The Weekly Wrangle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Rivard urges investment in mass transit in San Antonio.

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

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

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

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

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

The Rag Blog's Dave Zirin eulogizes Muhammad Ali.

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

Sunday Funnies

Unity, Democrat-style

-- This is how you do it, Democrats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No hope and change on the horizon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A, o, way to go, Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Transitioning to general election footing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP has used this ruse before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where to from here

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

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

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

He was reflective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agitation remains the order of my day.

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