Texas doubles down on going after voters without ID

Charles Kufffner (and many others, like the Center, TX, Light and Champion)) have been on this; here's a few of the latest developments and some legal interpretation from Joseph Kulhavy of the Texas Election Law blog.

On September 22, 2016, the Texas House of Representatives Elections Committee conducted a routine interim hearing on various technical matters relating to election administration. For three and a half hours the committee members and witnesses discussed proposed legislative tweaks to the petition signature process, to municipal elections, to obligation bonds and taxes, and so on. You can watch the whole hearing if that’s your thing, but for my money the really interesting stuff doesn’t come up until the very end ...

As the hearing wrapped up, State Representative Celia Israel asked an official from the Texas Secretary of State’s office about a court order that had been issued two days prior to the committee hearing. In particular, Representative Israel was curious to find out what the State was doing to educate voters about I.D. requirements for the November 8, 2016, election.

In response to the questions, Director of Elections Keith Ingram explained that the State had incorporated the text of the court’s most recent directive into the website and upcoming print and media advertising; he specified that voters who “do not possess [the statutorily mandated forms of photo I.D.] and cannot reasonably obtain it,” could cast a regular ballot by completing a “Declaration of Reasonable Impediment,” if they also supplied alternate forms of documentary evidence of their identity.

Representative Mike Schofield then took the discussion in a new direction (starting at the 3 hour, 36 minute mark), after asking if the State could track information about whether the Declarations were submitted by people who actually have I.D.:

What I don’t want to see is a gross number, and everybody acts as if those people don’t have I.D…. If you pretend you don’t have it, and use one of these declarations, that’s illegal, isn’t it?

In response to the question, Mr. Ingram clarified that voters entitled to use the Declaration would be those who had either never been issued one of the six forms of photo I.D. listed under the law, or those whose previously issued I.D.s had been lost or destroyed, and who had a reasonable impediment to replacing the missing I.D.

Representative Israel raised a hypothetical situation (described starting at 3 hours 45 minutes) in which a voter’s “reasonable impediment” is that the voter is voting at a polling place on one end of town, but left her photo I.D. at home, at the other end of town.

In that circumstance, Mr. Ingram explained that assuming that the voter filled out the “Declaration” and wrote down that the reasonable impediment was “left my I.D. at home,” the election worker would have to take the declaration at face value and allow the voter to cast a ballot.

Representative Schofield seemed incredulous, asking, “Is that … is that correct? … You’re going to let them vote with a ‘Reasonable Impediment?'”

The Director of Elections responded:

The poll worker cannot challenge the ‘Reasonable Impediment’ asserted by the voter. …. But if that’s the reasonable impediment, I think the voter is at risk, because they’re not following the law. But that’s not for the poll worker to decide. [Emphasis added by Kulhavey.]

Committee vice-chair Craig Goldman then asked, “But, how does that get challenged, and then how is their vote null and void?”

The Director of Elections explained:

The vote will never be null and void. It’ll get challenged in an election contest, if it’s a close election. And obviously these things [the Declarations of Reasonable Impediment] will be available for folks to give to their district attorneys to follow up on. [Emphasis added by Kulhavy.]

Representative Schofield pressed the issue as the hearing entered its final minutes (at the 3 hour 46 minute mark):

I realize we’re going to have a lot of illegal votes and a lot of fraudulent votes. That’s why we have voter I.D. My concern is that there are going to be a lot of people trying to thwart the [voter I.D.] law who have valid drivers’ licenses; who have passports; and are going to assert these declarations. Their votes may count in this election, but I want to make sure that when we go back to court, we’re not saying ‘oh, there’s this huge number of people that filed these declarations.’ I want to drill down and find out which one of ’em [declarations] were bogus. [Emphasis added by Kulhavy.]

The Director of Elections responded, “And I’ll think you’ll be able to tell easily.” He then went on describe how one of the Declarations of Reasonable Impediment that had already been used in an off-season tax ratification election indicated that one voter had written that the “reasonable impediment” was “fascist law.”

The committee chair said: “Fascist law? They wrote that?”

Let's pause here for  moment to summarize.  The state of Texas, here represented by Mike Schofield and Craig Goldman, with an assist from Keith Ingram, is setting the stage for the prosecution of Texas voters on the basis of what is or isn't -- attempting to define the term legally, in the most onerous way -- 'reasonable impediment' for a voter to producing their photo ID.  Continuing ...

What’s troubling about the exchange (aside from Representative Schofield’s counterfactual and inflammatory assertion that there’s going to be a lot of “fraudulent votes” in this election), and what should be especially troubling to the plaintiffs in the voter I.D. lawsuit, is the implication -- encouraged both by Representative Schofield’s assertion that “we’re going to have a lot of illegal votes,” and by the response from the Director of Elections that voters who use the Declaration can be tracked, and possibly referred to local district attorneys for prosecution for illegal voting—that voting without an approved photo I.D. is automatically suspect. (Emphasis is mine.)

So ... why is this suggestion of potential criminal prosecution troubling?

Because it is not a stretch to imagine that statements like this could have a chilling effect -- dissuading eligible, qualified voters without approved photo I.D. from voting. In other words, threatening to investigate voters who file a Reasonable Impediment Declaration could end up hurting the very group of voters that the August 10, 2016, court order was intended to help.

