Not Trump and Carson but Rubio and Cruz

Maybe you had not noticed, but the real black neurosurgeon who has been performing a frontal lobotomy on himself all week has drowned out The Donald's rants.  And even the Democrats have gotten more chatter because of their upcoming debate.  Be sure and remind Debbie Wasserman Schultz again about that.

I've worked to limit the outrage and/or snark about stupid things Republicans say every single day (Juanita Jean's always there for you) not because it's so much fun but because it's so time-consuming trying to keep up.  There's not much blogged here about what Stephen Colbert or Trevor Noah or Larry Wilmore say each night because Egberto's on that beat.  The Speaker's race is indeed a hilarious clusterfuck, but in the grand scheme of the local election we have coming up and then the presidential one next year, not all that B a FD to me.  And as you know by now, campaign finance reports and teevee commercials are best left to the geeks, wonks, and consultants who thrive on that.

So with three Hillary Clinton posts this week, and traffic sagging until I returned to the municipal elections yesterday (and with traffic back through the roof), I want to get in a few elbows on the GOP presidential field.

On Labor Day weekend at the AFL-CIO barbecue in Pasadena, somebody asked me if Scott Walker still had a chance to be the nominee.  I told her it was at least possible he could regroup, blow some Koch up his nose and reignite.  Go back and look at the September archives to see that he was carried out feet first two weeks later.  Since then all the rage among conservative pundits and prophets has gone from "who's next to quit" to "ZOMG is it really going to be Trump or Carson".

I'm gonna say that if either one of those two winds up being the Republican nominee, even a ticket of Lawrence Lessig and Jim Webb could beat that.  Like a red-headed stepchild.

So with the tenuous assumption that Republicans are smarter than this -- that's why they're so rich, of course -- somebody else is going to be at the top of the heap when the walls fall and the guns are silenced.  My take today is that it will be either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, and here's why.

By process of elimination, it won't be Bobby Jindal or Lindsey Graham or Chris Christie or George Pataki or James Gilmore or Rick Santorum or Rand Paul.  Mullah Huckabee still has the longest of realistic shots thanks to Kim Davis, but he's being eclipsed on the strength of his own foibles.  Picking a fight with a bag of chips is a dead-ender.

That leaves Jeb!, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, and Ted and Marco.  You could scramble these five every possible way except with Bush and Rubio together (two candidates from the same state can run together but it gets problematic in the Electoral College, so discount the possibility of a pair of Floridians to zero), and you'd have a decent enough Republican duo to be a threat to Clinton-Castro or Sanders-Warren.  Since we're dreaming, after all.

But for the purpose of this exercise, let me veer away from my previously stated prediction of the top two and make it Kasich-Rubio (I've suggested previously -- scroll to the bottom -- that Kasich-Condoleeza Rice might just be too tough for the Democrats to beat, and I still believe that).  Rubio would be better as a VP than Rice not because of his Latino appeal but because of his evangelical cross-breeding.  Condi claims to be a libertarian on choice, and that damages her with the brand in this cycle.  The Bible-thumpers love Ted too, of course, and here's where you should disregard the rain-making reporting; Cruz doubled up Rubio in money in the third quarter.  Cruz excites the TeaBagger base with outbursts like "hate slaw!", but he's alienated too many inside players.  He's not going to settle for second place, either.  Ever the gladiator, he will affect the presidential process just like he does the Speaker's race, but in the end he'll content himself with going back to the Senate and taking another shot at Hillary in 2020.  He needs to mend some fences, make a few friends in the process.

If I'm wrong, though, and Cruz is at the top of the ticket, Clinton beats him like a drum.  Even Bernie Sanders beats Ted Cruz, and it wouldn't be all that close.

It goes without blogging but I'll write it anyway: Bush and Fiorina don't have the wherewithal to get it done this time.  Both have a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease, and Bush has a peculiar "finger-in-the-air" ailment.  Four years ago the GOP exhausted all the certifiably insane options -- Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Santorum -- before settling back on Mitt Romney.  Bush isn't going to be that lucky, no matter how many favors he thinks he can call in.  The base simply will not allow that to happen again.

Kasich (Ohio) and Rubio (Florida) are both from swing states the GOP has to have to win.  Cruz and Fiorina don't help enough electorally.  Condi, like Carly, is also from Cali; that's a non-starter for one but not the other.  Rice is a DC insider/gravitas pick as much as she checks off the right demographic boxes.  And like Dick Cheney, nobody really knows where she came from (born in Alabama, raised in Colorado, much of her adult life associated with Stanford University when she wasn't in Washington).  But I think, again, that she's not extreme enough for the bottom of the ticket when they tap a so-called moderate for president.

Rubio is Tea Party without the tricorn hat.  He's said enough crazy things -- climate change, border walls, etc. -- to earn some street cred.  Ultimately he's just less sour than Cruz, and when it comes to coconuts, that's important.

So the ticket will be some combo of "moderate" and rabid dog, with the assumption that Rice cannot be recruited for V-P.  Kasich-Rubio is my story today and we'll see how long it sticks.

Update: I could be just as wrong as either Ted or Donald.  Or both.  We shall see.

Real presidential contenders debating reality-based issues

Thank goodness for a dose of sanity.

But it's not without its flaws (these are Democrats, after all; as someone once mangled a pair of metaphors, they have a lay-down hand if they don't shoot themselves in the head).

-- CNN has an extra lectern, bubblewrap still on the handtruck, just in case Joe Biden changes his mind at the last minute.  They could have let Lawrence Lessig use it, of course, but he doesn't poll high enough.  Because the polling outfits rarely include his name in the polls.

He's thinking about an independent run for president as a result of all these cold shoulders.  I hope the Justice Party and Rocky Anderson are recruiting him hard.

-- Then again, he'll have the same problem in the fall as Jill Stein (and Gary Johnson of the Libs, and the Justice Party's nominee and the Constitution Party's and so on).  We need more debates and we need more candidates in all of them.  That's good for democracy.  Such as we have left, that is.

-- Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, twice asked about Bernie Sanders, could not bring herself to say his name.  She also disinvited the vice chair of the DNC from attending tonight's event after Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii -- her colleague in the US House as well as her second in command at the party's HQ -- called for more debates.

Petty, vindictive, crass, ridiculous and shameful.  DWS needs to go. And fast.

-- Hillary Clinton went to the steps of Donald Trump's Las Vegas casino with employees of his who want to form a union and blasted him.  I like this, but she really needs to wait until she's the nominee before she starts her general election campaign.  I might even get to liking this, but my first reaction is: "poor you":

Hillary Clinton says women are “held to a totally different standard” in politics — and that it’s been that way since she first ran for office.

“You’re expected to be both strong and vulnerable at the same time,” Clinton said in BuzzFeed’s “Another Round” podcast that was published online Sunday. “That’s not easy to do.”

