Parenthetical Politics

(Political Ramblings from a Little Left of Center)

October Surprise

Posted on by admin

There has long been an expectation that an “October Surprise” would impact the upcoming November 6 elections.  Even though October is now behind us, I know better than to assume that one or more major news events won’t occur before election day.  However, I will contend that the October Surprise has indeed already occurred.  It’s just not that much of a surprise.

October was a truly tragic month for sanity and humanity.

  • A Saudi Arabian journalist for the Washington Post was killed at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.
  • Packages containing apparent pipe bombs were sent to numerous Trump critics.
  • A racially-motivated shooting at a Kroger in Kentucky left two people dead.
  • A Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh was the scene of a mass shooting.

At times like these, we look to our leaders for consolation and assurance.  In particular, we look to the President of the United States to provide comfort and perspective to a grieving nation.

To be sure, not all Presidents have had the same intrinsic abilities to command a moment and provide the necessary tonic to a nation thirsty for guidance.  It is phenomenally difficult for even the most talented orator to strike the right balances between anger and resolve, between sadness and compassion, between despair and hope.  And yet, past Presidents of both parties have risen to the occasion when tragedy struck:  Lyndon Johnson after the Kennedy assassination, Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster, Bill Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing, George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks, Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook massacre.

Each of these leaders did more than simply read a script provided by a seasoned speechwriter.  It is largely in the unscripted moments (Bush’s extemporaneous bullhorn speech at Ground Zero, Obama’s voice cracking as he spoke of the murdered children in Newton) that each of these leaders rose above politics and self-interest to display a heartfelt personal empathy on behalf of us all.  That is what true leaders do.  Regardless of political persuasion, the President of the United States is unfortunately often called upon to be the Consoler-In-Chief.

How far we have fallen.

Donald Trump has proven yet again that he is temperamentally, intellectually, and spiritually incapable of performing this duty.  Indeed, he is only making things worse.

While occasionally straining to read a few throw-away “thoughts and prayers” Hallmark sentiments, Trump has then proceeded to provide almost daily servings of word casseroles, seasoned with dog-whistles to his political base.  These rants are simply falsehoods at best, inane policy pronouncements at the norm, and dangerous incitements to violent intolerance at worst.  There is no comfort here.  Only raw politics.

In the midst of all of October’s violence…

  • Trump demonized a caravan of mostly Honduran refugees slowly headed toward the United States.  These migrants, fleeing violence in their home countries and seeking a better life, are largely on foot with severely limited resources.  Nevertheless, Trump announced that he was sending over 5000 Army troops to stop the “invasion”.  For the subset of the migrants that somehow manage to eventually reach the U.S. border, they would have the right to apply for asylum, and the United States would have the right to deny that asylum.  That’s it.  The U.S. Border Patrol is perfectly capable of handling this relatively minor non-invasion.  In 2000 alone, an unassisted Border Patrol – with half of the agents it currently employs — arrested more than 1.6 million migrants.  If the Border Patrol needed the help, they could be ably assisted by over 2000 National Guard troops already at the border.  Lost in the politics is the fact that the United States Army is legally barred from directly enforcing immigration laws and can be used only in support roles.  The Army troops cannot themselves use force to stop anyone at the border.  Thus, active duty military personnel are being deployed as a political prop for Donald Trump.
  • Trump claimed that “Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions, Democrats will not!”  In fact, it is the Obama-era Affordable Care Act that first protected people with pre-existing conditions.  (I know this personally as the only way that I can get coverage is via the ACA.)  The Republican Congress voted 54 times to repeal the ACA with no replacement and the Trump administration has made it their mission to weaken it as much as they possibly can.  There has never been a Republican plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions.  Trump’s claim is more than dishonest; it is dishonorable.
  • Trump announced the imminent introduction of legislation to enact a 10% tax cut for the middle class.  This despite the fact that Congress isn’t even in session and that Congressional leaders appeared clueless.  Trump also claimed, without any explanation, that the cut would be revenue neutral despite clearly providing 10% less revenue. The attempted pandering here is simply too obvious.
  • Trump announced plans to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order.  This despite the fact that the 14th Amendment makes it quite clear that he cannot.  Trump also claimed that the U.S. was the only nation that offered birthright citizenship when, in fact, about three dozen countries do so (including Canada and Mexico).
  • Trump claimed to be a “nationalist” – despite that word being very closely associated with the alt-right agenda.  Concurrently, Trump also specifically claimed to not be a “globalist” – which is just someone that acknowledges the fact that economic and foreign policies cannot be considered in total isolation in today’s inter-connected society.  Thus, Trump essentially said, “I’m a racist, not a realist.”
  • Trump continued his political rallies at full throttle.  He praised a sitting Congressman for physically attacking a journalist.  He claimed that the mail bombs were a Democratic “false flag” operation and then quickly pivoted to blaming the media after the Trump-enthusiast perpetrator was arrested.  He increased his attacks on CNN after they were targeted by the mail bomber.  He floated a ludicrous conspiracy theory about George Soros funding the caravan after Soros was targeted by the mail bomber.  He blamed the victims of the Pittsburgh massacre for not having armed guards in their synagogue.  He couldn’t even resist adding a political endorsement while speaking of the tragedy.  And yet, at every turn, Trump insists that he is the true victim.

