan lost Mahoning County, but earned about 41% of the vote. That may not sound significant, but since then no Republican has ever earned even 40% of the votes of these working class voters.  Will these Reagan Democrats and their children become Trump Democrats?

Ohio is going to be my favorite state to watch in this cycle.

"Transitioning to general election footing"

"Everybody's doin' a brand new dance now."

Democratic discussion fora no longer wish to host discussions that don't build up the Democratic candidates, which is leaving a lot of people who used to call themselves Democrats out of the fold...

Support Democrats
Do not post support for Republicans or independent/third-party "spoiler" candidates. Do not state that you are not going to vote, or that you will write-in a candidate that is not on the ballot, or that you intend to vote for any candidate other than the official Democratic nominee in any general election where a Democrat is on the ballot. Do not post anything that smears Democrats generally, or that is intended to dissuade people from supporting the Democratic Party or its candidates. Don't argue there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s). 

... but not out in the cold.  Now to be sure, there's quite a few Bernie bitter-enders at that shop, which is comprised mostly of folks from the other two, but hey, transitioning is hard work.  It sure beats oligarchy, though.

-- No criticizing DWS at the old places for this.

After mainstream media outlets recently started reverberating what Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been saying about DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for almost a year now, Wasserman Schultz has gone into damage control to save her career.

Among Wasserman Schultz’s stances considered most controversial by fellow Democratic colleagues is her opposition to federal guidelines announced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regulate predatory payday lenders. Payday lenders offer short-term loans to borrowers at high interest rates, often as a last resort for individuals in low-income communities. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s opposition to the guidelines can be linked to $68,000 in campaign donations she has received from payday lenders, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Her Democratic primary challenger, Tim Canova, has used the donations and her opposing stance to the guidelines as a means to contrast the difference between the two candidates. A liberal group in South Florida has even dubbed her “Debt Trap Debbie.”

On June 3, in a statement released on Facebook, Debbie Wasserman Schultz flip-flopped her opposition to the payday loan guidelines.

Still looking for that elusive Hillbot who has denounced DWS.  Anybody point one out to me?

-- I'm surprised Republicans in Texas haven't enacted 'Top Two' voting.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) will square off to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). For the first time since California voters began electing U.S. senators in 1914, there won’t be a Republican on the ballot.

That’s due to the “jungle primary” system California voters signed off on when they approved Proposition 14 back in 2010. The measure transformed the state’s June primaries into open contests where all voters vote for all candidates, with the top two finishers regardless of party advancing to November.

Cali Dems must be feeling pretty good about that whole 'tyranny of the majority' thing.

Beyond the absence of a Republican on November’s ballot, the election will be significant for another reason. Harris, who won the state Democratic Party endorsement, would be the first African American woman to serve in the U.S. Senate since Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) was defeated by Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) and left office in 1999. Sanchez, meanwhile, would be the first Latina ever in the U.S. Senate.

That covers a lot of identity caucuses, which is allegedly a good thing.  Harris appears to be farther from neoliberalism than Sanchez.

As Bloomberg reports, Sanchez has established a reputation during her two decades in the House as a moderate who has voted with Republicans on issues like gun control and regulating for-profit colleges. In fact, thanks in part to the “jungle primary” system, her candidacy heading into Tuesday was supported by a number of prominent Republicans. She voted against invading Iraq and the Patriot Act, and as a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, is a respected voice on national security issues.

Harris, meanwhile, has won the endorsement of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). On her website, she strikes a populist tone by vowing to “be a fighter for middle class families who are feeling the pinch of stagnant wages and diminishing opportunity.” As Attorney General she’s sought to reduce California’s prison population, reduce police violence, and prosecute polluters. Earlier this year she began investigating ExxonMobil for misleading the public about the risks of climate change, and she recently sued the Southern California Gas Company for failing to report a massive methane leak. 

