A few things to watch for on Election Day

-- Which Democrat gets to take on Harris County Republican DA Devon Anderson in November: Lloyd "homosexuals and lesbians have hijacked the Democratic Party" Oliver, Kim Ogg, or Morris "George Soros' money" Overstreet?

-- Will it be Brandon Dudley for Harris County tax assessor/collector/voter registrar in the Democratic primary ... or Ann Harris Bennett?

-- Can Adrian Garcia pull off the upset in CD-29 against Gene Green?  If he can't, is it a walk or a close shave for the longtime incumbent?  If it's narrow, does Garcia (or some other Latin@) start licking their chops for 2018?

-- Are either Kevin Brady or Louie Gohmert seriously in danger of getting primaried out?

-- Which two of these four -- Randy Bates, Jerry Ford Jr., Jarvis Johnson, Kimberly Willis -- is moving to an April runoff to replace Sylvester Turner in the Texas House?  Is the disgraced Rep. Ron Reynolds going to be bumped off by Steve Brown or Angelique Bartholomew or Chris Henderson?  Will there be a runoff (probably)?  Who's going to make it?

-- Do San Antonio Democrats give the fighting progressive, Trey Martinez Fischer, or the Republican-leaning Democrat, Jose' Menendez, a full term in the Texas Senate?  Chris Hooks says the party needs both.  More on Texas legislative races across the state from the TexTrib.

-- My selections were offered at the start of early voting and can be found here.

-- With fourteen states, one territory, and Democrats Abroad caucusing or holding their presidential primaries tomorrow... is it curtains for Bernie Sanders, or does he fight on?

How will the GOP establishment feel about the election returns tomorrow night?

-- Will Ted Cruz win big enough in Texas to slow Trump's roll?  What's the over-under on his margin of victory?  Five points?  Six points?  Ten points?  That will be the spin.

Quoting myself, again ...

The bantamweight Rubio and the middleweight Cruz did an effective job of pummeling the Oompa Loompa-colored pinata hanging between them. Alternately screwing his face into a tight grimace and unleashing his regularly-scheduled torrent of insults, with a reeling Wolf Blitzer having lost control of the affair in the early rounds, Trump landed no counter-punches to speak of. 

But will it matter once we see the returns roll in Tuesday night?

Great minds ...

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is ready to rumble for November as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff examines Ken Paxton's latest appeal of his fraud charges.

Nonsequiteuse saw everyone else getting in on the open letter game, and figured hey, I can write an open letter, too!

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants to know what McAllen has to fear from their auditor?

Socratic Gadfly, using someone else's opinion piece, explained why this year -- as in previous elections this century -- he won't be "enabling" the Democratic Party in the presidential race.

The GOP debate in Houston made room for a lowly progressive blogger, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs was a first-hand witness to the culinary carnage.

Bay Area Houston and Texas Leftist also had news and views of the Republican debate at the U of H ahead of the event.

jobsanger graphs low Democratic voter turnout ... and blames it on Bernie Sanders.

Dos Centavos wonders if Texas Latinos are splitting between Hillary and Bernie.

Egberto Willies has the video of Ted Cruz accusing Donald Trump of mafia connections.

The Lewisville Texan Journal reports that the gas lease auction for Lake Lewisville may not be legal.

Neil at All People Have Value said that kindness, patience and empathy are forms of resistance in this society. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

Russ Tidwell figures that the presidential election and the 2021 redistricting effort will put an end to gridlock one way or another, Juanita Jean looks to the last contentious presidential primary for context on this year's, and Dan Solomon finds another example of Republican politicians getting slapped for using a song without permission for campaign purposes.

Trailblazers takes note of the single political group funded by one donor that has poured over a million dollars into Texas House races to oppose Speaker Joe Straus. And Texas Vox sees rideshare competitors Uber and Lyft throwing lots of money into Austin political contests.

Chris Hooks at the Texas Observer reviews the state Senate race in San Antonio between Trey Martinez Fischer and Jose' Menendez.

