Is it too soon to gamble on 2020?

It is, but Ted and I are going to do so anyway.  (Scroll down to the comments.)

Terms of the wager are at the end of this post, and Ted will have to agree to them, so before we get there, let's set the stage here 29 months prior to the national decision, and perhaps two years or less before our bet is settled.

Ted's already in the tank for Joe "No Back Seat Progressive" Biden, on the basis of the poll Matthew Rozsa at Salon mentions in this spin piece for Bernie Sanders.  Ted blogged that poll; it shows Biden leading in early preferences for 2020 but I grew wearisome of looking for it to link here.  Rozsa -- an unreliable opiner IMO since he believes all of Jill Stein's votes belonged to Hillary Clinton in 2016 -- buried the Biden lede.

When asked on the C-SPAN program "Washington Journal" on Tuesday about whether voters would have another chance to cast their ballots for Sanders, (former Sanders presidential campaign manager Jeff) Weaver deflected the question but definitely didn't say no.

"Voters in Vermont certainly will, coming up in November," Weaver said. (Sanders is up for re-election to the Senate this year and is likely to face little or no serious opposition.) "Nationally, you know, he is considering another run for the presidency. When the time comes, I think we’ll have an answer to that, but right now, he’s still considering it."

The former campaign manager later told USA Today that what motivates him "is the desire to have a new president in the White House -- and a heavy consideration is, who is the best person to beat Trump in 2020.'"

He added, "Bernie is the person best positioned to defeat Trump in 2020. That's my personal view. He brings a lot of new voters into the process. He is also incredibly strong with independent voters."

Weaver's sense about Sanders' chances is certainly backed up by recent surveys on the 2020 election. A CNN poll from March found that 76 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents were very likely or somewhat likely to support Sanders if he ran in 2020, putting him close to the lead among Democratic prospects. He was surpassed only by former Vice President Joe Biden (84 percent) and followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (68 percent), Sen. Kamala Harris of California (53 percent), Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey (50 percent) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (47 percent).

Joe is just a tad younger than Bernie; either would be by far the oldest man ever elected president.  For perspective, Sanders would be 79 in 2020; Biden would turn 78 shortly after the election.  The current longevity record is held by Trump, who was 70 in 2016 (that's what a bad diet and no exercise looks like), and Ronald Reagan completed his second term in office at age 77.

Before we get to gender and race concerns -- will America elect another old white guy two years from now? -- let's note that Elizabeth Warren has emphatically rejected a bid for the White House in 2020.  Ted doesn't believe her, though.  I think Republicans would gleefully traduce her with the Pocahontas smear, something she is working to overcome.  But lies this malicious die hard; just ask Wendy Davis.  My HO is that Warren could be somebody's running mate in 2020, but likely not Sanders' or Biden's.  Too much white, too much New England.

As the wave of successes experienced by female Democrats in the 2018 midterm election cycle demonstrates, this is an extraordinary period for women in politics. In the wake of Hillary Clinton's agonizing defeat, many Democratic voters will be eager for a female candidate, which could make both Harris and Gillibrand major contenders. Both have worked to shed their more moderate images and have moved toward the party's progressive wing on a whole range of issues.

Harris checks all the identity politics boxes, but the progressive wing won't tolerate her law enforcement background nor her pandering to Clinton's funders.  Gillibrand could be the woman's choice, as her voice has been loudest w/r/t to the #MeToo caucus.  Both Al Franken and more recently Bill Clinton have felt her wrath.

This is your friendly reminder that the Clintons are toxic to Democrats' electoral fortunes in 2020.  If no one convinces them to take their retirement from politics, then a nominee connected to them is DOA.  You don't agree?  It's already happening in the midterms.  With nothing for the GOP to run on, all they have are the tried and true attacks.  The same holds for an Obama alumnus like Biden, Eric Holder, or Julian Castro.  The Obama presidency will be relitigated to a significant degree anyway by Trump's re-election campaign.  I see no point in giving them extra ammunition.  YMMV.

Since I've tipped longshots Holder and Castro ...

Finally, it is hardly unknown for a dark horse candidate to emerge in the final months before the primaries kick off, who winds up taking the field by surprise. There hasn't been a total shocker in American politics since perhaps Jimmy Carter's unexpected run for the Democratic nomination in 1976, but it's fair to say that relatively few voters had heard of Barack Obama in 2005 -- and for that matter, most Democratic Party insiders initially viewed Sanders' 2016 campaign as a harmless act of resistance. Indeed, the fact that the 2020 field appears so unsettled suggests that the situation is ripe for precisely such an unknown quantity.

That said, Sanders has one factor working for him that none of his prospective alternatives can claim. He has managed to marshal a loyal army of progressive activists who stand for principles of social and economic justice that had seemingly been abandoned by the Democratic Party since the Bill Clinton years. Many of Sanders' followers will support no one else -- unless and until he tells them too. That alone will make Sanders a formidable opponent for any and all Democrats who are considering taking him on.

Biden has serious, serious baggage with women and people of color.  Sanders has already been vetted in both regards (doubtful his old essay nor his association with Killer Mike and many others was good enough for the StillHerz, but that's a digression).  Democrats still soaking their hemorrhoids over Sanders and his 2016 run would be making a tremendous mistake in selecting the affable yet goofy and somewhat creepy (the author and source are right-wing freaky, but the article, links, and quotes speak for themselves) former vice president just to spite progressives.  Bernie also has the favor of millennials, aka the future of the Democratic Party ... if there is to be one.  A younger, female, person of color -- I'd be compelled to give front-runner status to Kamala Harris, misgivings referenced above to the side -- as his running mate should be enough to quiet the ageists in the chattering class, as well those horrified by the notion of a democratic socialist nominee.