-- California won't be helping flip the Senate, but Wisconsin will.  Ron Johnson needs to go.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R), running for re-election in Wisconsin, is one of Congress’ more vulnerable Republican incumbents, and polls show him trailing the Democrat he defeated in 2010, former Sen. Russ Feingold (D). Johnson, however, is flush with cash, which he’s eager to put to use.

And while not every campaign commercial deserves special attention and scrutiny, the Wisconsin senator’s newest spot is amazing for an important reason. Roll Call reported:

Republican Ron Johnson is a first-term U.S. senator from Wisconsin. The voters back home wouldn’t know it watching his re-election campaign’s first TV ad.

Even for a time when incumbent lawmakers try to distance themselves from their job titles, Johnson’s new ad takes that approach to an extreme. It doesn’t once mention his work as a lawmaker or even identify him as a senator.

That may sound like an exaggeration, but it’s not. The Republican’s re-election ad is carefully designed to give viewers the impression that he’s not already a senator.
In the spot, Johnson makes literally no references to any work he’s done while in office; he doesn’t identify himself as a senator; he doesn’t note any Senate achievements; and he doesn’t mention that he’s running for re-election.

Instead, the far-right Wisconsin lawmaker and committee chairman boasts in the ad, in the present tense, “I manufacture plastic,” which is sort of true, except for the fact that he also currently helps shape federal laws from Capitol Hill.

He goes on to say, “I’ve stayed put, right here in Oshkosh, for 37 years.” Left unmentioned: the last six years in which he’s been a powerful Beltway insider.

The GOP has used this ruse before.

Long-time readers may recall this piece from four years ago, featuring a variety of Republicans in Congress running re-election campaign ads that pretended they weren’t in Congress at the time.

My personal favorite was this spot from Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), who didn’t want voters to know he was a congressman, and who blasted his Democratic challenger who’d never served in Congress as a “career politician.” (It worked; Benishek won re-election.)

The New York Times reported at the time on the larger phenomenon: “Bragging about one’s voting record used to be a staple of political advertising, and a career in Congress was worn as a badge of honor. But this year, many House candidates are deciding not to mention their service here, a blunt acknowledgment of the dim view that a vast majority of voters have of Congress.”

Not one of these incumbents, however, was a sitting U.S. senator. As best as I can tell, Ron Johnson is the first Senate incumbent in recent memory to run ads predicated on the assumption that his constituents don’t know he’s already in office.

Johnson appears confident he hasn’t made much of an impression on Wisconsin voters over the last six years – as if that were a good thing.

"Government is broken, and elect me to break it into smaller pieces" just wasn't effective any more, I suppose.  Now we're playing the "Vote for me because I'm not the incumbent, even though I am" card. 

The sad part is that -- having elected, re-elected in a recall, and then re-elected Scott Walker governor again after that -- the people of Wisconsin might be stupid enough to fall for this.  It's a presidential year (higher D turnout) with Trump at the top (Ted Cruz beat the Orange-utan in April 48-35), but with a very restrictive voter photo ID law still in place (despite various court challenges still pending, much like ours in Texas) so really, anything could happen.

-- Here's a good post on the Central Texas Berniecrat taking on Lamar Smith, the climate change denier who is chairman of the House Science committee.  Let's try not to let him be another sacrificial lamb, shall we?

Where to from here

So far on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton has won contests in South Dakota, New Mexico and New Jersey, while Bernie Sanders had won the North Dakota caucuses and Montana. California is still outstanding.

California finally got called about 6:15 this morning.  It went 56-43 for her and was never seriously in play as the returns came in.  Sanders was scheduled to address his supporters in Santa Monica at midnight, but ...

The Vermont senator arrived almost an hour late ... The crowd was as frenzied as ever and hung on his every word. Sanders basked in the adulation, with much of the rally made up of Sanders standing and shaking his head because he was unable to speak over his cheering supporters.

He was reflective.

“It has been one of the most moving moments of my life to be out throughout this state in beautiful evenings and seeing thousands of people coming out, people who are prepared to stand up and fight for real change in this country,” Sanders said.

So the path ahead still looks a little ... winding.   Rocky even, maybe.

