Yes, Trump is terrible (but the next Republican will be worse)

And speaking of shitty, why isn't Hillary beating Drumpf by a greater margin?  (That's a rhetorical question, most of us -- even Erick Erickson -- already know why.)

By any conventional standard, Donald Trump just blundered through the worst three days of any presidential candidate in living memory.

Showing a characteristic refusal to back down from a fight, Trump took the almost unthinkable step of publicly escalating a feud with the parents of fallen US solider, Capt. Humayun Khan, who blasted Trump at last week's Democratic convention as unfit for the presidency.

And in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin wouldn't make a military move into Ukraine -- even though Putin has already done that by seizing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

In any normal political campaign, these stumbles would hobble Trump's ability to pass the fabled commander in chief test, in which Americans take their measure of a candidate and decide whether he is fit to lead them.

But no one needs reminding that 2016 is not a conventional political year.

The Republican Party is NOT imploding, but they are having an existential crisis.  Let's admit it: this cycle wouldn't be much different if Ted Cruz was the nominee.  I agree with this guy's premise (but not his rationale -- "Free trade GOOD!"), who says that the GOP has to lose this year so that they can win in 2020.

There is a Simpsons episode where two aliens, Kang and Kodos, invade our planet and scheme to take charge by abducting and impersonating the two US presidential candidates.

They are discovered before polling day, but this does not prevent their triumph.  Kodos declares: “It’s true, we are aliens, but what are you going to do about it?  It’s a two party system; you have to vote for one of us”.  One plucky man says: “I believe I’ll vote for a third party candidate”.  But Kang responds witheringly: “Go ahead, throw your vote away!”

No, seriously.

The key dividing line in the United States (has) little to do with Republican vs. Democrat, rich vs. poor, or liberal vs. conservative. To explode these conventional oppositions, it would take a billionaire Republican populist, who had once been a solid Democrat and who offered a political program that mixed together liberal and conservative ideas, conspiracy theories and racial animus, but above all else exhortations [...] to rise up and retake the country. Indeed, the triumph of Trump in the Republican primaries -- based, in part, on his appeal to former white working-class Democrats and independents, his fierce attacks on mainstream Republicans, and his flouting of what passes for conventional wisdom about electability -- sent the pundits back to their think tanks to figure out what on earth was happening with American voters.

Trump was, they concluded, sui generis, a peculiar mutation of the American political system generated by the unholy coupling of reality television and the Tea Party revolt. But Trump is not, in fact, a sport of nature. He reflects trends taking place around the world. He is, in many ways, just a mouthpiece ... 

Trump won't be able to overcome his raging ego, narcissism, or lack of emotional maturity (Clinton was spot on when she said he can be baited with a Tweet), and that's before you consider his hideous bigotry and highly questionable business dealings.  He's quite the fraud, but he'll fail, and the GOP nominee next go-round will not make his rookie mistakes.

Cruz is taking copious notes, and Paul Ryan can surely put a shinier coat of lacquer on his own neo-fascism to fool enough people disgusted with Hillary's presidency four years from now.  And that dynamic will hold irrespective of how well the Greens and Libertarians can do in the next cycle, after what portends to be a banner year in 2016.

This cycle is unprecedented but reasonably predictable.  Twenty twenty?  Not so much.

Scattershooting more donkeys

-- Your Daily Jackass is John Cobarruvias of Bay Area Houston.  Previous jacks and jennets are here, here, and here.  John was a runaway winner based on his command -- he's reliving his days as an Aggie Cadet -- that can be countered simply enough with "No, we must not".

The difference between Clinton and Trump is the degree to which you would prefer a war-mongering corporatist who might be a sociopath versus an actual sociopath.  You know what they say about voting for a Democrat pretending to be a Republican running against an actual Republican: people go for the real thing every time.  It is, as most of us know, questionable as to whether Drumpf is an actual Republican, and that's causing an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance on the right.

If a Jackass of the 2016 Cycle is eventually awarded, John's got a strong lead on the rest of the herd (or drove, or pace).

Jackasses on deck : "Repeat after me", and "Why Berners should be good losers".

-- Amaju Baraka is Jill Stein's running mate.  If you have to ask, "who?" then you qualify for enlightenment.  Don't forget that fear is the path to the Dark Side.

-- More debunking of the anti-vax smear of Stein by the scummiest of Democrats.

I support preventative health care as a human right (including vaccines), now let's discuss why the DNC rejected universal health care.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) July 30, 2016

Time to Move On, Donks?