Thus we get to the crux of my offer to Ted: Bernie Sanders, by the premises outlined above, has to be, needs to be, must be, and I contend will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020.  I think he's the only Democrat that can defeat Trump, and the evidence lies in places like West Virginia and the candidacy of Richard Ojeda, who supported Bernie in the primary but Trump in the general.  You may know a local blogger who did the same thing.  They were not outliers.

All else by the Dems is folly.  I think -- despite the fact they have let me down time and again with respect to their support for progressive candidates, most recently a couple of weeks ago -- that even Texas Democrats will come around to this conclusion.  Frankly, that's a much steeper trust incline for me than losing a handful of samolians to Ted on "not-Bernie".

(If you're capable of blaming everybody but yourself -- like nasty, ignorant Moni at Transgriot -- for Hillary Clinton losing those three Midwestern, union-heavy states, then you probably can't believe that Bernie Sanders would have won them.  Which would make you, like her, irredeemable.  This post is not for your, plural, consumption.)

I've given Ted the most favorable terms; Sanders will be the nominee.  He says, as you can read in the comments at the top, "NEVER".  That's pretty absolute; I would imagine he has reasons for feeling so certain about it.  But that certainty, combined with so many of the uncontrollable and unforeseeable variables at play this far out -- sort of like a bet on who wins the Super Bowl, except in this case the season after next -- means Ted will have to give me 20-1 odds on the $50 bucks I will send him by his method of choice; PayPal or Western Union or whatever, as soon as he tells me.

That would be a grand from you if I'm right and you're wrong, Ted.  Even the Houston Texans are 18-1 to win the Supe next January.  Those are terrific odds (and you can believe I'm already in on that).  Your Cowboys are 20-1, and those are probably lousy chances.

Naturally, if Sanders decides not to bid for the presidency next year, the deal is off.  A couple of other conditions you would need to accept ...

-- No cheating.  If the DNC -- to use one example -- is only so much as accused of the kind of dirty tricks they pulled in 2016 on the Sanders campaign, our wager is voided and Ted is to return my money immediately.

-- I consent to (what I consider to be) unfair groundrules, such as superdelegates not voting the will of their states, as part of the judgement left to the referees and umpires, so to speak.  Rules is rules; cheating is cheating.  We can hash out other scenarios that might nullify our bet as they arise if either of us chooses, at any time.

After Ted agrees ... does anybody else want to get in on this action?

"Wearisome"

The discussion of Democratic disharmony is, to some Texas Democrats.

Does not exist, to others.

All these folks know better.  This is a sales job, and a poor one.  They aren't missing the conversation that's happening essentially everywhere; they'd just rather pretend it's not happening for the sake of Blue morale.  Here's Cenk Uygur's take from yesterday's Bradcast for the latest (for those who choose to be informed, that is).

It's not that 'Democrats United', con job or no, is not newsworthy; it's more that it doesn't really matter here in Deep-In-The-Hearta.

Kuffner's 'sunny side' optimism might be a bit delusional in the wake of yesterday's Q poll.  Look at the sad reality of Ted Cruz's Latinx support (Zodiac Killer 46%, Bobo the NeoLiberal Clown 44):

That Hispanic stat should be evidence enough that the Texas Democratic Party remains the political equivalent of the Washington Generals. https://t.co/wad5KpshGU

— Evan 20XX (@evan7257) May 30, 2018

Bob's recent RGV swing doesn't appear to be paying any dividends.  RG Ratcliffe says it's all about the name recognition.  Translation?  O'Rourke is going to have to raise more money for statewide television and radio advertising, and IMHO he should be buying as much time as he can afford on Spanish-language networks.  The Houston ratings for Univision are a huge clue.

Texas Democrats are probably in worse shape than California Republicans, who have achieved third-party status in the Golden State by virtue of falling behind independents in declared registration.  In a remarkable Murphy's Law development, CA Dems who tried to squeeze the GOP completely out with "top two" jungle primaries may have screwed their pooch by running too many candidates, an error reminiscent of Harris County Democrats in Houston municipal races past (once upon a time when Houston held city council elections, mind you).

We'd know Lone Star Donks are already in third -- and have been there for years, maybe decades -- if Texas closed their primaries and made voters declare a party status.

And the abject failure and looming quadrennial midterm humiliation might be meaningful if there was another option for those of us who find this slate of Texas Democrats just too conservative, far too interested in chasing Republican not-Trump votes.  If Texas Greens could, you know, manage something.  Anything.

“We only got like 400 or 500 signatures out of the 50,000 that we need,” said Jan Richards, a Green Party of Texas candidate who’s running for governor.

She's running as a write-in now ... provided she gets certified.

There’s a last-ditch effort parties can utilize to get elected into office next year: filing a declaration of write-in candidacy with either the secretary of state’s office or with the county judge, depending on the offices sought.

The window to file declarations is from July 21 through Aug. 20, Taylor said. A representative from the Greens confirmed to The Texas Tribune that they plan to file the necessary paperwork to have at least one of their candidates eligible as a write-in this fall. Spokespeople from the Christian Party of Texas, None of the Above and the Texas Independent Party did not respond to request for comment.

“It’s really important to me that we offer an alternative solution to what’s already going to be on the ballot,” said Richards, the Green Party gubernatorial candidate. “I want to try to speak for people who might not already have a voice on the ballot.”

So take heart, Democrats!  That siphon hose will be about the girth of a coffee stirring straw in the autumn.  Who will you blame for getting blown out then?

This isn't the post I promised back here.  I'll be breaking down the statewide executive races based on who I can likely vote for in November as my lateral epicondylitis ("mouse elbow", not carpal tunnel; worse) eases.