Donald Trump is a failure as a leader and a failure as a human being.  For the moment, however, we are largely unable to hold him accountable.  Barring some miracle, it will be another two years before the electorate will have a chance to correct its 2016 mistake.  Our President obviously has no shame so there is little benefit in trying to shame him.  Donald Trump is who he is.  He is not going to change.  That’s unfortunate, but it’s not a surprise.

What we can do now is hold Trump’s enablers accountable.  Republicans, the majority of whom really do know better, have blithely looked the other way while Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric divides the nation.  They have traded their souls in blind pursuit of policy achievements.  Eventually, many will recognize that whatever political battles they won were not worth the destruction of what truly makes America great.

We need to have intelligent and spirited conversations about immigration, the deficit, health care, and gun rights.  There are strong and reasonable opinions on all sides of these and many other issues.  I personally look forward to the eventual return of sane Republicans with whom we can engage in passionate debates and tough compromises.  I look forward to a time when not everything needs to be a zero-sum game.

In the meantime, however, the only solution is to remove the current Republican enablers from their all-encompassing control of the legislative branch in the upcoming mid-term elections.  I pray for our nation and eagerly await a November 6 judgment.

Voting Begins

Posted on by admin

Across the nation, early voting has been pretty popular – beating 2016 thus far.  Texas is having record-breaking early voting turnout for a mid-term election.  That’s great.  It just doesn’t mean a whole lot yet.

People who were going to vote anyway this cycle could just be voting early.  I did.  Stuff happens and I wanted to make sure that I participated in this election.  If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.  And I like to complain.

Yes, large early turnout numbers could mean a broader election turnout of registered voters – which should help Democrats.  Yes, the numbers could mean more new voters are participating in the election – which should help Democrats.  But, sadly, Republicans simply vote more often than Democrats and the numbers could portend an enthusiastic GOP turnout.  The effect of the different early voting processes in each state is unclear but it’s bound to have an impact as well.

The bottom line is that no one knows anything at this point.  Despite pundits of all stripes wanting to read all sorts of crap into initial early voting patterns and statistics, it’s just way too early to make any end-game assumptions whatsoever using that data.

Based on polling data, however, Democrats nationwide still look to be in good shape to take the House but perhaps lose ground in the Senate.  In Texas, the fundamentals still heavily favor Republicans.  Unless Texas Democrats are consistently polling over the margin of error in their races (they’re mostly not), it’s not a good sign.  That said, there’s always hope for Texas.  On the flip side, there’s still a real chance that the GOP maintains control of the House.  The polling data could be wrong all around.  See: 2016.