Sanders, who spoke with Obama on Tuesday night, will meet with the president at the White House on Thursday. He also has a meeting planned with Senate minority leader Harry Reid, a Clinton backer.

Also on Thursday, Sanders will rally supporters in Washington, D.C., in preparation for next Tuesday’s final Democratic primary here.

And Sanders has said that he will at some point return to Vermont to "assess" the direction of his campaign.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that Sanders will be laying off a significant number of staffers. And Politico released an embarrassing report detailing the inner strife of what looks like the final days of a losing campaign. 

Pretty ugly.  Recriminations galore, as always, on the morning after defeats.  Chris Kofinis hits the right notes in this piece titled "Clinton hits magic number, here's why Bernie won't step aside":

Behind the scenes, emails and texts will undoubtedly flood top Sanders advisors, surrogate intermediaries will be used to carry messages to Sanders himself, and public pronouncements will be made by a host of political insiders, all in an attempt to prod, kick, or push Sanders out of the race (nicely, of course). Soon the chatter will begin: When will he endorse? When will he rally his supporters behind Clinton? Doesn't he realize how he is hurting her, not to mention emboldening Donald Trump? Etc., etc.

Maybe it will work, and Sanders will see the light, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Sanders to quit.

Tuesday night is only the beginning – if not for Sanders, at least for his supporters. 

Bingo.

While it is easy to believe that this is about the 2016 nomination – it is not. Sanders can do the math. He knows it is over. He knew it was over months ago, unless one truly believes that superdelegates will somehow change course at the convention (and, short of an act of god they won't). So, you may ask, why does he keep pushing for something he can't have? Maybe because it's about something much bigger than this one election.  

At 74, Sanders might not be of the fortitude to keep leading what's left of his revolution.  But as with most revolutions, who do you trust to take over?

If you listen to what Sanders is saying and has said throughout this primary season, this is about a revolution. And real revolutions only end when things have dramatically changed (i.e. those who revolt win) or when they are crushed by the powers that be.

Well, we are far from Sanders-like revolutionary change, yet the movement is far from crushed, so that leaves only one option – a revolution that needs fuel to grow.

While pledged and superdelegate math has foiled Sanders' 2016 presidential ambitions, what his campaign has sparked, he is determined to see continue. It will not simply be absorbed by a Clinton campaign, or appeased by a convention speech. Right or wrong, Sanders and his supporters want the party to move far to the left. And, if the goal is to move the Democratic Party to the left, that campaign has only just begun.

While the party hasn't gone "full Sanders," it's headed more to the left than it is to the center. From trade issues to the minimum wage, the party has moved noticeably more to the left now that it was twelve months ago.

Indeed, he's accomplished -- at least until Clinton pivots right -- all that was believed he could.  And quite a bit more.  For one thing, he changed the paradigm on how presidential campaigns can be funded.  (Vox lists four more ways.)

Does anyone really think this movement will now end on Tuesday?

Going forward, the huge challenge for Clinton is to embrace what Sanders is speaking about, not just to whom he is speaking to. In fact, in every political Democratic focus group my firm has conducted since 2015, Sanders' message moved people because it spoke to the economic anxiety people truly feel and the dramatic change they want – and that was true even among most focus group participants who supported Hillary Clinton.

In the coming weeks, the Clinton campaign must aggressively seek to tap this emotion and energy that has been unleashed. They can't take it for granted, even if it's logical to assume that most Sanders voters prefer her to Trump. Can they completely appease those who wholly believe in Sanders' vision of revolutionary change? Maybe, but probably not quickly. The most resolute Sanders voters will not be truly appeased unless the Democratic Party dramatically changes and speaks to their vision for the country and the world.

Regardless of when Sanders drops out, his supporters have only begun their fight to change the Democratic Party. And make no mistake: Sanders' supporters, and the others who want this "revolution," will be there watching and waiting to make sure that change happens – even if Bernie Sanders is in the U.S. Senate, and Hillary Clinton is in the White House. 