Grits for Breakfast details the data on arrests in Texas: most are for pot, and most of the charges get dismissed.

CultureMap Houston lists the hassle-free ways to get to the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo.

Lone Star Q is following the DISD sports transgender ban, which is being both lied about and ignored by officials there.

Better Texas Blog adds up the tax revenues that undocumented immigrants provide.

BOR points out that the cost of implementing campus carry are falling on students and their families.

The Texas Election Law Blog calls the Court of Criminal Appeals "soft on crime" for letting Rick Perry off the hook.

The Lunch Tray dissects the socioeconomics of picky eating.

Pages of Victory says, "Don't force it; get a bigger hammer".

The Alliance encourages voters to support Jessica Farrar in HD-148, especially in light of her opponent’s intentionally deceptive and hateful, anti-gay mailers.

I hate to say I told you so, but ...

... I told you so, last summer, before the Independence Day holiday and a couple of weeks before anybody had heard the words "Black Lives Matter".

So while neither her convincing victory nor the associated demographic splits surprise me, what has been demonstrated in South Carolina (and will likely be in Texas next Tuesday evening, and several other southern states) is that Democratic voters have made up their minds, and did so long ago.  Sanders' core message (some would incorrectly say his single issue) was even transferred onto Clinton in the Palmetto State.

Large crowds at rallies and marches are, alas, not the same as voting.

Clinton supporters on social media have toned down the gloating to some degree, but my humble O is that reconciliation between the winner and the loser's campaigns isn't going to happen to the extent that Team Hillary may be hoping.  Then again, maybe they're not hoping that at all.

When (a Sanders volunteer in SC) finally finds someone willing to talk to her about the presidential race, it's an elderly man named Joel. "I'll be honest with you, I already made my decision," he said. "I voted for Kasich last week, because I'm so anti-Trump." (South Carolina has an open primary system, meaning that voters can choose which of the two party's primaries to vote in.) 

A Democrat, Joel said that he has a "lot in common" with Sanders, and that as a younger man his political views were further to the left. He told (her) that he likes Clinton's foreign policy experience, but there's a "trust factor." "I agree!" (the Sanders vol) explained. 

After we bid farewell to Joel and get back into the Prius, I asked (her) if she'll support Clinton if she's the Democratic nominee. "Hell no," she said. "Even if Clinton is running against Trump?" I pressed. "No!" she repeats. "I'll vote for Jill Stein!"

Clinton is already bleeding progressive support, and further antagonism of that bloc by her network is not going to cauterize the wounds.  Neither will using a "SCOTUS" cudgel to beat them onto the bandwagon.  But since this "support" isn't translating to votes, is it possible that Clinton's crew thinks they can win without them?

Repeating myself:

While Bush v. Gore was still winding its way to a legal conclusion in 2000, Jim Hightower wrote that 308,000 registered Florida Democrats voted for George W. Bush in (and some people still blame Ralph Nader).  Those Sunshine State Blues -- 191,000 of whom were self-described "liberals" -- must not have gotten Barbra Streisand's memo that year.

Does repeating 2000's mistakes seem like the definition of insanity to you?  Because it does to me.

The only rationale I can get to is that Clinton's 2016 PUMAs think they can recruit enough GOP voters who can't stand Trump to make up for what they will lose from the left wing of the Democratic Party.  That seems like a very dangerous strategy.

While Sanders' fate was apparent to me eight months ago, the future for a Hillary versus Trump matchup is much less clear.  A Ted Cruz victory in Texas in two days -- perhaps by a lot -- shakes up the Etch a Sketch.  And Team Rubio is counting on that split between the dueling Demagogue Caucuses to continue, as he can make hay with the Not Trump and Not Cruz Republicans who think he's brilliant (really, that's what I have read them write), and by asserting that the Democrats are afraid to run against him (he's pushing this line in Houston teevee ads airing this morning).

Mitch McConnell thinks Trump is not only a sure thing but radioactive for the GOP, and if he is correct then a lot of money that would have otherwise gone to the presidential candidate will flow into Senate races, strengthening the hands of Republicans clinging to the majority in that body.