That's all I have time for.  Follow me on Twitter (@PDiddie) for Green convention updates, daily recaps in this space, and whatever winds up on the Texas Green Party Facebook page.

Debating Blue vs. Green with SCOTUS as backdrop

Ed. note: As this post was being composed, Jill Stein has selected human rights activist Ajamu Baraka to be her vice-presidential running mate.  More on that later.

I don't want to be harsh every single day for the next three months to all of these binary thinkers, but I need to point out how often they use the same threadbare logic.

-- Ben Jealous debated Jill Stein on Democracy Now (you may recall he was a Sanders supporter up to last week) and the tropes he employed were, in order, "Trump", "privilege", "George W. Bush in 2000", and "Greens need to start at the bottom", all of which have been debunked in these pages in recent days.

Jealous also referenced at the end a mashup of 'pie in the sky' and Nader.  ('Pie in the sky' is one of John Coby's old standbys; he's earned future Daily Jackass consideration with his 'pinch your nose because you must'.)

-- Robert Reich and Chris Hedges had the same faceoff in the same venue, and Reich went Trump, "Supreme Court", "wait until next cycle", and followed that with Hillary's own faux pas, which riffed off Ted Cruz at the RNC's 'vote your conscience'.

These debates would be very instructive for those who still have an open mind as to whether to vote for Clinton or Stein.  There are always going to be certain understandings -- biases -- that each person listens or reads with, so in that sense there are very few true undecideds.  The arguments against Stein, as Jealous and Reich demonstrate, are always rooted in the same handful of lame rebuttals.

Let's examine one that rarely gets scrutiny: the SCOTUS premise, beaten like a rug previously here but this time we take a look from a more nuanced perspective.  In 2000, Barbra Streisand hosted a gala fundraiser for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in Los Angeles and raised what at the time was reported as a record-breaking amount of money, $5.1 million.  I remember watching at least part of the event, though not live, perhaps on YouTube or as part of some other documentary some years later.  Tommy Lee Jones, Gore's old college roommate, did the introductions.  Streisand and several other prominent artists of the time performed, and Barbra gave a short speech, calling for Gore's election to "reform campaign finance regulations, strengthen gun control laws, improve education and healthcare, safeguard a woman's right to choose, and control homophobia".

Isn't it fascinating how little things change in our presidential politics?

Streisand's brief mention of the Supreme Court's importance in the 2000 election was direct and blunt (I can still see her holding up her fingers with a determined look on her face): "The first three reasons to vote for Al Gore are the Supreme Court... the Supreme Court... and the Supreme Court."  You can read the rest here.

At the beginning of this primary season about a year ago, I polled a handful of Democratic activists about their choice for nominee and why, and a couple of them, sadly, named 'Clinton, because of the Supreme Court'.  Leaving aside the question of picking a party nominee on this uncareful logic, it seems obvious even to your average Democrat fifth-grader that electing a Democrat and not a Republican because of the SCOTUS makes sense for the same reason that it does for a Republican to vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat.

Having cleared that up, let's return again to the year 2000 and Gore and W. Bush and the infamous circumstances that occurred in Florida that year.  The myth that Ralph Nader is to blame for the outcome has been thoroughly refuted, but let's look closer at the numbers laid out by Jim Hightower in the oft-cited Salon piece from November 27, 2000 -- a full two weeks before Gore actually quit, on December 12.  Bold emphasis is mine.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. 

If the Supreme Court was such a vital part of the message to Democrats to elect Gore, why did over 300,000 registered Florida Democrats vote for Bush instead?  Did they miss the memo?  Did they defy the exhortations of thousands of their fellow Democrats, from Barbra Streisand on down?  Were they just, as so many people have delighted in saying about Florida Democrats in 2000, stupid?

What about those 191K who self-identify as 'liberal" Democrats?  What in the world was going on inside those people's brains?

I've not been able to track down -- in a decade of searching -- a single solitary response from the Blame Nader crowd, or anybody else for that matter, as to why these folks cast a ballot for Bush and not Gore.  I know they've never been appropriately held to account for Gore's defeat, while Nader's 90,000 or so votes always are.  Which begs the next question: how is it that Nader's votes are assumed to belong to Democrats, when more than triple that number of Ds can run off the reservation and vote Republican without consequence?  Whatever conclusions we might draw, one thing seems certain: "SCOTUS" was obviously not an important enough reason for them to vote for their own party's nominee, no matter what Barbra Streisand said.