The Democratic frontrunner said it’s “frustrating” for women in “any profession” to be criticized for being themselves.

“It’s just so hard to get people to realize that, you know, we’re all different,” Clinton said. “We may all be women, but we all have our strengths, we all have our weaknesses. We get up every morning and do the best we can. And eventually people either get you or they don’t.”

She's spot on about the sexism, and being treated differently because of her genitalia and all that.  I don't discount it, nor the fact that it's a consultant-crafted appeal to women who ought to be voting for her without encouragement (sort of like when Wendy Davis ran for governor, but I digress).  Her strategy appears to be a riff on that '80's perfume jingle:

I can bring home the bacon, 
fry it up in a pan, 
and never ever let you forget you're a man
'Cause I'm a woman

She's going to have to deal with sexism, just as Barack Obama has had to face the most craven and ugly personal smears from conservatives throughout the duration of his presidency.  See, it's possible to criticize a president's policy without pictures of bones through his nose, or if he is dressed as for a pilgrimage to Mecca.

She is going to have to endure the misogynists and chauvinists for the next eight and a half years, though.  Sorry about that, Mrs. Clinton.  Maybe you can influence some change in that societal regard when you're elected.  Obama, simply by being president, didn't change structural racism in America in all the ways we had hoped, but that's not on him, either.  Just do your thing and let the Republican heads explode and the pieces fall where they may.  (Or Democratic heads, as the case may be.)

I was raised by a steel magnolia.  I believe they can be great leaders.  Just please don't feel like you need to prove anything to the guys by starting any more wars, mmkay?

Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and James Webb all have their work cut out for them.

Update: This is the best viewer's guide I've read for tonight.

Bush should quit and endorse Rubio, Biden dropping in, and more

I still have some Houston city council race previews in the queue, but because of last week's hardware interruption, they await confirmation and verification and such like that.  News is being made by the prezidenshuls, so I got that for ya.

-- Biggest shock to my system was this, yesterday (not Walker quitting but the fallout from it).

It would, of course, be totally ridiculous for Jeb Bush to drop out of the 2016 Republican primary this week. He's got a ton of money in the bank, a ton more money in his super PAC's bank, he's ahead of all the real politicians in national primary polling, and he leads the field in endorsements. If he sticks it out, Donald Trump will probably fade. The Ben Carson boomlet will probably vanish. The nascent Carly Fiorina boomlet will keep going for a while and then she'll come back down to earth too. Bush has the cash to gut it out and try to prevail against all comers and the odds of it working are at least decent.

But if he cares about his family legacy, the good of the Republican Party and the ideological principles he espouses, he should drop out as soon as possible and endorse Marco Rubio.

You might want to read all of it.  Rubio allegedly stands to gain the most from Walker's exit, and he and Bush are both poaching Walker's staff, supporters, donors, etc. in the wake of his withdrawal.  It's hilarious to me that Jeb and Marco are described as "anti-establishment insiders", a classic oxymoron.  Speaking of morons, it's my opinion that Rubio is as much of a stone cold one as Walker, but he seems to think that America is not a planet, so the GOP base thinks he's got some science smarts about him.

Update: More on the logic, or lack thereof, behind Rubo's rise from Steve Benen.

-- Bigger news, lesser shock.

Vice President Joe Biden's aides have begun suggesting to donors that he's more inclined to run for president than not, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

The aides say their talks have shifted largely from whether he's going to run to when he's going to announce, sources told the Journal, noting that he could still change his mind if his grief over his recent son's death becomes overwhelming.

“It’s my sense that this is happening, unless they change their minds,” a source who spoke to Biden aides told the Journal.

I have been saying repeatedly that he would not enter the race, but he sees the same thing everybody who's not actually getting paid by the Clinton campaign sees: she's turning radioactive for those in the DNC and the rest of the other 1% Democrats who would wish to just go ahead and anoint the front-runner now, without any debates (or even primaries, if they thought they could get away with it).  Update: Behind the scenes, Clinton wanted just four debates.  And the scheduling of the six -- for which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz remains under fire for not increasing -- is also designed to protect Hillary from any further self-destruction.

Prior polling suggested Biden pulls as many votes from Bernie Sanders as he does Clinton, but Nate Silver's crew at 538.com revised that thinking just yesterday.

Four national polls released this month (ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, YouGov and CNN/ORC) asked Democratic voters who they’d vote for with Biden in the race and without him. Clinton led Bernie Sanders by an average of 44 percent to 26 percent with Biden in the race. Clinton’s 19-percentage-point edge in those polls equals her lead in the Huffington Post/Pollster aggregate. Without Biden, Clinton’s lead on Sanders jumps to 28 percentage points, 57 percent to 29 percent.

In other words, almost all of Biden’s support is coming from people who, without Biden in the race, would support Clinton. So if Biden decides not to run, Clinton’s standing could snap back to where it was earlier this year.

Nobody tell Ted the truth, okay?  He's got too much of his already-weakened credibility invested in whatever today's snap poll is going to reveal to him through his cloudy Hillary filter.

Once Biden does jump in, he's going to start getting those questions about his Anita Hill problem from the early 1990's.  And that is most certainly a problem.

Tangential reading:

-- How Automatic Voter Registration Can Transform American Politics

50 years after the Voting Rights Act, 25% of Americans are still not registered to vote.  Already the law in Oregon, soon to become law in California.  Not Texas, though, in my lifetime.  Our wonderful state government wants fewer people voting, the fewer the better (for them) and will spend millions of your dollars litigating to keep it that way.

-- The New Civil Rights Activists Who Could Decide the Democratic Race

The Black Lives Matter movement will impact the campaigns of Clinton, Sanders, and Biden to some greater or lesser degree.  After the nominee is chosen, their efforts (or lack thereof) will be closely scrutinized for effects on the general election in November, 2016.

Today's SDEC meeting in Austin *update: Richie won't run again

Breaking, 1:00 p.m.: Boyd Richie has announced that he will not run for re-election to the post of chair of the Texas Democratic Party in 2012. Burnt Orange Report is live-blogging the conclave.

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

Occurring as this is posted. The following was submitted by my Senate District Executive Committee representative, J.R. Behrman.

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

The April 9 meeting will pit the SDEC against the staff employed by the Texas Trust from the staff of Congressman Martin Frost -- the “Little Office” in Austin. That staff is desperately seeking to defeat motions to be made by Don Bankston of  Fort Bend County to support a bizarre theory of “singular authority” vested in the Texas Democratic Party chairman, and to re-elect Boyd Richie for State Chair despite his manifest unfitness and failure.

He had not planned to run in 2012. But, he and his entourage of “Senate Pages” have nobody but each other to turn to. We really cannot afford either half of that vain and unproductive symbiosis.