Think I’m exaggerating about “threatening to investigate”?

On September 9, 2016, Rick Hasen (...) posted a story on his Election Law Blog about the motion for enforcement of the August 10 court order filed by the private (non-Department of Justice) plaintiffs in Veasey v. Perry. These plaintiffs were reacting to this August 26, 2016, news story (as quoted in the private plaintiff’s motion):

[Harris County Clerk Stan] Stanart says he will investigate everyone who signs that form to assure they are not lying. Whether anything happens, that’s up to the [Harris County District Attorney’s Office]. But after the votes are counted and the election ends, Stanart said his office will be checking to see whether a person who signed the sworn statement has a Texas Department of Public Safety-issued ID through the DPS database.” (Meagan Flynn, Harris County Clerk Will Vet Voters Who Claim to Lack Photo ID, HOUSTON PRESS, Aug. 26, 2016.)

So to recap: As of late August in a presidential election year, the chief election official in Harris County, the most heavily populated county in Texas, was quoted as intending to investigate voters who claim they lack photo I.D.s.

That threat of punitive or retributive investigation prompted the federal district court in Corpus Christi to issue on September 20 a legal order, in which the court told the State to clarify and make explicit that voters who reasonably lacked photo I.D. were legally entitled to an alternate method of qualifying for a regular ballot. [Emphasis Mukavy's.]

But then in the hearing on September 22, just two days after the court order, the State was still discussing the option of criminal investigations and prosecutions of voters without photo I.D.s, in order to satisfy a Republican state legislator’s concerns about the effective enforcement of the State’s photo I.D. law.

And the statements of the Director of Elections reassuring Representative Schofield that voters who vote without photo I.D. can be tracked and investigated echoed the statements made in August by Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart.

Kulhavy has more background and interpretation, but the gist of it is that the Republican leadership of Texas wants to continue hindering and harassing voters they don't approve of (i.e., might for vote for Democrats) by any and all means necessary.

Thus it is left to President Hillary Clinton and her attorney general, with some support from the Supreme Court Justice she appoints -- and that ultimately gets confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 2017 -- to restore the VRA, put Texas back into preclearance, and fix some of the other ridiculous shit that (Republican) Texas insists on mucking up.

With the above assumptions in place, there should be a flood of new federal judges who are appointed, confirmed, and put to work in short order next year, as the worst conservative nightmares about the judiciary start coming true.

(Update: Harry Enten at FiveThrtyEight reports today that even as Madam President surges ahead of The Barking Yam, her down-ballot Senate coattails are shortening, not lengthening.  Much of the success of Clinton's first two years  in office -- I submit all of it domestically -- rests on having a Senate that will not obstruct her every initiative.)

I'm taking all that as what is going to happen, not what could happen.  Because even though I won't ever vote for her, I plan on holding to her to a higher standard of accountability than many of those who will be.  You might call that unfair; I call it pragmatic.

She can come up short on fracking, the TPP, and Citizens United, but if she's not willing to straighten out Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton, et.al. with respect to voting rights, then she's going to be an even weaker and lousier president than I suspect she will be.

Moving on

-- Now that the Traditional Media has finally realized that the 2016 election is fait accompli with Orange Hitler having disintegrated as a candidate, a campaign, and even a respectable human being ... it's time to pay attention to other things, like down-ballot races, whether the Senate and even the House might flip blue, and pretty much anything other than what Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton might have to snark at each other about.  I'm exhausted by both of them and I feel certain a vast majority of the electorate on all sides of the aisle -- not just both -- can agree on that.

For the past eighteen months, I appear to have been the only Texas blogger following the presidential twists and curves on a day-to-day basis, beginning with the best thing I wrote here, about Bernie Sanders and socialism and how his campaign would be undermined by the Democrats.  That was posted a couple of weeks before the birth of Black Lives Matter at Yearly Kos, and I have felt confident in all the time since about the insights I have shared here.  But now I'd like to blog about something else besides the latest "Clinton/Trump slams Trump/Clinton for (fill in the blank)" and will, going forward.

-- Nate Silver uses the 'b' word, as in 'blowout', to describe the current state of the presidential race.  I told you it was over almost two weeks ago.  Nearly a half a million Americans have already voted, and the number climbs every day.  If there is an October Surprise, it's isn't going to have much effect.  Let's move on, and leave the weirdo undecideds to their own devices.

-- Gadfly has hit it out of the park, back-to-back, with these two posts about The Nation and RBG.  If you want to understand the difference between liberals and progressives, and why fewer of the latter are sticking with the Democrats, then read them both.  If you don't want to understand the difference -- and I'm looking at every one of you who have been with Her from the get-go -- then don't read them.  It's too late to help you now.

-- Hillbots keep saying that Wikileaks and Russia are colluding on the drip-drip-drip of her damaging emails.  Blaming the (incorrect) source of the leak instead of what's contained in the campaign messages doesn't wash with any thinking person, and US intelligence is not convinced, either.

There are a lot of things that Julian Assange the person and Wikileaks the organization are, but Russian foils they are not.  Perhaps one day in this country we'll erect statues of whistleblowers, but that day seems far away.

 -- Jill Stein's Texas tour hits El Paso this Friday, Houston on Saturday, San Antonio on Sunday, and Austin on Monday.  These are festival-style events, with live music, food, down-ballot Greens, specialized discussion groups, and more.  She may make an early swing through Houston's East End Street Fest if time and scheduling allows.

-- Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, Rocky De La Fuente of the Independent, Reform and American Delta Parties, and Gloria LaRiva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation are scheduled to face off in the Free and Equal People’s Presidential Debate at at the campus of Colorado University - Boulder on October 25th.  Kweku Mandela, grandson of the late Nelson Mandela, will provide the keynote address prior to the debate.  It's all part of the United We Stand Festival.

Only Castle -- the best choice for principled Christian conservatives (sic) and Ted Cruz and Ben Carson supporters  -- can be voted for in Texas as a qualified write-in candidate.  (De La Fuente was rejected as a Texas presidential option only last week by a federal judge under the 'sore loser' law.)  Free & Equal hosted Stein, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, and Rocky Anderson in two debates moderated by Ralph Nader and Larry King four years ago, which I reported on at the time.

More in the pipeline about down-ballot contests in Texas and Harris County, the prospects of the Democrats retaking both houses of Congress, and a P-Slate just before the start of early voting here on Monday, October 24.

No knockout blows, and nobody got grabbed

With all of the dread leading up to last night's townhall, I have to say ... having come through the other side and now looking back, it wasn't as awful as I feared.  Though it was plenty bad.

Say this for Donald Trump's Sunday night: For about an hour, America stopped parsing his apparent bragging, in the now-famous tape that surfaced Friday, about sexually assaulting women. [...]

Of course, that's because he gave the country so much other grist on which to chew as he flailed his way through a deeply weird, at times nasty, second presidential debate.

There was his promise to appoint a special prosecutor against Clinton if he wins the election. This is banana republic-type stuff, a vow to prosecute one's political opponent. "It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," Clinton said, prompting the Trump response: "Because you'd be in jail."

Go read the rest.  Throwing these pieces of red meat to his fanatical caucus is essentially all that he has left.  As Nate Silver has observed, it simply won't be enough.

At roughly the 20-minute mark of the Sunday’s debate — about the point at which Trump said he’d appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and that she’d “be in jail” if someone like him had been president — it seemed prudent to wonder whether Trump’s campaign was over. I don’t mean over in a literal sense (it would be almost impossible to replace Trump on the ballot). But over in the sense that we knew the outcome of the election for all intents and purposes, to a higher degree of confidence than FiveThirtyEight’s statistical models — which gave Clinton “only” about an 80 percent chance of winning heading into the debate — alone implied.

Definitely go read the rest.  Clinton performed a surgical evisceration of Trump within the first ten or so minutes, but she did not finish as strongly and seemed to be trying to run out the clock.  She stumbled over the questions about the hacked Podesta emails that contained portions of her undisclosed speeches to corporate titans.

(Trump) put Clinton on defense over private speeches she gave to Wall Street firms, transcripts of which posted on Wikileaks late last week. He presented a steadier front and avoided chasing Clinton into terrain that might damage him, largely keeping the conversation on his own terms. 

More from Think Progress (Podesta's old shop).

Those e-mails included excerpts from her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street entities, in which she dismisses Americans’ concerns about a “rigged” financial system, says bankers are best equipped to be their own regulators, expresses a desire for free trade in the hemisphere, and asserts that it is often necessary for political leaders to take one position in public and another one in private.

Debate moderator Martha Raddatz pressed Clinton on that final point, reading a question submitted online that asked, “Is it okay for politicians to be two-faced? Is it acceptable for you to have a private stance?”

Clinton responded that she made the comment about public and private positions when talking about the movie Lincoln, in which Abraham Lincoln uses back room deals to secure the constitutional amendment to end slavery. The document revealed by Wikileaks corroborates this account.

The best Tweet of the night.

“As I recall, I was speaking about the wonderful movie LINCOLN. And also about how CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is really underrated.” #Debate

— Sam Adams (@SamuelAAdams) October 10, 2016

Sandernistas were livid about the leaked transcripts, but Bernie Sanders himself gave her a pass  (notice I had to use overseas media to find these stories).  Whaddaya gonna do with this lousy sellout, folks?  Fall in behind him?  Write his name in?

The sniffle count was 104.  Juanita Broaddrick made her way into the media spin room.  Her appearance at the presser before the debate, along with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and others prompted the night's second-best Tweet.

How can any victim of sexual assault sit next to a man accused of sexual assault many times, who brags about his assaults? #debate

— Victoria Graveyard (@VictoriaAveyard) October 9, 2016

In the end, Clinton 'won', but Trump didn't lose.  And none of it makes much difference.

McMullin-Finn

A wrap of last night's shitstorm is coming later today; while you wait ... did you know #NeverTrump candidate Evan McMullin's running mate is a Kingwood native named Mindy Finn?

Finn, 35, has worked for former President George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Twitter and Google. This cycle, she was a senior digital strategist for the RNC and oversaw digital programs for the NRSC’s targeted races in 2014.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Finn explained why she wanted to join the unlikely never-Trump ticket.

“I’ve been part of the group opposing Donald Trump in the Republican Party really since he announced last summer and as he continued to alienate and vilify people in this country” and while she has “encouraged others to run for office, this is now an opportunity to walk the walk.” 

Disillusioned Republicans and sober Libertarians: this is your ticket.  They're good to go as a write-in here in Texas and thirty or so other states.