(Sidebar: "SCOTUS" is a tenuous argument also because so many Justices have not turned out to be the "slam dunks" John Sununu, to use one example, predicted David Souter would be.  Hillary Clinton will likely appoint judges whom she believes most closely resemble her own mushy middle, corporate-styled centrism: Merrick Garland, Sri Srinivasan, Amy Klobuchar.  We're more likely to see those political types grow more conservative than liberal as the years pass.)

I suspect to the chagrin of Hillary supporters everywhere that history may be repeating itself in 2016.  It might be that the old and tired arguments to vote for the moderate Democrat against the freak-right fascist might carry even less weight than they have in elections past.  Let's establish clearly that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for all of us, irrespective of our class and/or privilege.

But it is still not a good enough reason for progressive Democrats -- who have been bullied and defrauded from start to finish in the just-completed primary -- to abandon their principles, pinch their noses, and avert disaster on behalf of others.  If Clinton is to win the Sanders bloc, she's going to have to do so without the standard guilt and shaming.  She and her supporters are going to have to come up with some more intelligent reasons for people to vote for her.

I don't see it happening, but they have a few final shots at it.  If they want to take them, that is.

The Daily Jackasses: "Anti-science pandering"

Did you know there was a massive group of voters out there just waiting to have their concerns acknowledged by a political party?  Like the renowned Chupacabra, the existence of the formidable Anti-Science Caucus by a couple of Hillbots has been exposed.

Kris Banks and Allan Brain, fairly devoted Democrats in the fine Blue Dog/Houston tradition, have made certain that everyone is aware of this terrible development by interpreting the words of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's views as ... well, as the headline above indicates.

(These guys don't often make their FB posts public, and they may delete this one or block me eventually -- which is why I'll edit this post with screenshots if they do -- so go look and read while you can, and while their "friends" are chiming in.  Importance of full context and all that.)

Let's begin at the beginning.  Back in March, a Reddit began on this topic, and a rabid tome added there took off like Zika among the haters of the Green.  A couple of weeks ago, someone brought it to my attention and I responded in the comments of this post, reprinted below.

I read the Reddit; you are mistaken. She is NOT anti-vax. The WORST characterization you could imply is that she is "pro-choice" for parents about vaccinations (which might be a problem if there were only public schools in the nation).

1. All 50 states have a parental waiver of some kind, be it medical, religious, philosophical, or all three (like Texas). Forty-seven plus DC allow a religious exemption.

You want to argue egregious, start there.

2. This astronomer makes your case better than any I've read, for what it's worth (and is certainly closer to my own view). And schools have the right to ban students who haven't been vaccinated, particularly when there's an outbreak in their district, because of the legal liability they risk.

3. Anyway, Luddites mostly home-school these days -- when they can't afford to send their unvaccinated children to a private school, that is.

4. Stein is also an MD, which is to say that she knows more about these things than people who post to Reddit or comment on blogs or Google up someone's screed.

5. The bottom line is that you simply cannot force parents to vaccinate their children.

6. Because Stein is not strongly-enough-pro-vax for you is not the same thing as being anti-vax. That's the Brockolli part.

So the issue seemed resolved ... until David Brock and his compensated minions got busy with the propaganda catapult last week.  Then Snopes weighed in, first with "Unproven" and revised just yesterday with "False".  You'd think that would have settled the matter, but there's this thing about lies being repeated often enough, you know.

(If you wish to understand precisely what the issue and the problem is in Texas, Anna Dragsbaek at TribTalk has your explainer.  There may be some side-eye at Stein mashed up in there but unlike the Jackasses I'll not read too much into it; Dragsbaek makes the points that need to be made.)

That brings us to Wonkette, a late addition to this morning's other two Jackasses.  If you're Banks, Brain, some of their friends or any other Hillbot looking to justify your festering resentment at this cycle's surge of the third party candidates, there you go.

Where the whole pandering premise fails is at its foundation: there simply aren't enough people in the Anti-Vax Caucus to help Stein register so much as a blip higher in the polls, much less put her in the White House.  I shouldn't have to remind anybody that she's focusing on disillusioned Democrats, aka Berners, a much larger target.

There's no pandering because there's statistically nobody to pander to.  This is simply a sad attempt by Blue Dogs and Yellow Dogs looking to cast a smear in her direction.  Because that 3% or 5% of the popular vote, max, that Stein stands to collect is more than enough to aggravate the longest-running horror show orthodox Democrats torture themselves with: Hillary will be "Nader-ed" in a battleground state, just like Al Gore in Florida in 2000, the PTSD from which yesterday's poor Jackass still suffers.  And so they are compelled to lash out, like the man who comes home from work after a tongue-lashing from the boss and kicks his cat.