According to the New York Times, McConnell is assuring Senate candidates running for reelection that they should feel free to run ads against Trump if they feel he is hurting their own campaigns. According to senators attending private lunches with the Majority Leader, McConnell is taking the approach that Trump will lose badly in the general election and that senators should sell themselves as a bulwark against a Hillary Clinton presidency. 

Pointing out that he still won easily when President Bill Clinton was reelected, McConnell reportedly told colleagues that the party will drop Trump “like a hot rock” if he is the nominee. 

News of the party’s preemptive rejection of the potential nominee comes after a luncheon meeting attended by Republican governors and donors in Washington on Feb. 19 where political guru Karl Rove warned that Trump may be unstoppable for the GOP — and that his nomination could destroy other Republican candidate’s chances in November. 

According to people who attended a private presentation hosted by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch,  Trump’s record was deemed utterly unacceptable, causing high profile donors to hold back on donations out of fear it will be money that will be wasted.

So a worst-case scenario for Democrats is that turnout for their standard-bearer remains unenthused and flaccid.  Even in Harris County, usually reliably blue in presidential years, is seeing a 60-40 split R to D with early voting in the can.  That could translate into a Trump defeat of Clinton, a Republican Senate that still holds a bare majority after November, and a status quo, red rubberstamp House of Representatives.  And a whole lot of Clintonoids blaming Sandernistas for it.

If Clinton wins the presidency and the Democrats can capture the Senate, we will have circumstances not far removed from where they were in 2010, when Obama called the Congressional races a shellacking and the GOP first won the House and then gerrymandered their way into permanent control of it.  In 2012, when Democrats held on to the Senate but with a 55-45 majority, the Republicans filibustered everything, rewarding us with more hindrances to governing.  But that wasn't enough to get Democrats to vote in 2014, and we saw Shellacking, the Sequel in the wake of historically low midyear turnout, which allowed the GOP to take back the Senate ... producing even more unprecedented obstruction.

So as it always does, the answers turn on who and how many turn out to vote in 2016.  Will Democrats who supported Bernie cross over to Trump, fall in line for Clinton, vote for the actual progressive woman running for president, or do something dumb like stay home or write in Sanders?  Will Republicans nominate Trump and then vote for Hillary, as Houston council member Paul Kubosh claims he has heard?  Will turnout ratios at 2-1 for the GOP result in a downballot wave washing Team Blue out to sea?  And if that happens in a presidential year, how much worse can it get two years from now?

For somebody who's predicted things pretty well up to this point, I have to say that I don't have a clue about how 2016 is going to go.

Sunday Funnies

(Click it to bigot-- errr, I mean big it)

Union Leader publisher: Christie told me he would not endorse Trump

"So I sent a message off to Gov. Christie and he called me right back and I told him what I'd heard, and he said 'No, no, I would never do that,'" McQuaid recalled. "[Christie] told me to tell the other guy to 'take his head out of his ass' for saying he would support Trump."

Palmetto primary results tonight, more than just the W for Hillary

Hope you're going to the BBQ cookoff or doing something else fun on this glorious weather weekend, but for those of you who can't put down your politics, here's a few things to read ahead of tonight's election returns.

-- Bernie Sanders needs to slow Hillary Clinton's roll to the nomination, but the polling gives no positivity to that.  Ted has the truth (a rare thing, credit where it's due).

Clinton is widely expected to win -- and potentially win big -- in the Palmetto State. 

Her margin of victory, though, is the crucial number to watch in order to forecast what lies ahead on Super Tuesday, when 11 states vote -- turning what had been a state-by-state slog into a truly national contest. 

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia are all Southern states with large portions of African-American voters, just like South Carolina. That makes South Carolina a critical test of Clinton's strength in those places. 

Sanders is focusing his efforts on five Super Tuesday states where he stands a better chance of winning: Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Vermont.
If she wins in a blowout, Clinton can expect a big Super Tuesday. If she just ekes out a win, that would be more troubling for her campaign.