In 2012, she worked for Twitter, leading their politics and advocacy sector. A Republican activist who has worked to encouraged female Republicans to run for office, she also founded the non-profit Empowered Women, a network to connect center-right and independent women.

She described seeing Republicans coming around to Trump as “pretty discouraging,” but now she is “thrilled to be on the ticket” and she is “all in for the right reasons.”

“This is how it should feel to participate in a democracy,” she said. "I’ve also been incredibly impressed by the amount of traction they have in such a short amount of time and I am thrilled to be part of continuing to build a new movement."

The McMullin campaign acknowledges what an uphill climb they have up against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Most polling does not include McMullin, who announced his bid in August. Their strategy is dependent on attempting to block Trump and Clinton from obtaining 270 electoral votes and sending the election to the House of Representatives. An election hasn’t been decided by the House of Representatives since 1824.

Click on that most previous link and note that this #OpDeny270 effort is something the #StillSanders crowd is also advocating.  Our political lines have really been blurred this cycle, haven't they?  It sure would be horrible if the House were the only ones picking our next president.  Thankfully it stands no realistic chance of happening.  Still, hats off to the brave.

“The path is difficult, but not as unlikely as people think,” McMullin strategist Rick Wilson told ABC News. "This is all about giving Americans a sense they can vote for people they can be proud of and have a more affirmative version of leadership in this country.”

They really ought to campaign in Montgomery County at the very least, where some of Kingwood lies and where Dan Patrick says the free conservative world hangs in the balance.

(Who says I don't want Hillary to carry Texas?)

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance has never said anything like what Donald Trump said to Billy Bush when they thought no one was listening, not in a locker room and not anywhere else.  No decent person says things like that because no decent person thinks like that or acts like that.  What the TPA does say is in this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff looked at turnout and voter registration patterns and what they might say about this year.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos shares an exposé as well as her own personal experiences to describe how Jim Crow continues to pervade the voter registration laws in Texas, in Jim Crow Actively Lurks in Texas: The State’s Voter Registration Laws.

Socratic Gadfly looks back 150 years or so into Southern racial and class history and finds one key word --— "mudsill" -- that explains much of the Trump voter phenomenon.

The Libertarian ticket seems to have hit their ceiling, and not just because Gary Johnson has short-term memory issues, writes PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is glad that poverty is down in Texas, but food insecurity is still high.

Neil at All People Have Value discussed an interactive art work on the streets of Houston. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Texas Leftist scolds Congress for overriding Obama's veto of the 9/11 legislation.

Txsharon at Bluedaze posts details of the Earth Wind and Fire Energy Summit, in Addison later this month.

The Lewisville ISD sent out a parental advisory about the creepy clown appearances making news in Texas and other states, as reported by the Texan-Journal.

Egberto Willies amplified the Houston Press' commendation of  KPFT as the Bayou City's best radio station.

And Dos Centavos enjoyed the Festival Chicano this past weekend.

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

Here's more great Texas blog postings from last week!

About a quarter of Texas police shooting deaths over the last decade -- more than 200 -- went unreported to the office of the Texas attorney general despite criminal penalties on the books for noncompliance, according to Grits for Breakfast.

The Texas Election Law Blog reminds those who aren't yet registered to vote in the 2016 election that they have until tomorrow to do so.

The Texas Observer reports on the bursting of the Texas private prison bubble.

Houston has higher levels of inequality and segregation than every U.S. metro except New York and Los Angeles, according to a researcher quoted at The Urban Edge.

The Texas Freedom Network has the latest from Pastor Robert Jeffress, who claims that your right to privacy as interpreted by the Supreme Court is an imaginary construct.

Lone Star Ma celebrates Texas Influenza Awareness Day.

State Rep. Garnet Coleman writes about the Sandra Bland Act that he intends to file next session.

Eileen Smith waded into the fetid swamp of Donald Trump's sexism, a couple of days before that swamp got even nastier.

Betsy Barre has a problem with the collective reaction to the Donald Trump "grab her in the p----" video.

And Ashton Woods at Strength in Numbers publishes the first edition of the Chronicles of an Angry Black Queer.

Sunday Night Fight Preview

I'm sure that's what they're telling the pollsters now, but once they get into the voting booth they'll chicken out and push the straight-party-ticket button.  Because, like most Americans, they're scared to death of what might happen if they don't.

After expressing regret for his remarks, Trump quickly turned his focus to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Trump concluded his statement by hinting very strongly that he will make attacking the Clintons for past sex scandals a centerpiece of his debate appearance on Sunday evening.

“I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday,” Trump said in the video, which was released shortly after midnight on Saturday.

Trump has toyed publicly on several occasions with bringing up sordid aspects of Bill Clinton’s past. After the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, Trump praised himself for not bringing up President Clinton’s infidelities almost immediately after he walked into the spin room and began talking with reporters. Trump declared that he held back because he knew the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, was at the debate.

President Clinton has admitted to conducting multiple affairs during his marriage. He has also been accused of rape and other abusive behavior. The New York Times a week ago published an article chronicling the ways in which Hillary Clinton encouraged and oversaw efforts in the 1990s to sully the reputation of women who publicly claimed to have had affairs with her husband.