Whaddaya gon' do when grownups who claim to be the smarter of the two major party's voters are scared of monsters under their bed?  Shit, I'm so old I remember when Bill White was afraid that Barack Obama might endorse him in his bid for Texas governor in 2010.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Update: Socratic Gadfly distills it as well.  There are honest objections to hold if people want to do the depth of thinking about them.  None of today's Jackasses managed that; it wasn't their intention to do much thinking anyway.

Update II: And yet more nuance on this topic.  It's perfectly okay with me for people to disagree with a candidate's stand on an issue, but it is duplicitous to put words in her mouth and then condemn those words (i.e. strawman).

The Weekly Wrangle

Off the Kuff wrote about the latest voting rights lawsuit in the state of Texas.

"The Daily Jackass", a new series beginning at PDiddie's Brains and Eggs, spotlights the unhinged, unsubstantiated rants of hard-boiled Democrats who hold something hostile against Jill Stein and the Green Party.  The first Jackass featured is Chris Hooks at the Texas Observer.

SocraticGadfly, after defending Donald Trump from conspiratorial accusations of being a Manchurian Candidate, eventually fesses up to being a Manchurian Blogger.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme says kudos to McAllen for policing their police force. Power requires responsibility and accountability.

Neil at All People Have Value notes that the NFL keeps on lying about how football causes concussions at the youth football level. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

US Rep. Michael Burgess held a town hall meeting in Lewisville, reports the Texan-Journal.

Asian American Action Fund celebrates the election of Rep. Grace Meng to DNC vice-chair.

In the wake of the DNC convention, Christina Gleason at MOMocrats offers a primer on how to reach out to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters.

Texas Leftist was thrilled to see Broadway's brightest lights unite for Orlando at the DNC to sing "What the World Needs Now".

And in more music news, Dos Centavos posted about The Krayolas' two new tunes, “Piñata Trump” and “El Cucuy”.

Texas Vox writes about Austin's energy rate case and its environmental impacts.

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

These blogs are also keeping Texas great (no makeover necessary).

TFN Insider sees former SBOE's Cynthia Dunbar making a poor case for her company's seriously-flawed Mexican American studies textbook.

Ashton Woods at Strength in Numbers made a point about Greg Abbott's support of the Black Lives Matter movement by calling for a new law to make it a hate crime if a police officer is killed in the line of duty.

An intoxicated former Somervell County deputy discharged his weapon while shouting racial epithets inside an Ellis County church, notes the Salon.

Space City Weather lets us a breathe a sigh of relief as the first tropical disturbance of the hurricane season seems to be veering away from Texas.

The Fort Wort Star-Telegram, via Sayfie Review Texas, marks today as the first in Texas that concealed handguns are allowed on university campuses.

The Texas Tribune points out that as Texas Democrats left Philadelphia for home, they do so with very few electoral prospects.

Anna Dragsbaek objects to "conscientious" vaccine exemptions.

Brantley Hightower considers the evolution of Whataburger's architecture.

The Bloggess explains how Pokemon Go helps her with her anxiety and agoraphobia.

Eileen Smith makes a triumphant return to blogging.

Paradise In Hell is excited by recent archaeological finds at the Alamo.

And Pages of Victory isn't 'feeling the Johnson'.

#GNCinHOU readies for kickoff

Before we send up the profile of the two local Daily Jackasses today -- previewed at the end of yesterday's DJ -- here's some good news to report.  (Not for them, I suspect.)

Nina Turner, former Democratic state senator from Cleveland and high profile Bernie Sanders supporter, has confirmed that she’s received an offer from the Green Party to run for Vice President under Jill Stein. Turner said that she is still considering the offer to cleveland.com today in a telephone interview.

Both Stein and Turner have become rallying figures for Bernie Sanders supporters who have become disenchanted by the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign.

Turner was at the center of controversy last week when her previously scheduled speech nominating Bernie Sanders for President was cancelled by the Democratic National Convention at the last minute. A small rally protesting her treatment by the Democrats was held on Wednesday involving Hollywood actors Rosario Dawson, Susan Surandon, and Danny Glover. Some Sanders delegates at the DNC even pushed to nominate Turner for Vice President as an alternative to Senator Tim Kaine.

The Green Party holds its convention in Houston starting this Thursday, so Turner’s answer to the Stein campaign’s invitation is expected within the next few days.