Four more things to watch for, from CNN: African American voter turnout, Slick Willie's redemption, Bernie's message, and the Big Mo.

The upshot of that is that expectations for Sanders are now low enough that if he even gets somewhat close to Clinton, the press will cover it as a surprisingly strong result for him. The polls show such a blowout that even, say, a 13-point win by Clinton might be viewed as good news for Sanders. And there's some logic to that — Democrats allot all their delegates proportionally rather than just to a state's winner. So it's not just about whether Sanders wins or loses, it's about how close the margin is. 

But if Sanders does lose in a landslide, that's not a great headline three days ahead of "Southern Super Tuesday" on March 1, when Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arkansas will all go to the polls (as will a few non-Southern states). So we'll see how he and Clinton do tonight.

The Salon of Somervell County has a brain dump on Sanders-Clinton developments from the week just passed.

-- Melissa Harris Perry is finished with MSNBC.  And I don't blame her.

In an unusually public flare-up, one of MSNBC’s television personalities clashed with the network on Friday in a dispute about airtime and editorial freedom and said she was refusing to host the show that bears her name this weekend. 

The host, Melissa Harris-Perry, wrote in an email to co-workers this week that her show had effectively been taken away from her and that she felt “worthless” in the eyes of NBC News executives, who are restructuring MSNBC. 

“Here is the reality: Our show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice — in the midst of an election season,” she wrote in the email, which became public on Friday. “After four years of building an audience, developing a brand and developing trust with our viewers, we were effectively and utterly silenced.”

She experienced a horrifying incident in Iowa earlier this year, as you may recall.  That may be impacting her decision, along with all these microaggressions from the suits at Comcast in rehashing MSNBC as "the place for politics".

The former liberal talk bastion has been silenced, shedding Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz and now MHP in recent years.  In their places, the rise of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski and the shilling for Trump has reduced my personal teevee news option down to CNN.

-- But it's allegedly not a systemic racial thing, like the Oscars or Flint.

Ava DuVernay, the critically acclaimed director of Selma, will be in Flint, Michigan this Sunday and will not be attending the Academy Awards. Instead she’ll joined in Flint by a group of artists to lend their voices to the #JUSTICEFORFLINT concert and event. DuVernay spoke to Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric on Yahoo News Live to talk about the event and the need to raise awareness around the water crisis in Flint. She also discussed the fact that it’s happening on the same night as an Oscar Sunday where, for a second year in a row, all 20 acting nominations went to white actors and actresses. 

... DuVernay said: “I guess I can see how people are making the connection, but we didn’t have anything to do that night. We were free. We are basically saying on this night, there are other things going on around issues of justice and dignity.” 

Ryan Coogler, director of the Academy Award-nominated film Creed, singer Janelle Monae, actor Jesse Williams, and comedian Hannibal Burress will also be joining DuVernay in Flint. On the purpose of the event, she said: “This is a trauma that has been going on there for several years now. We want to continue to shed a light and amplify the voices on the ground there in Flint. We are bringing in some of our friends, to come and perform for a night of empowerment and enlightenment and community-building and togetherness. It’s free for them, but we are asking people who watch on the live stream at revolt.tv.com to donate. Those funds will go to the people of Flint.” 

DuVernay agreed with director Michael Moore, who is from Flint and called the crisis a “racial crime.” DuVernay told Couric: “I think its environmental racism, absolutely. We wouldn’t have seen this problem if this was in a community with more voice.”

Nothing to add here.

-- "#NeverTrump trends worldwide in revolt against Donald Trump":

Donald Trump has won three straight election victories, secured a major endorsement from Chris Christie, and appears to be moving toward the Republican presidential nomination. But on Friday, thousands spoke out on Twitter, vowing to never vote for him. 

The #NeverTrump hashtag grew rapidly Friday evening, eliciting tweets from across the political spectrum to become the top trend on Twitter in the U.S. and one of the top trends worldwide.

Indeed, after I tweeted it to my 2000+ followers at 4:41 a.m today, I got reTweeted over four dozen times in half an hour, by far the most responses ever for my participation.  From Rubio lovers to Sandernistas, it was still Twitching uncontrollably as day broke.