The staff and the “Palace Guard” -- together comprising the “Speaker’s Claque” -- are already “whipping” the SDEC, defaming Don Bankston, and threatening personal retaliation against each and every one of you. That is the way they operate. Since I am already on the hit list, I don’t care about the smear campaign so much as by what it reveals about a profoundly dysfunctional and failed state party.

The Obama campaign will bypass state parties altogether. They will use the new DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, passed over for the DCCC, to raise money in Texas and spend it elsewhere. We desperately need a new business model at the state and county level, but there is not a hint of such a thing from the Little Office in Austin.

In any case the state party establishment, which bet on John Edwards this time four years ago and Martin Frost to become DNC chair in recent weeks as well as de facto state chair through his protege, Matt Angle, will fare even worse in fratricidal fund-raising from “large donors” in the future.

That leaves the state and county party fighting over the last rich, bored trial-lawyer standing – a horrible business model, but the only one we have today.

Our party does not have personnel problems unless we create them, which we now have by not disclosing material conflicts of interest. Still, that just aggravates the profound financial problems that will not be solved by “keeping on, keeping on” with old or new staff.

Given the size of this state, our lack and ignorance of the scalable technologies that the Obama campaign will use nationwide, and the profound dysfunction of the state and several urban county parties, it is hard to blame the boys in Chicago. They have little regard for cornpone Southern Democratic parties run by “doctors, lawyers, and preachers” for their own benefit, what I call “The Grisham Novel”.

Democrats in Northern states, with real unions and well-funded public schools and services, are fighting against a neo-Confederate GOP. They do not have much use for a state party that nurtures “Blue Dog” collaborators and defectors. So ... we are on our own here.

The Democratic Party establishment in Texas and Harris County are artifacts of a bi-partisan concession-tending regime that lasted statewide from 1824 to 1994 and persists on City Council to this day. This establishment lacks proficiency and purpose – now that tort reform is a done deal and they have no alternative to debt-driven fiscal austerity at every echelon of government.

So the prospects for winning statewide, countywide, and even citywide elections in 2011-12 are not good. There have been essentially no lessons learned from victories in 2008 or losses in 2010. “Wave Election!” is an excuse, not an analysis or a plan. The same consultants will be doing the same thing with the same tools but without the benefit of an Obama primary campaign here in Texas next year.

Apart from dismay at the effects of national, state, county, and city austerity, there will be little motivation and no money trickling down from national politics unless and until we turn things around here on the ground ... dramatically. The patronage-oriented base vote will be no  better than 2010 and the (2008-vintage) “new base vote” will be hard to motivate, locate, or mobilize. It is true that on the margin there is still some 'bloc voting' by various interest groups. But that is not the way the politics of age, ethnicity, class, and gender work in “majority-minority” counties like Harris, for one. So we are going to have to adopt Obama-type political methods and messages if we expect results like 2008.

And if we should overcome our perverse heritage and technical deficiencies, as well as the dead hand of the TDP, DNC, and DCCC, we could join California -- even Illinois -- in re-electing Barack Obama, in re-electing those elected county-wide in 2008, and in electing future national and statewide office-holders.

Which brings me back to today.

The State Chair and the party staff will try to waste time and suppress debate on virtually everything using parliamentary tactics or just jargon and making utterly bogus legal-sounding arguments. My district includes parts of Fort Bend County, and you can bet I will support Don Bankston, less for what he has done -- avoiding Bexar County-type problems, for one -- than for what he and others in the county are doing.

The Speaker’s Claque and our Local Chapter of the DCCC use the term “conversation” to indicate that they will engage grass-roots Democrats as adversaries, not as the source of their own legitimacy and Blazing Saddles jobs. A one-sided “conversation” is what President Obama has with the truculent and juvenile GOP in Congress. It is not the way to handle internal party communications.

I hope SDEC members meeting in plenary session today can be relied upon to discharge their responsibilities to those who put them on the executive committee as their representatives, not as sycophants or suck-ups. We need wholesome and fair deliberation of a slew of important questions.

There are certainly two sides to the questions raised by Don Bankston. But there should be only one side to the question of their right and responsibility to fairly deliberate any important matter. SDEC members should vote to include serious matters -- not just long-winded harangues and busy-work reports-- in the order of business. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting, in particular, against attempts to suppress debate with parliamentary jargon.

But if the Chairman insists on turning a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair into a vote of no confidence backed by his threat to resign ... well, I can live with Lenora Sorola-Pohlman for the balance of this term.

It is hard to imagine a course of action less delusional and impractical than what the Little Office in Austin is doing today. They will whine about the “circular firing-squad”. But then they will volley-fire into the backsides of an SDEC which breaks and runs at the least prospect of serious debate.

Texas Democratic voters are looking for responsibility and leadership, not cowardice or sycophancy.

Fright Night went pie fight

If you read yesterday's predictive analysis, and then watched some of the proceedings (or better yet, followed it on Twitter) then you know things went pretty much according to script.

Trump got beat up.

But whether it was the rattled moment after Jeb Bush dinged him for trying to buy his way into the Florida casino business or when he sputtered through what was (without him) a thoughtful foreign policy discussion, the emperor of the Republican field certainly looked like he forgot his clothes on Wednesday. And that was before his crazy answer on vaccines and autism, or his utter vanquishing at the hands of Carly Fiorina, responding to his comment about her face. 

The other candidates, better polished and better prepared than last time, came across as people who know stuff. Their discussions about government shutdowns, foreign policy, and drug policy had, by the standards of these things, some degree of depth. 

And Trump was noticeably muted through all that.

Maybe his back was hurting from standing for three hours.

Speaking of Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard CEO—so far the lone success story from the undercard debate—built on her success there and showed that her fight to get onto the main stage in the first place was worth it. She not only slayed Trump, she showed she could be the outsider to beat. 

Her answer about defunding Planned Parenthood got some of the loudest applause of the night—second only, perhaps, to her response to Jake Tapper’s question about Trump’s remarks on her appearance.

There's your winner winner, chicken dinner, folks.  She's gonna be movin' on up again.

Beyond that, this was a night of missed opportunities for Jeb Bush, another deer-in-the-headlights moment for Ben Carson, a weed meme, and the same old elephant in the room.  Oh, and Ted Cruz lied about Planned Parenthood again.

It's as entertaining as watching the Housewives of Beverly Hills until you realize one of these morons is going to be on the ballot in November 2016, and that millions of other morons are going to vote for him -- or her -- without a second thought.  Joke's over.

ABC's "9 moments that mattered" is only eight; throw out the one about Rubio.  And this is what 'post-debate spin' looks like.

Did anybody ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz when we're going to have some Democratic debates?  Why, yes they did, and she happens to be thrilled that the clamor for more is being drowned out by the Republicans' food fighting.  Now that's leadership.