Check the #ImWithNina hashtag for more background, or the new #RunNinaRun one for the latest, trending as this is posted.

Even if Turner takes a pass (which I kind of expect; it's very difficult to transition from Blue to Green in a matter of months), the media has been alerted, and the one thing that's still missing from this weekend's convention is some corporate teevee coverage, even in limited amount.  Like grinding out ballot access, it's hard work getting the talking heads to talk about something besides the 'he said/she said' BS.

These developments are making Shrillary Democrats nervous, and the very first 'Daily Jackass' has made travel plans to be in town this weekend.  Looking forward to welcoming you to the convention, Chris!  Are you one of the "anonymous" registrants on the media credentialing page?  We don't want you to have to pay the buck fifty to get in -- I know how tight the Observer's budget is -- so check with me at the registration table on Thursday morning if you have problems.

Perhaps we should all be aware that it's now legal to carry a concealed weapon on Texas university campuses as of today.  I'm certain it's just an unfortunate coincidence that it comes on the anniversary of one of the Lone Star State's most infamous gun violence legacies.

Half a century ago, a sniper perched on a University of Texas tower unleashed a killing spree that left 16 dead, and for the first time since then the school will hold an official memorial for an event that shocked the nation.

But overshadowing the anniversary of the Aug. 1, 1966 tower shooting is the start of a new law backed by Republican lawmakers to allow more guns in more places at public universities. 

The lawmakers say the "campus carry" law, which goes into effect August 1, could prevent another mass shooting, while many survivors of the university tower shooting half a century ago see it as a chillingly wrong-headed approach that could spark more killing. 

The campus carry law allows those over 21 with a concealed handgun permit to take guns into classrooms and several parts of the campus.

Probably a good idea to keep disruptions to a minimum, yes?

The Daily Jackass: Misandry Angie

There's a lot of bile in her two-parter, but this is the only segment worth excerpting.

You may remember that the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore came down to Florida, where each major candidate took about 48.5% of the vote, and third party candidate Ralph Nader took around 3%. The closeness of the race, the suspected election fraud in Tampa, the hanging chads in Miami, and a conservative Supreme Court gave the win to Bush. If the 3% of voters who chose Nader (including me) hadn’t, they must [sic] likely would have picked Gore, for the entire country.

Regrettably, what we have here is someone who feels personally responsible for having elected W president, when nothing could be further from the truth (as has been pointed out time and time again). Jim Hightower, writing two weeks before Gore finally threw in the towel on the recount.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. 

Angie, bless her heart.

You don’t have to vote for Jill Stein just because you’re unhappy with the current situation. Based on the mechanics of electoral college voting, Clinton or Trump will be president, and a split left in contested races can deliver all of a state’s votes into his hands. You don’t have to actively make the situation worse, as I did when I voted from ignorance of electoral in Florida in 2000. [sic]

At least Angie's not advancing the debunked smear of Stein being "anti-vaxx".  (That's already produced plenty of fresh Jackass O'Day prospects for me.)

On the chance that it's simply new to her, I will hope this long-standing, widely-dispersed, easily-available factual data about Nader and Gore and Bush and the 2000 election can console Angie's guilt, but after 16 years of self-flagellation I have doubts as to whether the best of professional counseling will enable her to forgive herself.

Some people you just can't reach.

Jackasses on deck: local Democratic activists Kris Banks and Allan Brain, displaying their "kick-the-cat" responses to the Stein/anti-vaxx smear.

Sunday Funnies

There are other choices ...

The Daily Jackass: Chris Hooks

The Texas Observer's political writer/Democratic gun-for-hire has been putting extra bitters in his cocktails while on duty in Philadelphia.

"Cranks", "dead-enders", "messianic" (in a description of Jill Stein and a hilarious comparison with Bob Bavakian) is nothing more than excessive spleen-venting from the most Green-hostile of Democrats sixty days ahead of the first scheduled presidential debate.

Dude.  I know it was hot and wet in the City of Brotherly Love (scroll down to 'Phooey, Philly') but maybe you should wait until the Greens start to actually register a little in the polling before you twist your knickers that tight.

Oh.  Well.  Maybe now is a good time to shit yourself.

With the counterpoint, Dr. Mark Jones of Rice University's Baker Institute has an exceptionally respectful, direct, and thorough advance of next week's presidential nominating convention here in H-Town.  Bold emphasis is mine.