Probably doesn't mean much.

Swiss cheese, fruit salad, and giant hot dogs

They weren't throwing these things.  There was some good verbal sparring by the two Cubans at the opera house at U of H last night, but the media was crowded into a converted gymnasium across Cullen, thus the prodigious boxing metaphors.

Seriously about the groceries, though.  A couple of times I thought someone had changed the channel and we were watching the Food Network.

The bantamweight Rubio and the middleweight Cruz did an effective job of pummeling the Oompa Loompa-colored pinata hanging between them.  Alternately screwing his face into a tight grimace and unleashing his regularly-scheduled torrent of insults, with a reeling Wolf Blitzer having lost control of the affair in the early rounds, Trump landed no counter-punches to speak of.

But will it matter once we see the returns roll in Tuesday night?

The tenth Republican presidential was a good show, as it always is with Donald Trump on the stage. 

But for the first time in this unprecedented primary election, Trump could have used a little more winning. He left the stage in Houston, Texas, having been pushed around for most of the night. 

Standing between the two U.S. senators who remain the only obstacle between him and the GOP nomination, Trump was under assault from both Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas for a large part of the two-hour spectacle. 

A little more than halfway through the raucous back-and-forth, Trump was clearly tiring, and angry at being under so much duress. When the radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt directed another question at Trump, the businessman and reality TV personality snapped at him in anger. 

“Every single question comes to me? I know I’m here for the ratings, but it’s a little bit ridiculous,” he complained. 

Rubio was relentless. He pushed, prodded, provoked and badgered Trump as no one else during the campaign has been able to do on a stage. Rubio, smiling much of the time, interrupted and talked over Trump rather than standing by and waiting for him to insult or belittle him. 

And Cruz followed up on many of Rubio’s attacks or criticisms.

That Trump-Rubio ticket might be in a little trouble after tonight. While Rubio did do the best punching up, Cruz got under his heavily-powdered skin by needling him about his tax returns.

After 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney trolled The Donald by saying that Trump won't release his tax returns because he has something to hide – which, remember, is exactly what Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid said about Romney four years ago – the other candidates took the baton and ran with it during the latest GOP debate Thursday night. 

For instance, Sen. Ted Cruz said, "He can release past year's tax returns. He can do it tomorrow. He doesn't want to do it, because presumably there's something in there."
Sen. Marco Rubio said, "Here's a guy that inherited $200 million. If he hadn't inherited $200 million, you know where Donald Trump would be right now? … Better release your tax returns so we can see how much money he made." 

And moderator Wolf Blitzer even got in on the act, starting a fracas by asking "Romney said either you're not as wealthy as you say you are, said maybe you haven't paid the kind of taxes we would expect you to pay, or you haven't been giving the money to veterans or disabled people. Are any of those accusations that he has leveled true?"

There were good scrapes on healthcare and immigration.  Former president of Mexico Vicente Fox's retort that he wasn't going to pay to build "no fucking wall" was the best.  But Rubio's best lines were used during the "if no Obamacare, then what?" exchange.  (It's too far along in the cycle to just say 'repeal and replace', after all.)

This all led up to the most punishing blow Rubio landed, again refusing to let Trump get away with a superficial answer on how he would reform the U.S. health care system. Casually but with a touch of disdain, Rubio pressed Trump on what his plan for health insurance reform would be, other than allowing customers to shop across state lines for a plan. 

“What is your plan, Mr. Trump?” Rubio said. “What is your plan on health care?” 

“You don’t know,” Trump replied. “The biggest problem —“ 

“What’s your plan?” Rubio asked again. 

“The biggest problem, I’ll have you know…” Trump said, before being interrupted once again. 

“What’s your plan?” Rubio said. 

Trump gave up, instead mocking Rubio for his near-catastrophic debate performance Feb. 6 in New Hampshire, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie badgered the Florida senator into repeating himself multiple times in a way that was subsequently mocked as robotic. 