Update: Fiorina's star turn -- though she was hideously wrong on climate change, and hyperbolic on Planned Parenthood -- isn't going to last, according to No More Mister Nice because she's not country enough.  That's a fair point, but I think she's got enough crazy going on that the Teabagger base can get along with her.  I still say she's going to fit well as a running mate for anybody except Donald Trump.  And more and better from Vox on all of this, with nearly no mention of Scott Walker or Chris Christie or Rand Paul or Marco Rubio.  That's precisely accurate.  Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham's tete-a-tete on immigration in the matinee got more play than Mike Huckabee.  That nails it as well.

The big political week ahead

-- With the capitulation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's embargo on Democratic debates, there are now two events scheduled post-Iowa and pre-New Hampshire: a town hall on Wednesday evening hosted by CNN and the debate that almost wasn't on Thursday night, moderated by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd.  These events will take place with whatever spin the campaigns will be generating from the Hawkeye State's caucus results, which I have predicted will be a Clinton win of some proportion larger than the last and most historically accurate poll conducted.  With a sizable lead in New Hampshire, Sanders must still improve his standing with not-so-white electorates in Nevada (he's not close) and South Carolina (he's not close) in order to make it a contest to Super Tuesday, where the biggest prize is Texas (and he's not close here either, though the polling is dated).

Should Bernie pull off the upset tonight -- after all, his 2-point deficit is within the Register's MoE of 4% -- and with NH all but in the can for him, history would be Feeling the Bern.  That would scramble the race tremendously.  I'd like to see it happen but I just don't think it will.

Update: Quinnipiac's poll released today shows Sanders with a 3-point lead over Clinton -- precisely at the MoE -- and Trump pulling away from Cruz, for whatever these last-minute results are worth. Q's polling gets a good report card from Nate Silver, if that also means anything.  I'd say it means "nailbiter" for both parties late into tonight.

-- As for the Republicans, Trump is favored to win tonight also in the polling, but my stated belief is that he gets upset by Ted Cruz, whose ground game in Iowa is unmatched and his followers are as fervent as The Donald's.

So watch the turnout for the GOP tonight, because that will produce higher (or lower) expectations for Trump, Cruz, and Marco Rubio, who's finally showing some signs of life.  Update: And may win the crown awarded by the media if he finishes a close third.

Pollsters have noted differences in their results when they change their assumptions about voter turnout. Trump's success in particular depends on first-time voters registering and showing up to caucus. A recent Monmouth University poll found that when likely Iowa caucus-goers are polled, Trump leads Cruz 30 percent to 23 percent. However, when the pollster narrows the sample size to registered Republicans who have a history of voting, the odds shift in Cruz's favor and he leads Trump 28 percent to 23 percent.

Monmouth's poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers is based on an estimate of 170,000 voters coming out, which surpasses Iowa's 122,000 record turnout in 2012. Increasing the turnout estimate to 200,000 gives Trump an 11-point lead, while decreasing it to 130,000 ties the two opponents at 26 percent.

There's also this from Cong. Steve King, R-Cantaloupe Calves, a demonstrated moron on immigration but probably not as dumb about his state's politics.

"If there is a turnout that goes well above 135,000, then that looks well (sic) for Trump," said U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a national co-chair of Cruz's campaign. "If there's a turnout that's down in that area, still a record turnout — something 135,000 or less — then that looks really good for Ted Cruz, and it's a more legitimate measure — the loyal caucus goers that are paying attention and evaluating on the issues."

King's been taking lessons from the Sarah Palin School of English, but we can still divine the point: turnout around 130-135K makes Ted Cruz look genuinely happy instead of his usual fake and creepy.

I wasted an hour of my life watching the second episode of "The Circus", with the four guys running for third place in the GOP primary, on Showtime over the weekend.  Don't bother with it.  It's terrible, they're terrible, the reporters -- Mark Halperin, John Heileman, Mark McKinnon -- are terrible.  Maybe the first episode with the front-runners was better, but I'm not giving the series any more chances.  Just watching McKinnon, in that short brim Stetson that looks too big on him, who's so scrawny he looks like a cancer victim, pick at -- but not taste -- any of a beautiful pastrami sandwich from Katz' Deli in New York was enough to put me off, but then they started in with Jeb and Fat Bastard, who's allegedly had a lap band for over three years and still looks morbidly obese. I had to take my nausea meds before they even got to Rubio.  What does that tell you?

But do read this on the four roads out of Iowa, with the bias of mine being on Road Number Four.

-- Voting in New Hampshire a week from tomorrow, more spin for a couple of weeks, and then Nevada and South Carolina close out February.

After Charleston

-- As Jon Stewart painfully pointed out: "We won't do jackshit."  He's correct.  For Obama's part, he seems to be tired of talking about the rampant and senseless mass shootings in this country, but he's not offering to actually do anything about it.  "Calling upon Congress to enact gun legislation" is limp and toothless.  His has been a bullied pulpit in more ways than the fourteen times he's had to speak about gun violence during his 6-and-one-half years in office.

-- Remember that time John Roberts said there was not enough racism in the South to need the Voting Rights Act any longer?  Yeah, tens of thousands of gun deaths every year across America and and one, sometimes two cases of voter fraud.  Which one do we need more laws to protect us from?  Particularly in the South, where the GOP is losing elections so badly.  Or maybe New Jersey.

-- The gun nuts are already after the 'gun-free' zones of South Carolina's churches.

The report that knocks down this asinine 'good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun' horseshit was recently in the news.

According to the study, gun owners committed 259 justifiable homicides compared to 8,342 criminal homicides in 2012, the most recent year data was available.

That means gun owners are 32 times more likely to kill someone without cause than to act in self-defense, the study reasoned.

“We hope legislators in every state will stop believing the self-defense myth and look at the facts,” says Julia Wyman, executive director of States United to Prevent Gun Violence. “Guns do not make our families or communities safer.”

-- The Confederate flag, which flies over the South Carolina capital of Columbia, will not be lowered to half-staff like the others flying there.  Because it can't be -- it's fixed to the top of the pole -- and because it takes a vote of the legislature to lower it.  So despite the murder of one of its members, that flag is flying higher over the statehouse than the US flag today.  And that really says everything you need to know about the South.

-- Republicans are either demagoguing the issue or avoiding it altogether.  It's not about race, it's not about guns, it's not about thugs or even domestic terrorists when they're white; it's about an attack on faith.  It was religious persecution that occurred inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.  Stay classy, you God-fearing assholes.

-- While all that happened, the US House quickly and quietly passed the fast track trade authorization bill that was defeated just last week.  Last month the Senate did precisely the same thing.

Twenty-eight House Democrats pushed it over the finish line in a 218-208 vote.  Here are their names; they include Texans Rubén Hinojosa, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Henry Cuellar, and Beto O'Rourke.  Also DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Another 46 Democrats also voted to repeal a key portion of Obamacare yesterday.