Last week, national attention was focused on Cleveland and the Republican Party’s National Convention. This week, national attention is focused on Philadelphia, where the Democratic Party’s National Convention is being held. Houstonians should not feel entirely left out, however, since Houston will host the Green Party National Convention next week (August 4-7) at the University of Houston campus.

The main order of business at the Green Party Convention will be to nominate the party’s presidential candidate, Dr. Jill Stein. In doing so, the party will symbolically launch its national campaign, which includes not only Stein’s presidential bid but hundreds of other campaigns throughout the country for offices ranging from U.S. senator to state representative to county commissioner.

At present, Stein has formally qualified to appear on the ballot in 23 states (including the District of Columbia) and is expected to qualify in between 20 and 25 additional states before filing closes in early September. In addition to retaining the support of individuals who voted for her during the 2012 presidential election, Stein and her fellow Greens hope to capture the votes of Bernie Sanders’ supporters and others who want to cast a protest vote against Hillary Clinton, signal to the Democratic Party that it needs to move to the left, or who believe that the future of the country’s progressive movement does not lie within the Democratic Party but rather via the creation of robust alternatives to what they consider to be a two-party duopoly.

Stein’s prospects for victory are nonexistent. However, an improved performance by Stein would be positive for the Green Party in two principal ways. First, it would demonstrate the existence of popular support for the Green Party and its type of progressive agenda while simultaneously improving the party’s name recognition and brand among the general public.  Second, in a host of states, a good showing by Stein could represent the difference between guaranteed access to the ballot in 2018 and (in some cases) 2020 and either spending scarce resources on costly signature gathering campaigns to obtain ballot access or not being able to run candidates for public office.

Texas is one of the states where an improved Stein performance could be invaluable to the Green Party in regard to ballot access. In recent election cycles, Texas Democrats did not run a complete statewide slate of candidates, and the Green Party was able to maintain its ballot status by surpassing the required 5 percent vote threshold in the contests lacking a Democratic candidate. In 2016, however, Texas Democrats are fielding candidates for every statewide office, and unless a statewide Green Party candidate wins at least 5 percent of the vote in one of the eight statewide races, the party would need to undertake a very difficult ballot access campaign in 2018. To qualify for ballot access in two years, the Green Party of Texas would have to obtain 47,183 valid signatures in less than three months from registered voters who did not vote in the 2018 Democratic or Republican primaries. Since many signatures end up being invalidated, the Greens would need to gather close to a 100,000 signatures to safely cross this threshold and qualify for ballot access, a Herculean task for a party with very limited resources.

This year, in addition to Stein, the Green Party is fielding six candidates for statewide office in Texas (one for railroad commissioner, three for the Supreme Court and two for the Court of Criminal Appeals), almost 20 congressional candidates and around two dozen candidates for other offices ranging from state representative to sheriff to county commissioner. If Stein or one of her fellow Greens does not win at least 5 percent of the statewide vote on Nov. 8, this year could mark the last year for some time that Texas voters are provided with so many options to “vote Green.”

That covers every single base.  Nothing to quibble with and nothing to add.

Jackass on deck: Misandry Angie (who probably isn't capable of receiving whatever I blog as anything but 'mansplaining', but I'll offer it anyway).

Clinton sticks the landing (mostly)

If you've ever watched figure-skating compulsories ... well, that's what last night was like.

Hillary Clinton gave the most important speech of her political career Thursday and did not blow it.

The speech itself will not go down in history as great oratory; it was more like a talented figure skater working through required elements. There was at the top a plea for the restive Bernie Sanders supporters to join with her. She noted that the convention had approved a heavily Sanders-influenced platform and she promised that as president she would implement it. “Your cause is our cause,” she said.

It mostly worked. There was a bit of booing, but no major disruptions as she skated through the rest of her program: The promises to raise up working families; the repeated calls for the country to come together; the pledges that the rich must pay more and the poor must get paid more.

And then she turned her guns on Trump, which is guaranteed safe territory at a Democratic convention. Her take on her opponent could be summed up by her description of his acceptance speech last week: “He spoke for 70-odd minutes — and I do mean odd.”

Clinton’s speech was far more predictable but not quite as memorable. But she executed all her required moves and will likely be scored well by the judges.

Another POV from across the pond, same take.

Mrs Clinton, in an acceptance speech that occasionally soared and sometimes trudged along, did her best to frame the upcoming general election race in her favour.

Donald Trump had his shot last week in Cleveland. Now it was her turn.

And, like her Republican opponent, she did it by trying to paint herself as five different personas.