If Hillary picks Elizabeth Warren as running mate, be assured that there has been a real impact made by the Sanders run.  If she picks a Latino, the 2016 race galvanizes around the swelling opportunity that caucus presents for the Democratic party in future elections.  I think she'll stick to that, but am less inclined to think the choice is named Castro.  They're still too green for national politics (and much too conservative for my palate and certainly that of the Berners who might be on board with Warren).

Does Sanders lead the parade over to the Greens, or some other progressive party, perhaps one he starts himself outside the duopoly?  Don't think so.  His supporters might go that direction anyway, but he won't be pushing them.

So as we watch and wait for these developments to unfold over the next five months, Sanders gets to endure the second round of ad hominem from the poor sports among the winners.  As long as he's bothering them to some degree, be it minor or major, I can be happy.

Agitation remains the order of my day.

Update: Mother Jones has a nice look back at how we got to this point.

What we might expect this evening

Probably more scenes like this one.  This is SNL territory.  To the action.

Six states are going to the polls on the Democratic side, with a total of 694 delegates at stake. The most important of them by far is California, which has 475 of those delegates and where polls close at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. The second-biggest prize is New Jersey, where 126 delegates are at stake; polls close at 8 pm Eastern.

The other four states to vote are New Mexico (34 delegates, polls close at 7 pm local time), Montana (21 delegates, polls close at 8 pm local time), South Dakota (20 delegates, polls close at 7 pm local time), and North Dakota (18 delegates, caucuses begin 7 pm local time). And technically there's one more contest after this — the District of Columbia Democratic primary is a week from today, on June 14.

Now, the race in California appears tight — Sanders hasn't led a single poll of the state, but he trails by just 4 percentage points in the HuffPost Pollster average. By contrast, New Jersey looks like a blowout for Clinton, and the other (small) states have scarcely been polled.

As reported here two weeks ago, they'll call it -- for real this time -- after the Garden State stops voting at 7 p.m. our time.

Yes, the big question is what Sanders and his supporters do next.

In recent days, the Vermont senator has maintained that if this is the outcome, he'll stay in the race until the convention — and spend the next month and a half lobbying superdelegates to abandon Clinton and support him instead. And his campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs reiterated that sentiment last night, saying in a statement, "Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump."

[...]

There is reason to be skeptical of Sanders's pronouncements, though. Presidential candidates have often argued that they'll fight all the way until the convention, only to reverse course when defeat is finally unmistakable. And Matt Yglesias argues that Sanders will likely do the same.

Whatever Sanders's intentions, the Democratic Party is eager for Hillary Clinton to move on to the general election and focus on taking on Donald Trump. Indeed, according to recent reports from the New York Times and CNN, several key Democratic figures who have remained neutral so far, like President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, will likely endorse Clinton in the coming days, as an effort to signal to Sanders that it's time to throw in the towel.

Gadfly is skeptical (shock me!) but there will be some significant amount of support lost from the Democrats in the days to come.  It depends, of course, on what the definition of the word 'significant' means.  Where the bulk of the defections land -- Trump, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or NOTA -- is perhaps the more interesting question.

Stein will be appearing on Truthdig's Facebook Live this evening.

“I used to practice clinical medicine, taking care of patients,” (Stein) said in an interview with Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer. “Now I practice political medicine, because it’s the mother of all illnesses.”

Stein will be in the Truthdig offices Tuesday evening for a “Facebook Live” discussion on the final state presidential primaries, including California’s, which will be a deciding factor in the presidential race.

In a country dominated by a two-party political system, Stein wants people to know that the Green Party’s platform is not “radical” in the typical sense. “[W]e reflect the solutions that people are hungering for, and we actually have quite a bit of experience on the ground at the local and the county level making this happen,” she told Scheer.

Stein has been making media waves, with some hoping for a potential third-party ticket with Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. She has clear progressive policy stances and recently noted in Rolling Stone that her platform is better for women than Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s.

[...]