But as Trump once again invoked purchasing health plans across state lines, Rubio used Christie’s tactic against him. 

“Now he’s repeating himself,” Rubio said. The audience cheered loudly and knowingly, acknowledging that Rubio was not only demonstrating a toughness that he had not shown under fire from Christie, but was using against Trump the accusation Christie used against him. 

Trump was flustered.

But the $64,000 question remains.

Hours before the debate, a Quinnipiac University poll sounded what could be a death knell for the hopes of party elders intent on blocking Trump's advance: it showed Trump handily winning in Florida, Rubio's home state. 

It found that 44 percent of Republicans there would vote for Trump, compared to 28 percent for Rubio. Cruz would place third with 12 percent, according to the February 21-24 survey of likely Republican primary voters. 

"If Rubio can't win in his home state, it is difficult to see how he can win elsewhere," said Peter Brown, the poll's assistant director. 

The March 15 Florida primary is among the juiciest prizes of the Republican nomination race because it is the first big battleground where the winning candidate scoops up all of the state's delegates. 

Some within the party still expect a long fight and cling to a scenario in which Trump, Rubio and Cruz stay in the race until the convention, with none gaining an absolute majority of delegates. In this case, after a first round, delegates would be released from their initial commitment and could vote for the candidate of their choice in a second round, thereby reshuffling the electoral deck.

If Cruz wins Texas next Tuesday by some significant percentage, and Rubio forges a comeback in the Sunshine State, it could happen.  I'm not betting -- today -- against PredictWise's percentages on it, though.

 Ben Carson begged someone to attack him and whined about not being asked enough questions again. Kasich may have moved into the understudy role for the vice-presidential nod, if he didn't ruin it by saying "we're not going to break up families".

Not a shitshow and not a food fight.  There was lots of laughing and ooo-ing at snappy remarks and chucking and giggling at double-entendres, like Apple's back door and the like.  The event was logistically executed without a flaw, the feed and swag compliments of Google memorable, but being in a room with maybe four or five hundred media types was a bit overwhelming at times for this reporter.  I can't listen to what's being said and Tweet it out as fast as the kids can, which is why I rely on the snark or others.  And the snark was a buffet all its own.

Now we wait for fresh polling and some election returns next week.

Update: Worthy reaction from Kevin Drum ...

Scorecard: I think Trump took some real hits tonight. He could start to lose a few points in the polls, especially if he spends the next week fending off questions about his tax returns and his $1 million fine and his health care plan. Rubio and Cruz both did well, but I give Rubio the edge. His attacks were a little sharper and the rest of his debate performance was a little better. Carson and Kasich were, of course, nonentities. Never has it been so obvious that no one cares about them anymore.

... and Newsweek ...

No one seems to go after Trump for not caring about the little guy. His opponents didn’t make enough of the old woman who lost her home to make way for a casino parking lot Trump was building in Atlantic City. But it quickly turned into a debate over eminent domain, not a woman at the end of her life. 

There’s plenty to use against Trump, namely the way he’s treated the help. The writer Mark Bowden once depicted him as a rich maniac screaming at his gardeners and handymen. As long as people see Trump as outrageous in service of America, they love him. If they see him as indifferent to or hostile towards the little guy, then he’s going to hurt. That’s a battle Hillary Clinton with her fighting-for-you message could win. 

Instead, Cruz and Rubio fumble soundbites. “The Palestinians aren’t a real estate deal,” Rubio kept repeating, even though it’s a malapropism. (I’m pretty sure the Czechs aren’t a real estate deal). And if Trump sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a kind of real estate deal, he’s no crazier than every president since 1967. But in their effort to try to portray him as a mogul in a keffiyeh, Cruz and Rubio stepped all over themselves without likely picking up a single vote in Boca Raton. 

Maybe a year from now when President Rubio is in his first 100 days, these criticisms will seem lame, fleeting. But I suspect it’s much more likely the first 100 days of the new administration will belong to a president from New York—Trump or Clinton.

... and the Chron's compilation of spinmeister takes.

Update II: Here's how it reads when I play it straight down the middle.