Leader, optimist, progressive, doer, ground-breaker (aka glass-ceiling shatterer).  Four out of five ain't bad.  Democrats collectively went from horrified a week ago to consoled and content.  What were y'all so scared of?

In the audience, Clinton supporters were moved to tears, including 16-year-old Victoria Sanchez.

"This is more than I ever could have imagined," she said. "I know that I have just lived history and I can follow in her footsteps. This changes my entire life."

I'm happy for all those who took the moment as historic -- as if constantly seeing and hearing the word during television coverage was ever going to let us forget it -- and let's not discount the value of the grassroots army she mobilized, from women to Latino to LGBTQ.

But back to the speech.  It was a real tour de force for those who crafted it; pitch-perfect in some spots.  Every box checked: direct appeals to the Sanders caucus, Trump's balls severely busted, no mention of her recent legal troubles or DWS (who has truly been a complete disaster).  The GOP butt-hurt was strong.

Many of the conservatives who watched with dismay as the Republican Party nominated Donald Trump have now watched with amazement as Democrats co-opted some of Republicans' favorite themes at the Democratic National Convention.

Democrats' thinking was clear: We're the only political party left for grown-ups, so we'd better make sure we have something to offer voters on both sides of the aisle.

American exceptionalism and greatness, shining city on hill, founding documents, etc--they're trying to take all our stuff

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) July 28, 2016

There was a clear choice about tone, especially on the last two days of the convention: Speakers would not mock conservatives for getting into bed with Donald Trump. They would mock Trump and make the case that conservatives should be embarrassed and ashamed that their party nominated him – and should look across the aisle at a party that shares more of their goals and values than they may have realized.

So the Democratic convention had retired military officers making the case for Hillary Clinton's steady hand as commander in chief, paeans to Ronald Reagan, and optimistic messages about the indispensability and exceptional nature of America.

Marco Rubio was specifically one who was shitting bricks.  My least favorite moment was the Screaming General, John Allen, and the "USA, USA" chanting and flag-waving.  Straight out of Republican central casting, and as bad as it sounds.  Even Clinton's own segue-way into bellicosity couldn't match it, perhaps by design.  I'll just give you the whole speech and let you decide.  (Skip to the two-minute mark if you'd rather not hear his introduction by Rep. Ted Lieu.)



And Little Marco was also one of the few who acknowledged the protests in the hall.  And the media had a lot to complain about.

With the exception of the disruptions mounted by the Bernie or Bust delegates, the Democrats’ convention ran pretty smoothly — inside the arena.

Outside the arena was a different story. Unlike Cleveland, the Philadelphia convention site is about 6 miles from downtown, where the bulk of delegates were sleeping and the bulk of parties and events were staged. That meant an enormous amount of vehicle traffic that created gridlock around the arena at peak hours. Making matters worse, the state police closed a lane on I-95 to enforce a ban on overweight trucks, creating massive backups for anyone coming in from outside the city.

Media were housed in giant tents that were steamy hot by midday and freezing cold when not in direct sun. Summer downpours pounded the cloth ceilings, making everything else inaudible, and when lightning approached, reporters were advised to run across an open parking lot in the rain to take shelter in a baseball stadium.

The broad consensus of attendees was we would rather be in Cleveland.

See you in Houston next week. folks.  Can't promise cooler weather, but the crowds will be thinner and we might even have a hurricane.

I'd say Madam Secretary is in for a yuuuge convention bounce, and this poll from swingy Pennsylvania showing her with a nine-point lead may or may not be an outlier.

Watch for a new series coming this weekend: the Daily Jackass.  It will feature somebody in the media ragging on Jill Stein or voting Green.  First up: Chris Hooks at the Texas Observer.

One (mostly) big happy family

I need not recap the speeches of the president and the vice-president, should I?  Everyone who checks in here on a regular basis watched or streamed or followed on social media or read the transcript, yes?  If you didn't then you can find those hot takes anywhere you look his morning.  I suppose I should write something anyway ...

-- Obama was, as D.L. Hughley said on Bill Maher's thirty-extra-minutes of Real Time immediately following the president last night, on his game; holding the audience carefully in his hands before releasing them like doves to go forth and fulfill their destinies.  The swooning was effusive everywhere; more than a few "four more years" and "third term" requests were shouted.

Alas, for those who are disquieted by the chicken or fish options this go-round, and seemingly unaware that there are other restaurants down the street serving steak and lobster -- and as Bernie Sanders and his disillusioned band know too well -- the farce of democracy offered by America's only sane major political party has rules that are unbreakable even for Obama.