The Memorial Day Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance respects the sacrifice of those who have died serving their country on this day, but in the words of 'Redacted Tonight' host Lee Camp, would prefer to ...

(A)ctually respect the lives of our troops and human life in general (by demanding) an end to wars launched on false pretenses. Stop giving war profiteers endless airtime to spout propaganda. Ask why our government always has money for war but never for our homeless veterans.

These seem like simple requests and easy things for an allegedly peace-seeking nation -- a nation that would have many fewer war dead to memorialize in the future -- to accomplish.

Here's the roundup.

It's been less than a week since Texas primary runoff elections decided our November ballot, and RG Ratcliffe at Texas Monthly details the heavy losses in Lege races that the arch-conservatives at Empower Texans suffered, while Chris Hooks at the Texas Observer takes stock of the Texas Democrats' chances in 2018.  (tl,dr: suboptimal.)

Jon Tilove at First Reading dives deep into the dynamics of the governor's race, with the answer to the question James Barragán at the DMN is asking -- which candidate Latin@s choose -- being based on 'no mercy' or 'no más'.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston profiles three of the Democrats he likes running in Houston's Clear Lake region, and David Collins analyzes the surprising margin of Lizzie Pannill Fletcher's win in CD-7, and cautions against possible false extrapolations from it.  The Lewisville Texan Journal live-posted election results for their area, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs publishes the poll from the Lina Hidalgo campaign showing her leading incumbent Harris County Judge Ed Emmett.

In two of the most sickening developments yet in the War on Immigrants, an unarmed woman was shot and killed in Rio Bravo, Texas by a border patrol agent; the incident was videotaped and uploaded to social media, and USCBP changed their story about it.  And with the news that HHS officials cannot account for the whereabouts of nearly 1500 immigrant children taken from their parents, placed in foster care, and are now missing, Somervell County Salon has a link to the Pew poll showing that those Americans who care the least about this are Christians.

Update: There is a problem with using the word 'lost' here; it might even be a good thing that these children cannot be located by the government:

Although there are concerns that some undocumented children are trafficked or abused, the ORR claims (paywall) that 85% of kids are placed in the custody of family members.

[...]

The story of the 1,500 missing children, Duffy notes, is being conflated with news that border patrol agents are increasingly splitting parents and kids who arrive in the US together, leading to extensive and traumatic separations. That’s a different issue: The “missing” kids showed up at the border alone. Confusing the two circumstances, and demanding an ORR crackdown, only jeopardizes the safety of the most vulnerable undocumented immigrants and could lead to more family separations, prosecutions by ICE, and deportations.

In the wake of the Santa Fe high school murders, Greg Abbott held three conferences, out of which came 22 suggestions for Texas high schools to prevent the shootings of our children and teachers in the future.  None of them were "common-sense gun safety legislation".  Relative to reducing the number of doors in public schools to cut down on the number of deaths, Harry Hamid has some suggestions on the education of Dan Patrick.

In another takedown of the failure of the War on Drugs, Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast points out that making people too scared to call 911 when someone they know overdoses is not going to prevent overdose deaths.

As hurricane season 2018 begins, the after-effects of Harvey linger.  Texas Standard reports that Fort Bend County commissioners will sue the Army Corp of Engineers over mistakes made in managing the water in that area's Baker reservoir that caused severe flooding.  And Texas Vox read the US Chemical Safety Board's analysis that indicated the Arkema plant in Crosby was fully aware of the dangers of flooding prior to the hurricane.

SocraticGadfly reviews Amy Chozick's "Chasing Hillary" and one-stars it for several reasons to save you the trouble.

Jeff Balke at the Houston Press explains why you're getting all those privacy policy updates in your inbox as well as website cookie notifications.

Jim Schutze at the Dallas Observer is bemused that the State Fair of Texas got billed over $1200 by their lawyers to read one of his columns.

Martha Mercado at The Rag Blog was there as the Poor People's Campaign came to Austin.

And Skip Hollandsworth tells us about Jeff Pike, Texas' own Tony Soprano.

Sunday Funnies

Hidalgo v. Emmett

Before I start ripping the skin off the Texas Democratic slate (thanks to Horwitz in the comments yesterday for helping me get warmed up, by the way), I'll say something nice about the locals, .i.e. Harris County executive races.  Dr. Diane Trautman (County Clerk), this blogger being a longtime fan, and Marilyn Burgess (District Clerk) both prevailed in Tuesday's runoff and should be able to do the same against hapless Republicans Stan Stanart and Chris Daniel in the fall.

One of those is more hapless than the other, as even Harris Republicans clearly understand.

If you’re wondering why #FireStanStanart trends every #ElectionDay, I have literally watched as Republican elected officials call the Harris Co. Clerk & chew him out about returns, and they’re in the same party. #tx2018

— Miya Shay (@miyashay) May 23, 2018

More on that race at a later date; from my inbox late yesterday came this press release and poll from the Hidalgo for Judge campaign that -- despite its D lean -- has to have surprised a few people.  Under the header "Hidalgo leads Emmett 53% to 47%" ...

The Lina Hidalgo campaign for Harris County Judge today released the results of its first county-wide poll, showing the Democratic challenger leading the Republican incumbent by a stunning six percentage points; among Harris County voters who plan to vote in the County Judge race, 53% plan to vote for Lina Hidalgo and 47% say they will vote for Ed Emmett.


The poll, conducted by Texas Democratic Party-authorized polling firm, Change Research, surveyed more than 1700 registered voters in Harris County on May 11, 12, 13, 19, and 20, and has a margin of error of +/- 3%. 