Now do we understand why we can't have nice things in this wonderful country when so many of the alleged left party are actually right-wing?

A few predictions for tomorrow

I've previously forecast that March 1 -- and then March 15 -- would be the day of reckoning for Bernie Sanders and his erstwhile presidential campaign.  I have to extend the deadline further out for that because he continues to rise in the polling, even as Hillary Clinton keeps shooting herself in the foot, the one which also happens to be in her mouth.

New Public Policy Polling surveys of the 5 states that will vote on Tuesday find that the Democratic contests in Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio are all toss ups, while Hillary Clinton maintains a significant advantage in Florida and North Carolina. [...] 

Clinton leads Bernie Sanders just 46/41 in Ohio and 48/45 in Illinois, while narrowly trailing Sanders in Missouri 47/46. Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri are all open primary states and Sanders is benefiting from significant support from independent voters and a small swath of Republicans planning to vote in each state, putting him in position to potentially pull an upset sweep of the region on Tuesday night ...

The race is going to go on for some time; more debates and town hall fora should ultimately be on tap despite resistance from the buffoonish Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the primary schedule is somewhat lighter ahead, with more states moving to 'winner take all' upping the ante.

And the polling could be askew, as it was in Michigan.

Here's what we know: down by 37 in Illinois just five days ago, Sanders is now up by two according to CBS News; down by 30 in Ohio five days ago, Sanders is now down by only single digits; the only polling in Missouri has Sanders in a statistical dead heat with Clinton, per the poll's margin of error; and while the polling in Florida at first blush seems less favorable -- Sanders has "only" cut 17 points off Clinton's 45-point lead in the last 48 hours, according to CBS News -- the Sanders campaign reports its internal polling shows a race in the high single-digits, and given that this internal data turned out to be correct in Michigan, it seems we should all be paying it some mind.

Go read more there as Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook is already sounding the "we're losing!" alarm bells.  Time -- as in tomorrow evening -- will tell, but it looks as if Bernie is going to make it a race for awhile longer.  How much longer?  Won't hazard another guess.

For the Republicans, the outcome seems more certain.

Billionaire Donald Trump has slightly increased his overwhelming lead in Florida to 24 percentage points, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) looks set for a crushing defeat in his home state, according to a Quinnipiac poll released (today).

Everyone say "goodnight, little Marco".  More looking-ahead from Non-Prophet News.

The expectation is that Rubio will drop out after he loses in Florida. If Kasich is able to pull (the upset) off in Ohio, then he will likely stay in the race for the foreseeable future. That's a problem for Ted Cruz less because Kasich will be taking stealing his delegates, but because he will be stealing his media coverage. Kasich is the only one left who hasn't gotten any time in the limelight, and Rubio dropping out sets the perfect stage for everyone to start talking about Kasich and not talking about a two-person race. 

After these states cast their ballots, the calendar cools down until April 26; until then, only four states (Arizona, Utah, Wisconsin, and New York) will vote. That's a long time for a great deal of speculation about the race to occur and conspiracies theories to spread. What happens on Tuesday will go a long way towards setting the narrative of what happens over the next month.

There is no reason to believe that Trump is going to be upset, blocked, or otherwise prevented from the GOP nomination.  Not today, not tomorrow, not at the convention, brokered or not.  There is some reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will.  Everything you'll read and hear after Tuesday night will be spin about the polls or the he said/she said bullshit.  Until we have more debates or more election results, take everything with a shaker of salt.

Revolutionary News Vol. 8: The Wisdom of Dads

Is your mind capable of holding competing thoughts simultaneously?  Here we go ...

-- Donald Trump does NOT have a path to victory in November.

To reach 270, Trump’s team is aiming to capture America’s Rust Belt — specifically, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin — where polls generally show him performing better than Mitt Romney did at this point in 2012. If he can capture Florida and keep North Carolina — the 2012 red state of the lightest hue — a strong showing that includes capture of the Rust Belt could, Trump’s team believes, put him over the top.

But the odds are long, veteran strategists said.

“It’s a fantasy. Romney got 19 percent of nonwhites. Is Trump going to do better? I don’t think so,” said Stuart Stevens, Romney’s 2012 campaign strategist. “It’s a joke. It’s just talking. It has no grounding in reality.”

-- Neither should anyone expect the entrenched insider Republicans to overthrow the will of their voters and install someone -- anyone -- else as the GOP nominee at their national convention in Cleveland next month.  There would be an actual revolution, complete with lots of shooting from many guns and real blood running in the streets if they tried.  Bernie Sanders does, in fact, have a greater chance of being the Democratic nominee than (fill in the blank with any name you like) has of being the Republican one.  And Bernie has essentially no chance at all.  Better chances of winning the Powerball.

Only a federal indictment can stop her now, and perhaps not even that.

That won't stop the Sandernistas from their #SeeYouInPhilly mission, and whatever they accomplish beyond a few platform positions that some will characterize as "transforming" the Democratic Party will be, in reality, negligible.  Their hearts are in the right place, I suppose, but they're using their heads to beat against the castle wall.  It will feel so good to them when they stop that.

The head of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on a pike comes about three months too late.

-- More evidence that they aren't getting on the Clinton bandwagon.

Hillary Clinton may be the presumptive Democratic nominee, but the fight to unify the party and its traditional allies in the wake of an unexpectedly long and contentious primary is poised to go on much longer.

The more than 3,000 Bernie Sanders supporters and progressive activists gathered here at the "People's Summit" have engaged in little open talk about Clinton, preferring instead to plot a path forward in the wake of the Vermont senator's defeat -- and questioning the motivations of the Democratic Party and the legitimacy of its nominating contest. 

"There is massive corruption in the machinery of the Democratic Party," said RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, the powwow's principal organizer, who had endorsed Sanders. "The only way that we can overcome that corruption and manipulation is for all of us not to work in isolation."

The People's Summit folks shut out Jill Stein and the Greens.  Everybody seems to want to start from scratch; I'm getting email now from the United Progressive Party. Their website is inoperable at this posting, but their logo should tell you everything you need to know.

The progressive left in the United States -- which has one foot inside the tent and one foot out -- has always been fractured and disorganized and ineffective as a result, and it may be even more so in 2016.  That would be unfortunate but not unexpected.

-- So Stein is going full-bore after the ruling duopoly.  Read all of this profile of her and her party; it's the best one yet.  Here's a snip about "safe states":

Sanders has drawn fire from Democrats for staying in the race despite lacking the delegates to win the nomination, but Stein may be even more politically brash than Bernie. Not only does she lack Sanders’ squeamishness about tipping the race to the Republicans, she is burying the tentative approach to presidential campaigning tried by 2004 Green candidate David Cobb. Following the 2000 election, when many blamed Nader for contributing to Democrat Al Gore’s defeat in Florida, Cobb pioneered a “safe-state” strategy—hunting only for votes in deep blue and deep red states, thus successfully protecting the Greens from the “spoiler” label. But he wasn’t successful in winning votes, garnering only 120,000 votes compared to Nader’s 2.9 million.