Amid fears that Tuesday’s primary will be the end of Sanders’ campaign, Stein is certain that she could be a viable candidate for his supporters. “The whole reason for having an independent third party that cannot be silenced is [that] there are 25 percent of Bernie’s voters who are not going into that dark night to vote for the No. 1 cheerleader for Wal-Mart, for Wall Street, for an endless war,” Stein told Truthdig’s Bill Boyarsky. “They are looking for another place to hang their hat.”

If you're in Houston in early August, come meet Jill Stein at the USGP's presidential nominating convention, being held at U of H.  The convention's theme is "Houston, we have a solution".

Revolutionary News Update (Vol. 7: It's Over -- the AP said so)

It also can't be a revolution any longer, at least not in the traditional sense and certainly not inside the binary logic box that is the D versus R, left vs. right, right v. wrong, black/white either/or yin yang state of American politics.  The headlines from last night include the following:

-- Clinton becomes presumptive nominee

--  CNN ignores DNC request to not count superdelegates before they vote

-- Six states are casting presidential primary ballots today:

Clinton and Sanders are poised to split the 694 Democratic delegates up for grabs in New Jersey, California, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota. The District of Columbia, which offers 20 delegates, is the last to vote on June 14.

--  Establishment media commit massive act of malpractice, claim Clinton clinched

The Associated Press and NBC News inappropriately reported Hillary Clinton made history and “clinched” the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. It spurred other media organizations, such as CNN and the New York Times, to follow suit and splash their home pages with big headlines indicating Clinton was the nominee.

In engaging in this act, establishment media improperly influenced five primaries scheduled for June 7, including the California primary, one of the biggest contests in the presidential race thus far. They collectively stooped to a new sycophantic low.

The reports of “clinching” are entirely based on an unofficial survey of superdelegates, which the AP and NBC News has conducted throughout the 2016 election. They both determined Clinton reached the “magic number” needed to clinch, which is 2383 delegates.

But if it is true that history happened, why didn’t Clinton’s own party congratulating her? How come there was no statement from the Democratic National Committee?

As of 12 am ET on June 7, the DNC had released no statement. There was no status update on the DNC’s Facebook page. There was no message sent or retweeted about Clinton making history.

There is a Tweet from Hillary in in the top link, and she says we've still got voting to do.

-- Obama had a heart-to-heart with Bernie Sunday afternoon.

-- Michael Lindenberger, writing for the Dallas Morning Views, says, "get on the bandwagon, Berners!" in the most condescending way possible.  This might mean that the Snooze isn't going to endorse Trump, but I won't be restricting my autoneurological respiratory function by having my cortex override my medulla oblongata.

-- Walter Bragman (unfortunately even more melodramatic than HA Goodman) still manages to make a few good points.

Clinton’s problems can be attributed to the internet and the way she conducts herself politically. She is a politician of a bygone era of insider politics. Like Mitt Romney before her, Clinton has fallen victim to the fact that, today, anyone can readily pull up a video on YouTube of her saying different things to people on different sides of various issues.

This is spot on.  In their zeal for 'first woman president', Clinton supporters ignore or weakly discount every single flaw of hers.

I had been of the opinion that Clinton-(VP) could hold serve until 2032, but even if she picks Elizabeth Warren, Hillary is going to be lousy one-termer in the Herbert Walker mold.  The royal flush in 2018 against Democrats will rival 1992 1994's (thanks to DBC in the comments for the correction), her husband's first midterm.  And once her lying, economic misfires and the war she starts on Iran catch up to her, we'll have a Republican president and Congress in 2020 ... just in time for decennial redistricting.

For Democrats, 2020 presents the first chance in a decade to win back the House of Representatives. The election coincides with the next Census, which means the party that takes the majority of the state legislatures will redraw the congressional districts. The GOP won the down-ballot race the last time there was a Census — in 2010 — which allowed them to gerrymander the House districts heavily in their favor, and the Democrats have been unable to win control since.