Perhaps more than the usual polling caveats apply.  There's no link to the poll in the email and none that I can find on Hidalgo's website; mighty Kuffner hasn't gotten around to this news yet.  (Speaking of slow reactions, if he ever wrote anything about the debate between Lupe Valdez and Andrew White, then I missed it.  Candidly I'm of the considered opinion that his blog has gone so far downhill so fast it's not worth much of my time any longer, but YMMV.  He very rarely blogs about anything I haven't already read in the Houston Chronicle or the Texas Tribune.  Like Blue Dog Ted at jobsanger, though, Kuff coughs up his 4-6 posts early every morning, so there's that.  Consistent quantity counts for something even when quality suffers.)

More from the poll:

94% of Harris County voters report feeling more interested (56%) in or equally as interested (38%) in the 2018 election as they have felt about prior elections.

President Trump is viewed unfavorably by 60% of Harris County voters

Voters report that the three issues that will drive their voting behavior most in November are:

1. Government transparency

2. Education

3. Jobs

Hidalgo is very likely the most progressive woman on the Harris County ballot.  Bar none ... at least until Janis Richards gets qualified to run for governor as an independent, which we should know about soon, as her 500 signatures are due in Austin shortly to be verified.  But most importantly, Hidalgo and Lupe Valdez and Sylvia Garcia and all of the rest of the Latinos and Latinas on the statewide and county ballot are a reminder that 2018 is a no-excuses year for Latin@ turnout.  Nobody should be compelled to buy any keys to turnout from Marc Campos, either; he's the same moron he's always been.  (I give Campos a lot of crap, but his blog wins awards this blog has never won, you know.  So I'm jealous of all the #winning.)

David Collins, himself a previous Harris Judge contender, approves of Hidalgo, and since I have not met her yet, that's good enough for me.

Let's expect that our endorsements don't piss off any bitter #StillbornHerz so much so that they can't vote for Lina out of spite for me or Collins.  I'd like to believe those folks are bigger persons than I am about petty purity politics, after all, but with the Churchill Downs stable of horseshit and slander I read against Laura Moser and continue to read about Bernie Sanders ... well, let's just say Kuffner is wrong again, but has a chance at being right in time for November.  Maybe he can use his clout to talk some sense into his team; something like, "there's not very many of those awful progs, and we can replace their votes with Republican crossovers, so just put PDiddie on 'ignore'" or something.

Stace is happy, so maybe we'll read more there about politics and less about Tejano music.  (Really and truly, dude.  It's not as bad as Greg Wythe's defunct blog posts about Trinity Euless football, or the latest from Lakewood Church, but it's close.  Go the full La Raza or get back to what you used to do best, is all I'm sayin'.  Us gabachos lack insight into the Mexicano mindset which we can't get from Lalo Alcarez or News Taco.  Don't regress to the level of Neil A-Queen-o, for cryin' out loud.)

Okay then.  The rest of my acid gets directed at all the white NeoDemocrats running for office who will spend the next five months chasing conservative votes.  Another clarification of the definition of 'progressive' is sorely overdue.  That's on the way, haters.  Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend and don't forget why we observe it.

Yay establishment.

Woo hoo moderates and centrists.  Clap for the conservaDems (and for that matter, the same standing-in-the-middle-of-the-road armadillos in the TXGOP.)  Dilly "pragmatists".

(Laura Moser) spent a recent Saturday walking from door to door in the Houston suburb of Cypress, trying to convince voters who rarely come out to the polls in Texas’s Seventh District to support her progressive agenda in the Democratic primary runoff Tuesday.

These are the voters Texas Democrats want to see turn out in droves during the 2018 midterms. But in past years, they haven’t had a lot of success convincing them.

“You’re the most powerful voting bloc in the country,” Moser told one skeptical resident. “If everyone voted, you would get people representing you who looked like you.”

Moser was being complimentary; it's simply not accurate to call non-voters a voting bloc.

Houston is Moser’s hometown, and like the rest of the state, it has diversified since she grew up here. Many people working on their lawns or sitting outside in Cypress spoke Spanish, and a group of Latino and African-American children raced their bikes up and down the cul-de-sac.

Several neighborhood residents told Moser they don’t often see candidates for Congress knocking on doors as she encouraged them to get out and vote during the May 22 election.

This lines up with how Democrats have historically tried to win races in Texas — paying more attention to voters they know will turn out reliably. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) typically backs moderate candidates who they believe will appeal to independents and Democrats, and be more competitive against Republican incumbents.

How's that worked out for ya in the last twenty years, Donks?

The DCCC is following the same playbook this year, favoring Moser’s opponent in the runoff, Lizzie Pannill Fletcher. The DCCC hoped Moser wouldn’t make it this far, dropping an opposition research file on her ahead of the March primary — a decision that backfired and seems to have helped propel Moser into this week’s runoff this week. The organization has stopped short of explicitly backing Fletcher ahead of the runoff, but she’s clearly their preferred candidate.

Tuesday night (tested) which path appeals to Texas Democrats: Are they are still rooted in the center, or does their future lie in changing demographics and embracing a progressive ideology? More broadly, the TX-7 race has become emblematic of the conflict between the Democratic establishment and its newly emboldened progressive base, who wants to see the party swing left.

That question was answered emphatically: 'let's keep doing the same thing we've always done, and hope for a different result'.   Good luck in November, Mules.

Expect a #DemExit again.  It's really not an even split as the toon suggests, but the prags do get the ass.  I like the red shirts on the left, too.

I'll have a lot more about last night later.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance weeps for the families of the Santa Fe victims, the latest in America's ongoing carnage of gun violence and the predictable aftermath of excuse-making and inaction by our bought-and-paid-for lawmakers.