Stein defiantly told Politico Magazine she has a “No Safe State strategy,” because “there is no safe state under a Democratic or Republican future.” She’ll be stumping in Pennsylvania later this month.

--  Noam Chomsky has co-written a treatise about it; Counterpunch has counter-punched it. Bold emphasis below is mine.

[Chomsky and co-author John Halle] ... make an argument that by electing Clinton (i.e. by voting for her in swing states) this allows for the continuing growth of the left and reduces the amount of harm that will be caused over the next four years. I do not doubt their desire for radical change, nor do I doubt that they make these arguments because they find them morally justifiable in consideration of the consequences of our actions. Yet, it is dubious whether we can consider Clinton an LEV, just as much as it is dubious whether electing Clinton would enable the growth of the Left. I am not arguing from what they call a “politics of moral witness”, but argue in the same analytic vein that they have placed their brief. That is, is Clinton on topics such as climate change, trade, and militarism actually an LEV in comparison to Trump? Taking their criteria of consequences over rhetoric, there seems at best a “dimes worth of difference” on these topics.

Go ahead and try it on, see if it fits.

I'm an advocate of the "safe states" mission, but am swiftly moving in the direction of the "fuck 'em all" premise.  Some people say that's white privilege.  I say if someone wants to fix white privilege, then they need to go vote it out of office.  I won't be bothered one little bit by that.

-- The Texas Democratic convention this weekend past was, as I predicted, a joke.  These accounts of the steamrolling of Sanders delegates are essentially all you need to know about why there is a #SeeYouInPhilly movement.  But it was funny/not funny in pretty much every other way you can think of.  I'm glad John had a good time, though.

PUMA

Despite a "win" on the superdelegates thing ...

On Saturday, after a lengthy debate during the Democratic Party’s rules committee — as Occupy protesters marched outside — the Sanders and Clinton delegates agreed to create a “unity” commission. The commission will be charged with developing rules that would reduce the number of superdelegates by two-thirds. It will also give Sanders, Clinton and the Democratic National Committee each the responsibility of picking members for the commission.

“This is a tremendous victory for Senator Sanders’ fight to democratize the Democratic Party and reform the Democratic nominating process,” Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said in a statement. “We were pleased to work with the Clinton campaign to enact this historic commission.” 

 ... and DWS's head on a pike ...

“Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention,” she said. She also stated that she would still open and close the convention, and address the delegates, though that remains to be seen.

... the Sandernistas assembling in Philly continue to demand nothing less than their man as the party's nominee.  Let's splash some cold reality in their faces:

1. the 'unity commission' is not a win for Sanders;
2. Sanders is not going to be the nominee in any imaginable scenario;
3. Wasserman Schultz's falling on her sword does not resolve the inherent corruption exposed in the leaked emails of the DNC's management of this primary's debates, rules, the Sanders voters' disenfranchisement in states like Arizona, California, New York and Nevada, and other conduct revealing the organization to be exactly like -- and in some cases worse than -- the GOP.

Hundreds of thousands and perhaps a few million Democrats are threatening to exit the party following the convention as a result, a story yet to be reported in the corporate media.  Until the exodus starts to show up in the polling, however, it ain't really hap'nin.

Trump has shown no discernible convention bounce, although there should be a raft of polls Monday morning that may suggest otherwise.  I'll update here or in a new post, either way.

Update (Monday 7/25. 7 a.m.): Trump has a six-point lead over Clinton in CNN's post-RNC national horse race poll.  The Clinton sheep will be nervous.

The story to watch next week, however, is what the Berners do next.  Jim Hightower's opinion of what that is seems to missing something of the verde shade.

"I mean, have you seen the other guys?"

Shades of "We're not perfect, but they're nuts".

Dems are asking people to vote on a new sticker and I'm not sure anyone in history has been as bad at this. pic.twitter.com/isYaZV60Dp

— Mazel Tov Cocktail (@AdamSerwer) July 5, 2017

Again, gonna be as kind as I can about it.

Yes, national Democrats, I have seen the other guys. But being "not the other guys" isn't enough to wrest control of Washington away from them.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee became a bit of an internet laughingstock on Wednesday due to the circulation of some stickers with prospective 2018 midterm election slogans. One of them read "Democrats 2018: I mean, have you seen the other guys?" The "hey, we're not them!" message didn't go over super-well with plenty of pundits and tweeters, who noted that it packs a whole lot less punch and has a lot less loft than something like "Yes, we can."

Sure, it may have been only a silly sticker, not a party manifesto. But that someone over at DCCC headquarters felt secure enough to promote such a slogan publicly is also emblematic of a party that still hasn't figured out what it wants to be following a wholly unexpected loss to a reality television actor, after a campaign that was in large part premised on "hey, we're not that crazy Trump guy."

Plenty of others, mostly on Twitter, were meaner, so no need for me to pile on.  Oh, wait a minute ... yes there is.

(These pitiful slogans) are coming from the same organization that poured millions of dollars into Jon Ossoff’s failed congressional campaign and that has focused its recovery strategy on converting moderate Republicans. Since Barack Obama assumed office in 2009, the Democratic Party has lost nearly 1,100 seats in elected offices across the country to “the other guys.” Instead of stopping their losing streak with meaningful policies that would risk alienating their donors -- such as single-payer health care -- Democrats have obsessed about Donald Trump’s connection to Russia.

These slogans epitomize the current state of Democratic Party. None of the slogans address important issues or convey moral conviction. Rather, they expect their support base to “vote blue no matter who.” Democrats market themselves as better than Republicans, but they fail to address issues important to voters.

Right now, Democrats are the losing party, and leadership makes it increasingly more embarrassing to be affiliated with the party. It’s not a coincidence that Sen. Bernie Sanders -- an independent who won’t tarnish his name by affiliating with the party -- is the most popular politician in the country.  Americans (including Democratic Congressional candidates in red states like Texas) are increasingly identifying as independent, a symptom of their disenfranchisement from both political parties. Democrats fail to realize that trying to capitalize on hatred of the Republican party only creates more apathy. So far, Democrats have failed to develop a vision that resonates with voters and to sever ties with their corporate donors or widely unpopular leaders. Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Tom Perez and Hillary Clinton -- all widely disliked -- are the current party spokespersons. All these aspects combined ensure Democrats will continue losing until they drastically change course.

Ouch.  A less harsh take on the state of play, from the US News link at the top.