You should click on that link, if only to relive the wondrous '90's all over again.  You know: Herbert Walker Bush's Gulf war, Nelson Mandela being freed from prison, the divorce and later tragic death of Princess Diana, the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan Olympic assault, the videoptaped beating of Rodney King by LAPD and the riots that followed, the O.J. Simpson trial, Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, the capturing of Unabomber Ted Kazynski, and of course the scandals, impeachment, and subsequent re-election of Hillary Clinton's husband.

Especially that last, as Trump has all but promised us.

Trump’s performance in the first debate was widely panned, and his standing suffered in the polls. Leading up to the second debate, which will take place in St. Louis on Sunday, members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggested they thought bringing up the dirty laundry would be a bad move for Trump.

“I don’t think it’s a smart strategy for Donald Trump to come after her with these kinds of personal attacks,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told reporters earlier this week.

Mook was responding to Trump’s prior threat to invite one of President Clinton’s former paramours to the first debate. Mook further said he didn’t believe the real estate tycoon would bring up anything “salacious.”

“We do not necessarily expect him to come with the kind of personal and harsh attacks that he has been threatening,” Mook told reporters again Thursday. “We expect a more focused, prepared Trump at this debate.”

This guy isn't named Mook for nothing.

But if anything could prod Trump into bringing up President Clinton’s sex scandals, it might be the Clinton campaign’s telling him not to, which they have done several times in the past week.

Before the firestorm over Trump’s comments about trying to “f*** and “grab” women, Republican consultant Liz Mair told Yahoo News the Clinton campaign was likely trying to goad Trump.

Taunting a wounded, angry, barking yam with a long history of lashing out at anyone and everyone who offends him in the slightest way.  Sounds like a plan. 

“The Clinton folks probably do think they’re baiting him, or are hoping so, but the reality is that baiting or not, Trump is very likely to walk into this trap anyway,” said Mair, who ran a super-PAC opposing Trump. “Self-immolation on live TV: It’s what he does.”

Conventional wisdom ahead of Trump’s latest controversy was that making sex-scandal-based attacks would be a disastrous tactic, especially given Hillary Clinton’s role as the aggrieved spouse. Trump’s resurfaced remarks would make the move even riskier. But Trump’s inner circle seemed divided about how to proceed.

Last month, Trump came from behind in the polls after adopting what his campaign called a “more disciplined” approach and talking about policy issues. He has since slipped. Following the vice presidential debate last Tuesday, Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway indicated a clear preference for how her candidate should behave.

“I do appreciate when he talks about the issues,” Conway said.

Understated and ironic.

Yet Trump is at his most unpredictable when he is cornered. And so the revelation of the sexually aggressive behavior he bragged about in the 2005 video may have made it more likely that Trump gets down in the mud during the debate.

If you would rather see what a calm, sensible, scandal-free presidential candidate might look like in tonight's debate, Democracy Now! once again will present Jill Stein's response, alongside Trump's and Clinton's, to the various questions they will field.

Whether you're watching, listening, Facebooking, Tweeting -- or not -- much of America will be tuned in with plenty of popcorn on hand.  Lots of DVRs will be whirring; the NFL's ratings are going to suffer again, and even the latest HBO hot drama 'Westworld' could take a hit, as it is repeated throughout the following week and can be skipped for watching later.  It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to follow the Twitter feed, so even if you can't make sense of the medium, watch the top right space here for insights and snark.  And try to find the humor in what should otherwise be a deplorable 90 minutes of townhall-format mudslinging.  The most interesting moment I'll be watching for is how Trump might turn a climate change question into a reference to Monica Lewinsky's soiled blue dress.  "That stain looks like Hurricane Matthew" sort of thing.

Enjoy!

Sunday Funnies

Election developments move quickly after latest Trump embarrassment

-- Paul Ryan canceled Trump's appearance at a campaign swing through Wisconsin the two were scheduled to make today.  Sen. Mike Lee of Utah took to Facebook Live to urge Trump to quit the race.  There were denouncements aplenty, but essentially nobody except Lee withdrawing their endorsement.  Update: there's a growing list of Republicans calling for him to drop out.  But of course he won't, and he can't anyway; voting is already happening in nearly two dozen states, including mail ballots like Texas and expats overseas.  The GOP is stuck with him, and the nightmare for downballot Republicans is real.

Update II: Both Vox and Rick Hasen outline some highly implausible scenarios -- Hasen calls them 'unlikely contingencies' -- whereby if Trump chose to drop out, the GOP could finagle the Electoral College representatives to be counted for both Trump and whoever might replace him.

Trump apologized on video, but more in defiance than in contrition, and promised he would strike back at Clinton using her husband's old track record.  That portends a lively yet revolting set-to for Sunday night's second debate.  Trump's polling continues to slide even before the impact of yesterday's sexist insults tape can be measured, which leads to more predictions falling in behind mine on Monday that Trump is finished.

Despite all of this, I still do not think he can lose Texas.

-- Meanwhile, Wikileaks released some of John Podesta's emails, which confirmed Hillary's shilling for Wall Street.  Still not quite the October Surprise her political opponents have been eagerly anticipating, though the RNC is seizing on it to distract themselves us from Trump's implosion.  We get another "it's the Russians" reaction from Democrats, and sputtering outrage from all the usual alt-right suspects, who have forced a "Bill Clinton is a rapist" Twitter hashtag to trend.  Some lay blame on the media, another predictable response.