Everything is bigger in Texas, and Dan Patrick broke records for his creative ignorance, first blaming school exit doors, and later video games and even women's reproductive choice.  He also referred to something called a "well-run militia", which appears nowhere in the Constitution.  Brand-new NRA president Oliver North fingered Ritalin as the culprit.

(Odd that cowardice and white privilege weren't mentioned to any prominent degree.  The killer's parents -- you might have read he used his father's guns -- remain in deep denial.)

Greg Abbott claimed he might do something, and was challenged to do so, but his response so far has been long on thoughts and prayers and short on action.  HPD chief Art Acevedo got 15 minutes of social media fame by having his Facebook post picked up by the NYT.  State Rep. Gene Wu Tweeted "y'all" a couple of times in solidarity.

And it's almost time for the cycle to start anew.

A few bloggers and news sources weighed in: Somervell County Salon has Jimmy Kimmel's reaction.  Socratic Gadfly called out Abbott for both his usual hypocrisy and his egotism after the killings.  And Casey Fleming does not want to have to write about school shootings ever again.   (Good luck with that, buddy.)

Last but most importantly, No More Mister Nice Blog eviscerates the New York Times for perpetuating the myth that Texans love their guns.

All of this may be true, and the story goes on for sixteen more paragraphs in this fashion. But then we're told:

Polling shows the state’s voters are more split on guns than popular culture might indicate. According to an October poll by the University of Texas and The Texas Tribune, more than half of the registered voters surveyed said gun control laws should be stricter. Only 13 percent said the laws should be less strict than they are now, and 31 percent would prefer to leave current gun laws unchanged.

My response is: So it's not "popular culture" that's misinforming us about Texans' attitudes regard gun laws -- it's you, New York Times. It's you saying that "guns are hard-wired into the state’s psyche" and quoting (as the story goes on to do) primarily Republican politicians and residents of this rural community. (Texas isn't a rural state -- it has four of the eleven most populous cities in America. City dwellers are Americans, too -- and city dwellers in Texas are Texans.)

I wish this story had examined the disjuncture between the widespread support for at least some tightening of gun laws and the political impossibility of tightening in many parts of America. In Texas, it's not because keeping the gun laws loose is the will of the state's residents -- the poll numbers make that clear -- but because the minority that resists change is dominant. The story could have made clearer that that's what's going on, rather than implying that love of unrestricted guns is essential to the entire state's culture and we liberals just don't understand.

This week's Wrangle contains some election news ahead of tomorrow's vote, and some lighter reading posted before Friday's tragedy.

Five Thirty Eight previews the Texas runoffs.

Races to watch: 7th, 21st, 23rd and 32nd congressional districts; governor

Polls close: 8 p.m. Eastern in most of the state, 9 p.m. Eastern in El Paso and Hudspeth counties

Wait, didn’t Texas already hold its primaries? Well, yes, but more than 30 contests needed to go into overtime because no candidate received 50 percent of the vote. Those runoffs, between the top two finishers from March 6, take place Tuesday.

In the final days of the Democratic primary for Texas’s 7th Congressional District, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ignited a controversy by releasing opposition research against one of its own candidates, progressive activist Laura Moser. Intended to show Democrats that Moser would go down to certain defeat against Rep. John Culberson in the general election, the smear may instead have rallied anti-establishment voters to Moser’s side, and she finished second in the primary to attorney Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (29 percent to 24 percent).

The runoff has been a relatively drama-free affair, but those battle lines remain drawn, as FiveThirtyEight’s Clare Malone and Galen Druke discussed in a special podcast episode last week. The Fletcher-Moser race actually bears more than a passing resemblance to last week’s Democratic primary in Nebraska’s 2nd District: The two candidates agree on all issues except single-payer health care, but Moser speaks with the defiant tone of the #Resistance, while Fletcher is trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle. In Nebraska, the progressive eked out an upset win; if Moser does the same, it could deal a similar blow⁴ to Democrats’ chances of picking up a reddish-purple seat (in this case, R+7). In the big picture, a Moser win would suggest strong anti-establishment sentiment among Democratic voters, and the DCCC would surely think twice about intervening in a similar way in a future primary.

Texas’s 21st District is 16 points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole, but with the retirement of Rep. Lamar Smith, Democrats may have an opening. Both parties have runoffs in this open seat. For Democrats, Mary Street Wilson edged Joseph Kopser, 31 percent to 29 percent, in the first round, but Kopser, an Army veteran and tech entrepreneur, would be the party’s stronger candidate in a general election. Unlike Wilson (who has pulled in less than $100,000 all cycle), Kopser has proved that he can raise funds. For the GOP, former Ted Cruz chief of staff Chip Roy (27 percent in the first round) faces off with perennial candidate Matt McCall (17 percent). Bet on Roy, whose campaign has been backed by $584,000 in TV and mail ads from the Club for Growth.

Texas’s 23rd District is the state’s most evenly matched district between Democrats and Republicans (it has an R+1 partisan lean), but it’s also the one with the least competitive primary. Gina Ortiz Jones, a gay Air Force veteran, is looking to become the first Filipina-American congresswoman. Before she can take on incumbent Republican Will Hurd, however, she will need to defeat Rick Treviño, a progressive teacher in the mold of Bernie Sanders, in the Democratic runoff. It should be an easy task: Ortiz Jones has outraised Treviño $1.2 million to $49,000, and having beaten him 41 percent to 17 percent in the first round, she doesn’t need to pick up much more support to get to a majority.

It’s a similar story in Texas’s final competitive House race, the 32nd District (R+5), in the fight to take on Rep. Pete Sessions. Former NFL player Colin Allred led the Democratic primary in March with 38 percent to businesswoman Lillian Salerno’s 18 percent, and the DCCC responded by adding him to its “Red to Blue” program. Salerno does, at least, have the cash ($666,000 raised) to make it a real race, and the Emily’s List endorsee may benefit from a year when female candidates seem to be doing well.