This time around there are fewer restrictions on the redistricting process because the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act — the formula for states and localities to fall under the Section 5 preclearance requirements. If the Democrats lose down-ballot in 2020, they will not regain control of the House until 2031. Put simply, progress of any kind for the next decade will come down to turnout, and down-ballot voting in the next presidential election. 

Egberto reinforced the point about all politics being local recently.

Far beyond Bragman's fear-mongering about the Democratic party destroying itself by nominating and electing Hillary Clinton, there will be some ominous ramifications for duopolists in the future.  No, the GOP won't die off in the wake of Trump's defeat, certainly not in Texas, the South, or the Mountain states.  Neither will the Dems do so in 2020, if he's correct about them getting swept out of office.  We could wish for these things, but change in politics is too goddamned incremental for either one of the two monoliths to just keel over.  It should continue to be a slow death for both, though, at least until they feel threatened enough by minor parties' ballot strength to adapt and co-opt their most popular initiatives to sustain themselves for some time longer.

By that time all of that happens, we (humans) should have been burned off the Earth like wasps out of their nests.  Mother Nature is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas, as George Carlin presciently observed.

But until then, some of us will party like it's 1999, roll coal, turn the A/C down to 68, stock up on snacks and watch the revolution on teevee.  The AP will call it before ten p.m. so they can get to bed early.  Maybe even a couple of days in advance.

In related news, writers Etan Cohen and Mike Judge, and star Terry Crews (fictional wrestling champ-turned-president Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho) of Idiocracy are going to be making anti-Trump ads this cycle.  That's as perfect as irony gets.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance celebrates the life and achievements of Muhammad Ali as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff wonders if Dan Patrick will ever take the time to meet with a transgender person.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos sharply notes that while Houston drowns, the state's top GOP leadership remains fixated on potty rooms. Earth to the Three Texas Stooges: People don't drown and die in bathrooms.

SocraticGadfly reviews a new book about Muhammad Ali's relationship with Malcolm X.

Regular monsoons (and decisions made long ago by fossil fuel companies and real estate developers) aren't the only things lately making Texas a terrible place to be. A Republican party held unaccountable by their voters, and a Democratic Party that suffers generational battered-wife syndrome, contribute to what PDiddie at Brains and Eggs calls the misery that is Texas.

What's the matter with Corpus Christi's water supply? CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders.

The new Denton County Precinct 3 Government Center opened last week, reports the Lewisville Texan Journal.

Humble ISD parents pass along a letter to Egberto Willies regarding the hiring of school superintendent Elizabeth Fagen from a parent in her previous school district.

Andrea Greer at Burnt Orange Report asks if Harris County Democrats are going to let Republicans pick the next county commissioner.

Clear Lake-area Democrats are ready to celebrate with Hillary Clinton Tuesday evening, invites John Coby at Bay Area Houston.

Neil at All People Have Value completed 8 days of jury duty this past week and was glad that he did. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

Make West Texas Great Again has the challenge from a Lubbock talk radio host (and Republican) to Lt. Governor Dan Patrick for a public debate on "school choice".

Erika Greider at Burkablog writes about Greg Abbott's Trump problem.

The Houston Press follows the latest on Judge Andrew Hanen, where attorneys have asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny his demand for the signatures of 50,000 undocumented persons.

Somervell County Salon's latest Ruminations for the Easily Amused mentioned Hillary Clinton's IT guy pleading the 5th, and the latest misadventures of Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton.

The Trinity Railway Express may expand its D-FW service, notes the Fort Worth Star Telegram's 'Your Commute' blog.

Expat Texan Elise Hu-Stiles sees freedom from a different perspective these days.

Scott Braddock considers the Trump effect on legislative races.

The Lunch Tray looks back on six years of blogging.

Iris Dimmick reports on Pride Month activities in San Antonio.

Ashton Woods and Monica Roberts respond to a homophobic op-ed in the Houston Forward Times.

Michael Hardy contemplates the Sugar Land Selfie Statue.

And Houstonia checks in with 2010 GOP gubernatorial also-ran Debra Medina.