As befits a national party that is a bit lost in the wilderness, Democrats are being pulled in several different directions at the moment: There's the so-called Sanders-Warren wing, so named because of Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who espouse an unapologetically progressive vision. There's the tech-bro wing attempting to use Silicon Valley-style thinking to "hack" the party for the internet age. And then there's the rump of Blue Dogs and mealy-mouthed centrists who believe that triangulating and being OK with bigotry is the only way to win back those disaffected white, working-class voters so famously wooed by now-President Donald Trump.

And a sunnier point of view from McClatchy, via Raw Story.

A trio of new political action committees — the People's House Project, Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats — are looking for ways to support candidates with economically progressive platforms and to challenge the party establishment, especially in Rust Belt states where President Donald Trump saw much unexpected success last November.

The activists aren't daunted by the odds.

"Democrats should be able to win in all these places," said Krystal Ball, founder of the People's House Project, which has endorsed its first candidate, Randy Bryce, an iron worker with an attention-getting advertising shtick who is running for House Speaker Paul Ryan's seat in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District.

And in Appalachia.

They've already begun gathering candidates, and they're not just going after Republicans.

Frustrated with increased poverty and poor working conditions in her home state of West Virginia, environmental activist Paula Jean Swearengin launched a campaign with the help of Brand New Congress to challenge centrist Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in 2018.

"It's a disgrace as a coal miner's daughter that I have to beg for clean water and clean air for my children," she said. "He challenged us to primary him, so shame on Joe Manchin that a single mom of four is going after his seat."

Since launching her campaign in early May, Swearengin said she has raised $81,000 through small donations from more than 5,000 people.

While she said it's unlikely she could raise more donations than Manchin, who has the financial backing of the coal industry, Swearengin believes her progressive messaging could resonate with discouraged West Virginians.

Sanders won 51 percent of West Virginia's Democrats in last year's primary, easily defeating runner-up Hillary Clinton, who eight years before handily defeated then-Sen. Barack Obama in the state's Democratic primary.

In Texas, we have Libertarians who voted in the GOP primary in 2016 (read the comments) running as Democrats in places like TX-31 against incumbent John Carter.  Some people believe this is the only kind of Democrat that can get elected in Republican districts.  James Cargas, the CD-7 Democrat who supports fracking and still does not live in the district, has sold that line three consecutive times with no luck.  Annnnd he's back for a fourth go.

There remain plenty of twists and turns before November of 2018, but Democrats have a lot of work to do, and despite Charles' optimism about the locals, their compasses still aren't all pointing true north just yet.

2016 Brainiacs: The Democrats

I sort of telegraphed it, yes?

The cartoonists really get what the Hillbots still don't.  Beginning early in this presidential cycle -- actually in the summer of 2015, when I made my most accurate prediction -- the establishment Donkeys stubbornly refused self-examination of their move to crown Hillary Clinton, beginning in the early primaries and debates.  Democrats laughed and mocked the GOP as the Pachyderms' bizarre primary slowly produced Donald Trump as nominee.  Even as DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was finally forced out, resigning ahead of the party's convention after hacked emails revealed the committee had indeed been favoring Hillary over Bernie Sanders, they refused to think in any terms except their own inevitability.  DWS moved right over to honorary chair of the Clinton campaign, and her successor, Donna Brazile, was later revealed to have shared town hall questions with her pals inside the camp.

They also denigrated Sandernistas for saying the primary was "rigged".  This would come back to haunt them in November with their festering Russian obsession, a derangement syndrome showing no sign of playing itself out until late January at the earliest.  And maybe longer than that ...

Besides being a lousy establishment candidate running in a 'change' election cycle, the presumptive Madam President made unforced errors: failing to hold a press conference for more than nine months, attending an Adele concert two weeks before the election, but never managing to visit Wisconsin even once.  She made a severe miscalculation late, demanding SEIU activists stay in Iowa and not go to Michigan, a state she lost twice, the first time in a foreboding upset -- a polling one -- to Sanders.  This might have been the loudest alarm bell they never heard.

But if any external factor could be blamed for her defeat, it would have to be FBI director James Comey, who first cleared Clinton in the summer following a probe into her use of a private email server, then -- 11 days before the election -- wrote a letter to Congress that he had new information that led him to revisit that decision.  The "new information" was DNC emails on the personal computer of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, the now ex-husband of Hillary's closest advisor, Huma Abedin.  Two days before voters went to the polls, Comey re-cleared Clinton.

Nate Silver said on the same day, November 6, that this cost Clinton 2-4 percentage points in the national polling, and since the aggregate of polls were in error by a similar margin, he evaluated in December that the Comey letter had the greatest effect on the presidential race.  Indeed, late-deciding voters in swing states broke heavily for Trump (here's your fake news on that) and in one of the more stunning reveals in post-2016 election analysis, more Republicans stayed true to their man than Democrats did their woman.  There was simply a vast overestimate of her popularity among voters -- perhaps also described as overstating the unpopularity of Trump -- and it was most clearly seen in the electoral crumbling of the Great Lakes states presumed to be her firewall: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.  Her popular vote victory of nearly three million votes over Trump exposed the superfluous waste of concentrated support in states like New York and California, and even urban cities and counties in blood-red states (like Houston and Harris County, which she carried by 12 percentage points).

Here's the lesson, repeated: nationally surveyed two-horse race polls do not pick presidents, and neither does the sum of all votes across the country.  Clinton and her supporters acted both arrogant and lackadaisical about her electoral strength due to the faulty polling, and continue to trumpet the popular vote after it as an excuse to refuse to accept reality.  As long as they remain stuck in this position, they won't be able to organize for 2018, a year with even greater electoral warning flags.

Against this backdrop, the DNC moves toward electing a new chair, which looks like a repeat of the primary battle: likely either US Rep. Keith Ellison, an African American Muslim and Sanders acolyte, or Obama's labor secretary Tomas Perez, the Clinton (or is it Obama?) faction's choice who was exposed in the hacked/leaked emails as a man willing to play the race card against Sanders in the primary.  The schism shows no sign of healing.  Update: The latest on Perez's shortcomings, essentially the same as Clinton's.

Beyond that course, the strategy for the neoliberals seems to be to TeaBag Trump right out of the gate, as the Tea Pees did to Obama in 2009.  That didn't work out so well for the Baggers in 2012, so they went harder right, morphing into the alt-right white nationalists who propelled Trump to victory in the boondocks ... and thus the nation.

The Sanders Democrats, for their part, responsibly declined to jump ship after his defeat and ongoing disrespect, as the vote tallies for the minor party candidates revealed.  There was much less leakage of votes away from Clinton than there was perceived there would be (although the polls got the numbers for the third parties mostly correct).  When the Greens' Jill Stein established a fund to pay for election recounts in the Midwestern states, it was primarily Democrats who opened their wallets and forked over millions of dollars for a last-ditch hope of changing the outcome.  The system batted away that challenge like a badminton shuttlecock.