Finally, Democrats’ choice for governor could set the tone for Democratic campaigns statewide. Lupe Valdez, the gay Latina former sheriff of Dallas County, excites progressives with her diversity and is favored by those who believe motivating Latino voters is Texas Democrats’ recipe for success. Having received 43 percent of the vote in March, she’s the favorite in the runoff against self-described “very conservative Democrat” Andrew White. White, the son of former Gov. Mark White, has had more funds at his disposal thanks to a $1 million loan he made to his own campaign. Like in Georgia, it’s debatable whose strategy truly gives Democrats the best path in the general election. Although it could have coattail effects on down-ballot races, it’s probably academic for this one; neither Valdez nor White is given much of a chance against incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott.

jobsanger charted the EV numbers in the D runoff from the state's thirty largest counties, and Kuff looked at the potential for online voter registration in Texas in the wake of the "motor voter" lawsuit.

Texas Freedom Network hears demagogue David Barton make a misleading case for politicizing houses of worship, while Gus Bova at the Texas Observer introduces Farris Wilks, the Texas GOP kingmaker.  (Wilks, a fracking billionaire, is an elder at a church that does not allow women to speak during church services.)

Grits for Breakfast points to a Dallas Morning News piece in asserting the state is still using junk science like 'forensic hypnosis' in death penalty cases.

David Collins blogged about the net neutrality Senate vote (passed), but cautioned about the House vote (prospects dim).

Zachery Taylor notes the feudal system incarnate in our corporate media and questions their incessant coverage of crooks and thugs.

Save Buffalo Bayou suggests that Harris County consider eminent domain for preserving greenspace to help residents survive floods and hurricanes.

Texas Vox visited the Bayou City and met with the Healthy Port Communities Coalition while touring the Manchester neighborhood and areas around Pasadena's refineries and the Port of Houston.

Bonddad has an interest rate and gas price watch posted.

Texas Public Radio's storyteller from Brownsville, Dr. W. F. Strong, is profiled by Mike McGuff and can be heard on Texas Standard-affiliated stations.

And nonsequiteuse believes there's only one way we can bring about real change going forward.

Sunday Funnies

It's true:
"Trump and Hannity like to talk before bedtime"

The Weekly Wrangle

Early voting in the Texas primary runoff elections begins today.  Unless you're still undecided, waiting to sign an access petition for the Texas Green Party, or just want to risk voting during a tropical rainstorm, the TPA encourages you to cast your ballot before Election Day, May 22nd.

(In this blog's humble O, you're better off using the Congressional endorsements of Our Revolution Texas than you are the HGLBT Caucus' -- their picks in downballot Harris County races are fine -- but the choice is yours.)

 Just don't wait for the GOP Turnout Wagon to come by and pick you up.

PDiddie at Brains and Eggs was one of the only Texas bloggers who wrote about the debate between Lupe Valdez and Andrew White before and after it happened.

David Collins, appropriating Mattress Mack's advertising slogan, points out that Instant Runoff Voting really will save us money (by not having to spend it on runoff elections).

Socratic Gadfly read James Comey's book and found that any "Higher Loyalty" is ultimately to himself.

Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast ponders the correlation between the DPS 'border surge' and the reduction in DWI citations.  In a salient posting the week before last, Henson made an excellent point about the City of Houston's budget-busting request for more cops on the streets.

Mayor Sylvester Turner wants voters to bust the city's revenue cap to pay for public safety. However, we're at a moment in history when crime is at historic lows and the demands on law enforcement are rapidly evolving. Just hiring more warm bodies to throw at an endless stream of 911 calls and false burglar alarms on patrol wouldn't be worth it. Rather, investments in the civilian side -- crime labs, crime-scene techs, evidence management, etc. -- make a lot more sense. When Houston's chief, Art Acevedo, was in Austin, he focused almost exclusively on bolstering patrol in his budget requests while our crime lab failed under his watch and all civilian functions basically withered on the vine. Houston shouldn't make the same mistake.

Christof Spieler asks what it will take for the Bayou City to become more resilient to flooding.

Texas cities are taking on climate change, writes Kaiba White at Texas Vox.

Ty Clevinger at Lawflog updates on the lawsuit he has filed against the Department of Justice for refusing to release the records associated with the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

The Salon of Somervell County sagely observes that if something is deemed "fake news", that means that it's news that does not flatter Trump.

Robert Rivard wants San Antonio to go public with the Alamo Plaza restoration plan.

Dr. Carlos J. Cardenas argues that the best Mother's Day gift we could give would be a commitment to reducing the maternal mortality rate.

Harry Hamid explains why he hasn't been blogging much lately.

Beyond Bones presents seven things you probably didn't know about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Finally, the Texas Women's Voices Project, presented by Texas Monthly, is a must-read.

Sunday Funnies

BeBest and Butthead

Kelly doesn't want unskilled immigrants ... like his ancestors

Lupe's last stand?

Maybe.  While RG Ratcliffe's cowboys-and-injuns analogy isn't appropriate, Sheriff Valdez really does need to show out well this evening.

In an election year when no Democrat with statewide name identification stepped up to run, Valdez looked like an ideal party candidate—on paper at least. She had an impoverished childhood and made something of herself by attending college and obtaining a master’s degree in criminology. She rose to the rank of captain in the U.S. Army before starting a career with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, then winning election as Dallas County sheriff in 2004 by defeating a Republican. She is also in a same-sex relationship.