-- All of this noise has drowned out the capture and subsequent release of several peace activists by the Israeli navy as they attempted to land at Gaza, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Matthew, the New Cold War with Putin and Russia, the hot proxy war we're fighting with them in Syria, more devastating climate change statistics, and a host of other things that are more important than Trump's sophomoric frat boy behavior or Clinton's latest email dump.  But at least it knocked Kim Kardashian's robbery back to the entertainment section.

-- In brighter news, Jill Stein is returning to Texas at the end of next week, with stops in El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston, at the Last Concert Cafe' on Saturday, October 15.  I'm delighted that she has long seen the Lone Star State as a tremendous growth opportunity for the Green Party.

It's not a protest vote, not a wasted vote.  It's an eviction notice.

Some offbeat election news, scatter-shot

-- Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party's presidential nominee -- "on thirty-five state ballots (twenty-four, actually) and maybe the only social conservative running" -- has the ultimate putdown to those who still parrot the fallacy that a vote for the lesser evil is your only option.

“People say, ‘Well I have to vote for the lesser of two evils because if I don’t Mrs. Clinton may get elected,'” he says. “But I speak to a lot of Christians, and I tell them as a Christian you cannot do that if you have some regard for scripture because Romans 3:8 says you’re prohibited from trying to achieve a good result by doing evil.” 

There you go, evangelicals and Ted Cruz supporters.  Get Castle's polling moving upward.

-- I had a bizarre conversation with a California Berniecrat who is voting for Clinton because he isn't certain whether Clinton could carry his state (a fairly delusional thought, unless you just can't believe the polls or fear the election is going to be hacked by the Russians, or something).  Bizarre, at least, until I read this.

Whether Donald Trump is entitled to California's 55 Electoral College votes would be called into question if Trump wins the state's popular vote, a Trump-supporting third party and election law experts are warning.

It's an unusual situation and everyone seems to agree there's a potential problem, but they disagree on the severity and likely resolution if Trump defies polls and wins the state.

[...]

The problem arises from the fact that Trump is nominated by both the Republican Party and the state branch of the American Independent Party, and the two parties did not agree on a joint slate of electors, Just two names overlap on lists submitted earlier this week, bringing the total number of Trump electors to 108.

California ballots will list the two nominations together near Trump’s name, with “Republican, American Independent” or some abbreviation – and ballots don't list individual electors. But if on the evening of Nov. 8 it becomes clear he has won the state, the two nominations will net Trump nearly twice the number of electors allowed.

Go read it; it's kinda fun.  And not so much bizarre, but about as possible a scenario as a swarm of undocumented immigrant conservative Yetis helping the GOP hold the line in Orange County.

-- I think writing in Bernie Sanders' name is ridiculous and a little sad, but I do not think that any vote cast is a wasted one.  This is debatable, however, as I will explain in a moment.  But for now, and as a matter of public service ...

In Texas, a write-in vote for any candidate in any office who has not been certified by the state of Texas is a vote that will not appear in the official canvass.  Strangely, there will be a record of it kept by your county clerk, but that will not be made public.  Perhaps the clerk's office would respond to a FOIA request and announce the number of votes cast for Hypnotoad, or Jesus Christ, or Mickey Mouse for President some time after the election.  Otherwise we'll never know how many votes were "wasted" in this fashion ... the only way you can waste a vote, other than by not casting it at all.

To the latter: over 50% of the American people will waste their votes in this manner, as they remain unregistered to vote, and about 50% of those registered, give or take a few, will likewise fail to get themselves counted.  Those who do not exercise their citizenship are doomed to be governed by their inferiors, so the saying goes, and have earned no right to complain.

-- I have seen some really interesting voting rationales by some 'friends' on Facebook.  The most creative one recently was a woman who said she could not vote for Jill Stein in Texas because the GP "doesn't do party-building" between presidential elections (an atrociously misinformed statement coming from an otherwise bright but binary-thinking progressive Democrat).  In the same paragraph she said she would vote for down-ballot Greens "to show support for having additional options".  That's really something, isn't it?  A Catch 22 that she puts herself into and takes herself out of at the same time.  I suppose the Greens should be happy with whatever vote for them she can muster.

A rationale that a fearful or recalcitrant liberal might employ in deciding to vote for Hillary in a close county -- like Harris -- might be in order to help the Dems retake majority status, with the presiding judges in all precincts and at early voting locations.  Note that this would have nothing to do with turning Texas blue, as it won't.  Similarly, and as the anonymous person mentioned in the previous graf has indicated she will do, here's the best reason to vote for Jill Stein and the Green candidates running in Texas (there will be four or five dozen on the ballot throughout the state, not all of them on your ballot, because they're running for county offices and things like SBOE, which are multi-county in a specific region):

If Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka receive 5% of the national vote, the Green Party will qualify for general election public funding in 2020 that will be worth over $10 million dollars.

Securing 5% of the popular vote will also guarantee state ballot access lines for the next election cycle, saving the Green Party time and money that could be spent where (the GP) needs it most. 

Charles Kuffner, as you might have guessed, is contemptuous.  It is indeed going to be one giant leap for mankind if the Greens can pull it off, as someone on another celestial plane once said.  With respect to those who would rather focus on a brand new Congress, I applaud the efforts of BernieDems, etc. in working to reform that party on the inside, but I spent the past ten years heavily involved in that effort, and you can see the fruits of that harvest came in spoiled rotten every single year.  Been there, done that, just took the forty T-shirts I got for it to Goodwill.