So Sanders, via Ellison, tries again to take over a broken Democratic machine that relies on the Republican model in terms of money and corporate support, but without the ability to either fight in the trenches or appeal to the working class voters who were their base for decades.  And when they lose, they'll stay loyal, attempting to overhaul a calcified political party from within instead of moving a little to the left and doing something different.  The definition of insanity, part 937.

But an olive branch in this scathing rebuke is extended to congratulate the Harris County Democrats, who succeeded where virtually all other Democratic parties across the country failed in 2016: switch Republican voters over, turn out the vote among Latin@s, and otherwise grind out a big win in a formerly purple, 50-50 county.  They did what the national organization couldn't, and maybe they have some wisdom to share going forward.  Who they pick to replace Lane Lewis as county chair will make a lot of difference as to whether they can sustain the gains in 2018 and, in the big picture, help eject the Cheeto Tweeter from the Oval Office in 2020.

Democracy is counting on a knee-capped, divided, somewhat bitter and mostly clueless bunch of elitist Democrats who favored a strong defense and big banks at the expense of working men and women, and nobody ought to hold their breath waiting for them to figure out how to win in two years.  Four years from now ought to be easier, but that's an eon away in political terms.

I'm going to continue to help organize something outside this shell of an allegedly liberal political party, but kudos to those who still think there's a rebellion to win within it.  Those folks will eventually be allies to those of us outside the castle walls, and how long it takes for them to come to their senses is the only remaining question.

Update: Down with Tyranny has a harsher evaluation.

The local Democrats' chairmanship squabble

Not even an anthill -- much less a molehill -- in the grand scheme, but worthy of some brief commentary.  Stace has already weighed in; let's begin here by republishing the full letter from the challenger and the leader of the Gang That Couldn't Get Signatures Straight.

Last week I wrote to all of you announcing that I had filed for a place on the ballot to run for Chair of the Harris County Democratic Party.

I was informed late Friday and again via official letter over the weekend by the chairman of the party Lane Lewis (my opponent) that my petition signatures were invalid and that I had failed to make it onto the ballot for the primary election this March. With my name not on the ballot and the deadline passed, I will not be running for party chair.

Even as I accept the decision, I was very disappointed to receive this news. The signature process is a precise one and requires 48 legible signatures from current precinct chairs. It also requires that none of these chairs sign more than one petition for a single race, yet some had forgotten they had signed Lane Lewis' petition during the summer.

Here in Harris County, our democracy has been dealt a setback. The process to challenge a sitting party chair is convoluted and flawed, and the number of signatures I received displayed a level of anxiety with our party leadership that needs to be addressed immediately. My challenge of Lane Lewis's chairmanship was never personal, but it was meant to send a strong message that change is needed in order for our party to start growing again and winning big.

That message has been sent.

I look forward to remaining a leader in our party and working with all of you to elect Democrats up and down the ballot, promote diversity, fight for equality, and move our city forward.

Thank you, Happy Holidays to you and your family!

-Philippe Nassif

In the bold emphasis above (which is mine), "legible" is not the word used in the election code but "eligible".  Perhaps this is just an unfortunate typo or autocorrect error, but it tells a story about the competence of the very abbreviated campaign Nassif was running.  Also take note in the third paragraph that the description of the process of gaining ballot access for the county chairmanship is described as "precise", and in the very next graf "convoluted and flawed".

It can be both of those things at the same time, which I believe was the author's intent to convey.  But he communicated it poorly: the rules is still the rules, and if you don't like 'em, you need to follow 'em at least long enough to get elected and change 'em.  Don't blame the rules if you can't abide by 'em.  Herein lies the more nuanced dilemma: if precinct chairs can't remember whether they signed a ballot petition for your opponent before they signed yours... whose fault is that?  But more to the problem-solving point: if you're savvy enough to anticipate a potential shortfall, what is your strategy to overcome it?  Anyone who has gathered ballot petition signatures -- which is to say, every single judicial candidate who has run for office in the last several years -- could tell you, and probably at no fee.

Was there an attorney versed in election law on Nassif's campaign?  If there was, did that person give good counsel to the candidate and his team?  Did the campaign not only understand but heed that advice in this regard?  We know the failure was in execution but only Nassif and his Gang of Three (or Four) know the answers to the rest.

I am not a lawyer, as everyone knows, but I did stay at a nationally branded hotel chain recently.  Not last night.  Anyway, best of luck to the rebel faction in 2018, and I hope everybody learned a lesson.  Insert that tired "if you strike at the king" parable here.  Comparing Lane Lewis to Debbie Wasserman Schultz is most assuredly the wrong tack, but when you lose in embarrassing fashion there's always a good excuse or two; just be sure to pick the right one.  I wonder if they would blame a member of the Green Party for their defeat if they could.

Had Nassif cleared the very low bar for ballot qualification, there's an analogy that shows up in Kuff's very cogent post about Adrian Garcia and his challenge to Gene Green: if you can't offer a sensible, demonstrable reason for changing out an incumbent, then the voters simply aren't going to make a change.  The attacks on Lewis were that his bid for Houston city council "caused (TeaBagging Republican) Mike Knox to be elected to AL 1", and he "abandoned his job as chairman" in the process.  The first part of that premise is a laughable fail; using this logic, Knox's election could just as easily be blamed on Tom McCasland, whose city council campaign was funded in large part by Amber and Steve Mostyn.  The second half of the premise simply fails on the evidence: nobody has worked harder to elect Democrats in Harris County than Lewis, with but one possible exception: Art Pronin, the president of the Meyerland Area Democratic club, who poured himself out on the streets and sidewalks of southwest Houston in the mayoral runoff.

As for Nassif, he still has a bright future in Democratic politics, but should be more cautious about who he falls in league with, generally exercising greater due diligence.  As a hint, any bright-eyed, bushy-tailed Young Turk wanting to get a job for Team Blue should look to the Mostyns, who are assimilating all aspects of Texas Democratic and Harris County Democratic politics, internal and external.  Just last week, the their 'longtime advisor', Jeff Rotkoff, was installed at the Texas AFL-CIO as campaigns director.  The power couple are currently hiring loyalists, like the fellow who recently moved from BGTX into the candidate recruitment directorship at the TDP, and the former Steve Costello campaign operative who has taken a high-ranking position at the HCDP, at three times the salary of the previous person in that slot.

Kindly note that GOP experience has no negative bearing on future Democratic leadership positions.  Especially when confronted by progressive Democrats, and especially in Texas, where there is a long history of what we call Blue Dogs today -- Allen Shivers, John Connally, Bob Bullock -- holding themselves out as the last of the Mohican moderate Republicans in the nation.