A Hispanic gay woman in law enforcement who had proven herself in elective politics, Valdez seemed to have it all going for her. [...] everything except a knowledge of state government and seemed to lack a willingness to learn. Andrew White, a Houston investor and the son of a former governor, looked like he represented the Democratic Party of yore, not the new multicultural party. He finished a distant second in the primary voting, but then Valdez started stumbling. The party faithful began a debate over whether it is better to support a candidate like Valdez, who represents the party base, or a candidate like White, who might actually have a chance of defeating Abbott.

Let's set RG's record straight on a couple of things.

-- White has no chance of defeating Abbott.  None whatsoever.  Neither does Valdez, but she'll come closer than White in losing, and she helps the downballot by motivating the Latin@ vote.  White discourages D turnout over all.

We've been down this road before; with Wendy Davis four years ago, with another conservative Democrat named White before that, with a fake progressive named Chris Bell before that, and even with a wealthy Latino before that.  The blue share of the electorate has only gone in one direction over the past twenty years in midterm election cycles.  But hey, some Donkeys haven't figured out that's not working, so they're all in for Andrew.  I'm taking a hard pass, thanks.

-- That link above to the Facebook quarreling is full of the kind of Texas Democrats I have left in my rear view mirror, in both the TDP and the TPA.  Several of them used to blog but don't any more (rationales include 'blogging was so 2006' or '08 or so, among others).  The discussion, FWIW, centers around the contrasts between Lupe's competence and ability to turn out the vote versus White's, and which is more important in 2018.  As you have perhaps figured out, his competence compared to hers -- when neither stands a chance anyway -- is a non-starter for me.

This is not a debate between major contenders, though. (As of the last reporting period, Valdez had $57,000 in the bank; White, $1 million; and Abbott, $41 million.) Texas Democrats have the longest partisan losing streak in statewide elections of any party in the nation. With tens of millions of dollars at his disposal, Abbott has little to worry about from either White or Valdez, but if Valdez does not improve, if she does not study the statewide issues, if she continues to stumble, she could lead the party’s down-ballot candidates into defeat with her. 

Yeah, no amount of money on God's green Earth, Hell's half-acre, or the dry, parched ground out in Doss, where Mike and Mary Porter raise cattle, is going to knock Abbott out of his wheelchair off his high horse this year.  Good Christian folk like the Porters will see to it.

My option in November (I've said it before, but I guess Gadfly didn't hear it) is Janis Richards, if she gets on the ballot.  Anybody got a status update on the Texas Greens' ballot signature petitions?  If my counting is accurate, 75 days from March 13 leaves us at Memorial Day weekend, about two weeks away, depending on how holidays are counted.  The GPTX needs slightly over 47,000 signatures from registered voters who didn't cast a ballot in either primary nor participate in the Libertarians' nominating convention process.  I don't see any recent updates to the party's website or Twitter feed with respect to an update, a request for help gathering sigs, or much of anything else.  And I don't do Facebook any longer.  If there's news there, or anywhere else for that matter, someone post it in the comments.

If Richards -- or an independent or party-affiliated progressive option -- is not on the November ballot, I'll probably be forced to undervote the race.  But I might be persuaded to vote for Valdez if she can acquit herself well tonight and going forward.  I still think she'll be the nominee regardless, mostly because the more I read of White, the lousier he seems.

Update: Tonight's debate is viewable live only in the San Antonio and Austin markets.  If you live in H-Town or elsewhere, you can livestream it via KXAN at this link.

Texas Democrats: Black and blue? Or just blue?

The following arrived in my inbox last Monday morning, from TSU professor, attorney, past Houston and Harris County elected official and several-times political candidate Carroll G. Robinson, under the header "Black to Blue in Texas 2".

If Democrats are going to turn Texas Blue in November, they will need strong Black voter turnout and right now there is nothing driving that turnout.

During the March Democratic Primary and May Run-Off, no statewide Democratic candidate invested significant financial resources with Black media - Radio,Newspapers, or cable stations such as BET, OWN or TV ONE - to introduce themselves and share their policy positions and commitments with Black Texans. That was a mistake.

Statewide Democratic candidates need to start introducing themselves broadly to the Black community now. Waiting until the Fall is going to be too late. There is just not enough time between Labor Day and the start of Early Voting, by mail and in person, to have voters get to know a candidate and their policy positions, especially when the candidates are being attacked in negative ads on TV, radio, in the mail and by auto-calls and emails.

For Democratic candidates, reaching out to Black voters now and caring about the issues of importance to the Black community across Texas is not pandering; it's the right thing to do. It leads to good public policy and it's good politics.

To generate strong Black voter turnout (and avoid a drop-off) in November, the Texas Democratic Party and Beto O'Rourke are going to have to invest in promoting the Black Women candidates running statewide and the Black candidates running for Congress, the Texas Legislature and county offices across our state.

Black voters, like many other voters, are going to need more than just being against Trump to turnout in record numbers in November.

Beto and all the Democratic candidates for Congress should do a group 60 second TV commercial built on the message that electing a Texas Democratic Congressional Delegation would be electing candidates that look like and represent the interests, issues and concerns of all of us in Texas.

Black voters must know that their issues and concerns are being addressed and that they, their communities and the candidates of their choice are being "respected, included and invested in."

The Texas Democratic Party slogan for 2018 and moving forward should be "Making Texas Better...for All

This, as regular readers know, has been an occasional topic mentioned in this space (most recently at the bottom of this post), so while I can't call myself a fan of Robinson's, he's making a very important point that Lone Star Donkeys had better hear as they move toward their state convention, in Fort Worth in late June, and on to November.

I'm thinking Robinson's 'demand letter' styling above isn't going to be met with a receptive audience, but even if the wrong messenger is communicating the right message too aggressively ... the threat of black Democrats sitting out another election is not too cool to contemplate.