I would sooner join al-Qaeda and try to reform it from within.  A decade of my life spent demonstrating the definition of insanity is far too much.  I'm going to do something different from now on.  I'd be happy to have your help if you're so inclined.

Libertarian candidates falter

Gary Johnson seems to be having a personal crisis.  AKA meltdown.

In an interview on CNN early yesterday [...] Johnson explains why if "crossing 'i's and dotting 't's" on international political leaders and geography is more important than the policy itself and than admitting mistakes, he’s not meant to be president (but if honesty and peace are what voters want, then he is).

Jeremy Binckes at Salon told Johnson he looked 'jittery' and 'in need of sleep'.

If it makes you feel any better, your excuse makes sense, even the way you phrased it on CNN: “OK so I point out an elected leader that I admire, and then all of a sudden I have to defend them against things that I’m not even aware of,” Johnson said. “If that’s a disqualifier to run for president, so be it.”

I hate to break it to you, but that’s sort of what international politics is about. The U.S. has allies, and they sometimes come for dinner. It’s really not good if you insult them on their special day.

... (Y)ou also tried to explain away your gaffes by saying that you have “never been in politics before.” Are you forgetting that you were a two-term governor of New Mexico, and that you actually ran for president in 2012 (as a Republican first, then as a Libertarian after you couldn’t get in the debates)?

You’re starting to see the truth here, though, when you say, “I guess I wasn’t meant to be president.”

It’s understandable. Running for president is hard, even if you’re running as the candidate for the “we want to vote for a Republican, but not that Republican” crowd — and especially if it seems that you haven’t done your international relations homework.

But back to how you’re feeling. You look jittery. You need sleep. If only there were something you could take to make you nice and sleepy, and, ya know, mellow out a bit.

This comes alongside Bill Weld's odd capitulation.

Gary Johnson’s hapless running mate, William Weld, is essentially giving up on the presidential race and wants to spend its last few weeks attacking Donald Trump.

The same day Johnson admitted he’s not keeping up with world affairs, Weld told The Boston Globe Trump is his only priority from now until November 8.

[...]

The Globe said Weld also hinted that he might abandon the Libertarian Party altogether, although he said he’s “certainly not going to drop them this year.”

Still, he said his priority after the election could be working with Republicans like Mitt Romney to rebuild the GOP.

When Weld, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, joined Johnson on the Libertarian ticket, he said he would be a Libertarian for life and fight to make sure his running mate became the next President of the United States.

But Weld apparently wised up after Johnson’s month of stunning gaffes, with the third-party contender consistently failing to know anything about current events or foreign affairs. When Johnson couldn’t name a single world leader he admired during an MSNBC town hall, Weld stepped in as his hype man, reminding him of a couple names.

Johnson spent his Tuesday morning arguing on national TV that his ignorance about the world could be a virtue, because it would prevent him from sending soldiers to dangerous countries.

Weld last week told MSNBC he’s “not sure anybody is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States.”

Kind of a humiliating way to wind down a presidential campaign, isn't it?

No winners

Pence 'won' on style -- he didn't sniffle or vomit on the table -- and Kaine 'won' on substance, but he was unpleasantly aggressive and interrupted far too much.

(I)t was as if two different Donald Trumps showed up at Longwood University on Tuesday night.

There was the Trump to whom Kaine kept pivoting in every answer, and eagerly interrupting Pence to prosecute: the Trump who called Mexican immigrants “rapists”; the Trump who spent years perpetuating the “outrageous and bigoted lie that President Obama is not an American citizen”; the Trump who has “again and again praised Vladimir Putin” as a “great leader”; the Trump who “believes that the world will be safer if more nations have nuclear weapons”; the Trump who has “claim[ed] that NATO is obsolete”; the Trump who “went after John McCain, a POW, and said he was not a hero because he had been captured”; the Trump who has “called women ‘dogs,’ ‘pigs,’ ‘disgusting.’”

This Trump, Kaine argued, “demeans every group he talks about” and is the kind of “fool or maniac” who “could trigger a catastrophic [nuclear] event.”

Then there was the Trump that Pence kept evoking every time he responded to Kaine’s parries with a sad shake of his head or rueful chuckle: the Trump who “didn’t say” this or “never said” that; the Trump who doesn’t consider Mexicans rapists, but rather sees the current immigration system as a “heartbreaking tragedy”; the Trump who isn’t bigoted, but rather “fully support[s]” community policing; the Trump who might misspeak every once in awhile, but only because “he is a businessman” and “not a polished politician.”

In short: a kinder, gentler Trump.

As usual, the zero-sum Beltway pundits will declare one vice presidential wannabe the winner of Tuesday’s debate. But ultimately, it’s up to voters to decide which of the two Trumps on display better aligns with reality, at least as they see it — and that more than anything else will determine the effect, if any, of Kaine and Pence’s performances.

In truth, both candidates did well, because they both did what they came to Farmville to do.