Which is why Bernie changed his party registration back to independent this week.

-- Uncle Joe performed the role of Irish mauler from Scranton, now fighting out of Wilmington, DE.  The parodies are as good as the real thing.

If you look closely at the Photoshopped head above and the one that was on your teevee screen last night, it's obvious Vice President BFD has had some facial work done recently.  Good on the old boy, I say.  One more misstep by the nominee and he would be speaking tonight instead of last, a proposition many Democrats wouldn't seem to have been all that unhappy about.

-- The surprise of the evening was a display of bristling animosity by former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg toward Trump, which I surmise predates this year's events and likely involves their dealings when Bloomberg held office.  The mayor jumped off the GOP train a few years ago, started calling himself an indy, and is best remembered as a pro-gun safety, anti-Big Gulp administrator.  We could have almost forgotten that he pondered running for president himself when it appeared that the two major party nominees were going to be Trump and Sanders.

Bloomberg's attacks on the GOP nominee were harsh and personal.

The former mayor of New York's words on the third day of the Democratic National Convention - in which he unequivocally stated his support for Hillary Clinton -- prompted most cheers when he stated of her rival: "I know a con when I see one."

"Most of us who have created a business know that we're only as good as the way our employees, clients and partners view us. Most of us don't pretend that we're smart enough to make every decision by ourselves," he explained.

"And most of us who have our names on the door know we are only as good as our word. But not Donald Trump.

"Through his career, Donald Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies and thousands of lawsuits, and angry stockholders, and contractors who feel cheated and disillusioned, customers who feel they've been ripped off.

"Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy."

That is one vicious smackdown.

It was nice to see Gabby Giffords walk out, haltingly but without either an escort or a cane, and deliver a few remarks.  But the coming-out party for VP nominee Tim Kaine was what everybody was waiting for, and as the dad who might bake you a cheap frozen pizza if you came home late and drunk when you were sixteen, he didn't disappoint.

He did imitations of Trump ("Buhlieve me!"), he shadow-boxed, he riffed easily between Spanish and English, he was avuncular.  Not everyone was a fan, however.

Anti-TPP crowd keeps interrupting during Kaine's speech #DemsInPhilly pic.twitter.com/SS7J5twUtE

— Colleen Shalby (@CShalby) July 28, 2016

Once again, two completely different demonstrations of unity inside and outside.

Kaine's just as milquetoast as his preceding reputation, but two scoops of plain vanilla with some plutocracy sprinkles seems to be what the blue masses want to lick this time.

Day Four is Coronation Day, and we'll see if Clinton can raise her rhetoric to the level of the Obamas or even her husband's.  Those are tough acts to follow, but if she faceplants, I doubt anybody in the hall will even notice.

They are blissfully ignorant to anything negative that presents itself in rebuttal to their Queen.  The one consistent thing about the Hillbots throughout the past year is that they simply do not care about her foibles.  And against a gaffe machine like Trump, that ought to be just enough for her to be able to slide into the White House.

Dems can't even get their convention bounce before fear takes hold

Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.

The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.

Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.

"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.

Admiral Stavridis, you may recall, was a finalist -- maybe more like semifinalist -- in the Clinton veepstakes.   Talk about bitter.

The cybersecurity firm hired by the Democratic National Committee to investigate the hacks says that two Russian security agencies had been accessing DNC servers and internal files for months, with at least one of them infiltrating the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other key U.S. agencies.

Russian hackers also accessed the private email accounts of some Clinton campaign staffers, and attacked and may have accessed internal files and email servers of the Clinton Foundation. Security officials also believe hackers accessed the private server Clinton used while Secretary of State. 

Isn't it a shame that these damaging reports are just coming out now, after she's been freshly nominated.  Oh wait ... FBI Director Comey said she didn't intend to do anything wrong.  Damn that pesky mens rea.  I suppose this Donald Trump joke -- you may interpret that phrase both ways -- shouldn't be taken too seriously.

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 [Clinton] emails that are missing," Trump said at a press conference. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be nice."

Oh wait; it already is.

"This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent," senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement. "That's not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue." 

Maybe the DNI could stop giving Il Douche daily foreign policy briefings.  You know, before he mishandles classified information.  Or Clinton's team has a collective stroke.  Or something.

Honestly, I expected the general election campaign to approach unprecedented levels of absurdity, just not before the kids went back to school.  One thing is certain: the media talking shitheads won't be able to say that 'nobody pays attention to the election until Labor Day'.

But doesn't it seem a little early for Democrats to be gripped with panic?