[I could write a long and separate post about what it would take for Democrats to re-energize black turnout.  After all, they saved Alabama for Doug Jones.  But Jones has already bitten the hands of those who cast their ballots for him, a warning that the sage of hoops, Charles Barkley, issued on the night Jones won.  More recently, when Chance the Rapper responded to Kanye West's coming-out as as a Trumpet, Chance's point was clarified by Brianha Joy Gray at Rolling Stone (recently named political editor at "something called" The Intercept).  Her piece is worth the full read.

There is ... a significant group of unreservedly enthusiastic supporters for a third party challenge. To those disillusioned by both sides, it's clear that the long-term benefits of breaking up the two-party system outweigh the short-term harms of a spoiler election: Even if a third-party were to split the vote, the loss would force the Democratic Party to pay attention to the needs of all its voters.

While this argument can, at times, bear the mark of privilege, its critics tend to forget the visceral human consequences of "incrementalism" – the gradual change traditionally advocated by establishment figures – even as they rightly fear the potential havoc of conservative leadership. The "fierce urgency of now" that motivates third-party advocates, those undeterred by the possibility of spoilers, is not merely about privilege – it's also the call of the institutionally ignored.

Clarifying his earlier tweets, Chance The Rapper, who made headlines last year for donating $2 million to Chicago public schools, explained today that his frustration with Democrats stemmed from the party’s lack of investment in his hometown: "My statement about black folk not having to be democrats (though true) was a deflection from the real conversation and stemmed from a personal issue with the fact that Chicago has had generations of democratic officials with no investment or regard for black schools, neighborhood[s] or black lives." After apologizing for the timing of his remarks, he went on to argue that "[w]e have to talk honestly about what is happening and has been happening in this country and we have to challenge those who are responsible, as well as those who are giving them a pass."

Yeah, her article is actually about Ranked Choice Voting.  It's a real thing.  This is officially a digression now, so let's return to where we began; Carroll Robinson's letter and his caution to Texas Dems: stop taking black votes for granted.]

And then yesterday morning, again via email, 2018 gubernatorial candidate Cedric Davis Jr. announced his challenge to Gilberto Hinojosa for the TDP chairmanship.  Here's the entire message he sent, introducing himself again (the audience is delegates to the party's convention).

The Democratic Blue Wave is sweeping across many states in our nation. I am excited to be a part of this energetic historical movement by the people to make government and party officials more responsive to needs and concerns of the people. After finishing third in the 2018 Democratic Gubernatorial Primaries, the level of energy of those looking to transform our state and nation to people-oriented governments is unmatched! That is why tens of thousands of Democrats around Texas has personally challenged and encouraged me to seek the chairmanship of our party. After considering the people’s challenge to me after the March primaries, I filed to run for Chair of the Texas Democratic Party. I am running to continue being a viable voice for those who have been disenfranchised, to continue bringing forth inspirational messaging, fight the Republican Leadership with new aggressive progressive strategies and tactics, and to ensure the Democratic Blue Wave finds its way to Texas!

I am a proud native of North Texas who is the father of five, a Desert Storm Veteran, an alumnus of Sam Houston University (B.Sc. CRIJ), and Tarleton State University (Graduate Studies in Public Administration). I am a Master Peace Officer, Police Instructor, and Investigator. I have served the public in a public safety and security role for more than 30 years. I currently teach pre-law, criminal justice, and law enforcement to the students of Garland ISD.

I have over three decades of political activism and community involvement experience as a North Texas political and community figure. I enjoy motivating individuals to be active on municipal, and state boards and commissions which also includes encouraging individuals to run for local and state offices. During the past three decades, I have had the pleasure of advising, managing, and assisting in fundraising for campaigns on the local and state level. I am proud to have served as Mayor of Balch Springs, Texas. As your Chair, I will work to help find a Chairperson for every County of Texas and find additional funding sources to support Chairs of rural areas with newer communication technologies such as current web-pages and universal Wi-Fi so our democratic messaging reaches the entire state.

As a former Mayor, Police Chief, School Board Trustee, and EDC Board of Director and many other community Boards and Commissions have made me viable and battle-tested in the importance of diversity in governance, education, and the workforce within our state and country. During our 2018 campaign travels around the state, we found many communities were more accepting to my presentation of new strategies and ideologies that would empower more Democrats into political offices, that would support current and new community and social programs, add job creation, encourage new voting blocks to become Democrats. Our message was embraced more often than none because I possessed the experience of being on the ground long before I ran for governor; that’s what mattered to the people. My public service leadership record of having a “Real Soldier” mentality when fighting for people and their community’s tower above the other candidates. I have been able to organize, moderate, and speak on issues of social justice and political empowerment with little to no resources. I plan to use my extensive experience to help our party unify our base of voters and energize new blocks of voters to elect Democrats across the state!

These are a few reasons why I believe African Americans, Whites, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, Women, Veterans, Teachers, and others of the poor and middle class have continued to support me in bringing their message forward. Because people prefer responsiveness and transparency over political games, I would be honored to have your vote at the 2018 State Convention. I look forward to talking to you soon!

Now Davis is somebody I do like, and not just because he's running against the worst TDP chair in a long list of bad ones.  This blog's second most-clicked post, with more than 13,000 hits, is about El Patron and his South Texas (alleged) corruption.

I would imagine some collection of Hinojosa stooges, perhaps including Puss in Boots Horwitz, is whipping the number of brown and black delegates to the June convention.  You can count two Caucasians from SD-13 in Davis' column.

Whether Davis prevails over Hinojosa or not, Democrats (not just in Texas, mind you) had better be paying attention to the message they're being sent.  It ain't just black voters -- though this caucus is the most critical to their 2018 blue wave hopes -- and it damn sure ain't "Not Trump".