The very fact that the debate was more of a referendum on Trump than Clinton should count as a win for Kaine. With his constant interruptions and clockwork attacks, Kaine forced Pence to talk about Trump a lot more than Pence forced Kaine to talk about Clinton. That was the point. In a battle between two historically unpopular presidential candidates, the one the election becomes about is the one who’s more likely to lose. Consider that nearly every unflattering Trump quote that Kaine cited was factually accurate — despite Pence’s dodges and more-in-sorrow-than-anger objections — and you have plenty of fodder for a few more “Yes, Trump really said X” news cycles. And that, in turn, could be enough to convince a few more swing voters that Trump is temperamentally unfit to serve as president — which is, of course, the Clinton campaign’s ultimate goal.

A key example of Kaine’s executing this strategy came early in the debate. After the Democrat rattled off a list of Trump’s various offenses — McCain, Judge Curiel, rapists, “‘dogs,’ ‘pigs,’ ‘disgusting'” — Pence countered that Trump’s insults were “small potatoes compared to Hillary Clinton,” who called “half of Donald Trump supporters a ‘basket of deplorables.’”

Kaine was ready with his rebuttal.

“And she said, ‘I should not have said that,’” Kaine replied. Then he seized on the fact that Trump has never expressed similar regrets as an opportunity to run through Trump’s greatest hits yet again.

“Did Donald Trump apologize to Sen. John McCain? Did Donald Trump apologize for calling women ‘slobs,’ ‘pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘disgusting’? Did Donald Trump apologize for taking after somebody in a Twitter war and making fun of her weight? Did he apologize for saying that President Obama was not a citizen of the United States?

“You will look in vain to see Donald Trump ever taking responsibility for anything and apologizing,” Kaine concluded.

Here's another place where the two talked past each other.

Thanks to his running mate’s long history of divisive remarks — and Kaine’s incessant reminders of them — Pence had the harder task Tuesday: making Trump seem tolerable (and tolerant) to voters who still haven’t made up their minds about him.

So rather than defending the indefensible, Pence simply decided to pretend that it didn’t exist.

One exchange — about ISIS and foreign policy in general — stood out. After Kaine battered Trump relentlessly on the subject — “He does not have a plan. He trash-talks the military, ‘John McCain is no hero,’ ‘The generals need to be fired,’ ‘I know more than them,’ ‘NATO is obsolete’” — Pence tried to brush it off.

And here's another of Pence's disarmingly condescending putdowns.  "Did you work on that one for a long time?", before ...

“That had a lot of creative lines in it,” he laughed.

“See if you can defend any of it?” Kaine snapped.

But Pence refused to take the bait. Instead, he gave “this president credit for bringing Osama bin Laden to justice,” then pivoted to a generic conservative attack on Obama’s foreign policy ...

Kaine had the far easier case to prosecute, and did so well.  Pence just dodged.  But the governor looked "presidential" while doing so, and that's what stood out to the talking heads afterward. (Update: More debate viewers thought they'd rather have a beer with Pence.  And so it goes.)

It is a credit to Pence’s skill as a political communicator — he worked for several years in the 1990s as a conservative radio and television host — that he was able to pull off this sort of 180-degree turn without inducing whiplash. He was polished, disciplined and steady. He seemed calmer than Kaine, and considerably more polite. He sounded empathetic. He spoke in talking points, but delivered them as if they were thoughts that had just occurred to him. And most important, Pence realized that the best way to defend Trump was not with words — which he rarely offered up — but rather by leaving viewers with the impression that Mike Pence is everything they fear that Donald Trump is not: decent, grounded, consistent. If that guy’s also going to be in the White House, how crazy could things really get?

Vice presidential debates rarely, if ever, affect the outcome of an election. The most they can do is “change the narrative” until the presidential candidates debate again.

It may be, then, that while Kaine won on points, Pence won on style — and both, in the end, conjured up the Trump they intended to conjure up. The story of those two Trumps will be the story of the rest of this race.

I had forgotten that Pence made his bones by being a Rush Limbaugh wannabe before entering politics.  And there were a few "I wish Pence was the nominee" Tweets from regretful conservative #NeverTrumpers.  Been there, seen that (Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin; and also from Democrats in the past: Joe Biden -- yes indeed, and in this cycle too -- and Lloyd Bentsen).  On policy, Pence is Trump without the swagger and bombast, and this was his audition for 2020.  Mark it; he'll be in the thick of the GOP scrum in four years.  (Update: No More Mister has an insightful rebuttal to my -- and Chris Matthews', whom I don't watch any more -- prediction about Pence.)

Ajamu Baraka's debate performance was more thoughtful, IMHO.  Alas, the only candidate of color, the only veteran, the only person willing or able to discuss or even acknowledge American hegemony was -- just as Kaine and Pence -- preaching to his choir.  And frankly it's a shame that the Libertarians have gone into hiding for these affairs; William Weld could have made things interesting by joining Baraka in Democracy Now's after-debate, instead of doing his solo bit.  I barely saw any Libs participating in the Twitter feed.

All four veep prospects represented well enough to make the case for their running mates, but the needle won't be moving over the remaining thirty-four days.  These, even more than the presidential faceoffs, are just pep rallies for red and blue cheerleaders.  During the course of the evening on Twitter, the #HipHopAwards broadcast on BET trended higher than the #VPdebate.  That alone should tell the full tale about the optics of two old white men quarreling about women's reproductive freedoms, or improving police tactics and making significant reforms to criminal justice without mentioning the words 'Black Lives Matter' in seeking a solution to the nation's most compelling social crisis.

Yeah, the system isn't rigged; it's broken.