In any case, polls are just semi-educated guesses at best.  It’s only votes that count.  If you’re reading a political blog, I presume you’re a voter.  But I’ll say it anyway:

PLEASE VOTE!!!

Democrats & Marketing 102

Posted on by admin

I’m not a marketing expert.  Don’t claim to be one.  In the course of my career, however, I’ve certainly done the job and I at least know enough to recognize good versus bad with respect to marketing efforts.

I say this because I’m about to complain about a piece of this cycle’s Democratic marketing strategy – although calling it a “strategy” is perhaps giving it too much credit.

As I’ve previously noted, I’ve donated to several campaigns and committees this cycle and I’ve sent multiple donations to some of them.  All of my donations have been made via ActBlue.  In addition to functioning as a great conduit for the money transfer, ActBlue collects donor contact information, as required by law, and obviously shares that information with the recipients.  The campaigns, in turn, are free to independently contact their donors.  That’s fair – as long as the data isn’t abused.  Yeah.

In one 7-day period, I received just shy of 300 emails from the campaigns to which I donated.  That’s over 40 emails a day.  On average, each campaign sent me 5 emails every single day.  The well-behaved Justin Nelson campaign averaged 1 email a day; the overly communicative Jacky Rosen campaign averaged a whopping 11 emails a day.  [ As an aside, the DCCC also sent me 12 texts during my test week.  No.  Just no.  Don’t do that.  Bad donkey! ]

First, some disclaimers:

  • I realize that the sheer volume of emails is at least partially my own fault since I donated to multiple campaigns.
  • I realize that prior donors are a sweet spot for getting additional money.
  • I realize that sending emails costs the campaign nothing.
  • I realize that Republicans may be just as bad at this and maybe even worse.

That said, here’s just a few helpful hints (read: irritated complaints) directed at the campaigns:

  • Don’t spam me.  One email a day from each campaign is a lot; more simply guarantees I’m hitting “Delete” with increasing force.
  • Don’t just constantly ask for money.  I’m not your dad.
  • Don’t lie to me.  About half of the 300 emails contained the word “deadline”.  Don’t tell me there’s an absolute deadline for contributions (usually midnight of the day of the email) and then produce a new one immediately after that one expires.  That’s not a deadline.  That’s the passage of time.
  • Don’t get basic facts wrong.  If you include poll numbers to bolster your message, make sure they’re correct.  You know I’m on a computer, right?  I can check them myself.  I did.  You were often full of shit.
  • Don’t make it look like you’ve never seen a computer.  While there’s nothing nearly as bad as the Cruz attempt at using Facebook Live, I did receive 17 emails from one campaign with subject lines over 80 characters long.  Seriously?
  • Don’t base your entire message on beating the Republicans.  I get it.  I know why that’s important.  But your message is mostly “I need to win because my opponent needs to lose.”  Occasionally, you need to tell people why they should vote FOR you.
  • Don’t claim that Senate/House control rests solely on your race.  Your race is important, but so is every other race.
  • Don’t regularly tell me that Armageddon is upon us.  Listen, Chicken Little, you’re depressing the hell out of me.  You could well be right, but some folks might just decide not to vote since, apparently, we’re all going to die.  Try some humor, for God’s sake!
  • Don’t be so damn pathetic.  “We don’t have much time” … “We’re IMPLORING you” … “We’re PLEADING with you” … “We’re BEGGING”.  Have some pride, people.  This is embarrassing.
  • Don’t focus your outreach entirely on television.  Almost all of the pleas for money are to buy more TV ad time.  While television is an important part of the equation, younger voters (a demographic you really, really need) use Netflix.  They’re much more reachable via digital strategies.  I haven’t done the analysis to see how well you’re doing in that arena but I sincerely hope that your overall digital strategy is better than your email strategy.

Folks, I’m a political junkie and donor who desperately wants you to win and, yet, you’ve managed to over-saturate me.  Not good.

TX-31 & Marketing 101

Posted on by admin

My gerrymandered TX-31 Congressional district includes Ft. Hood – the largest active-duty armored military installation in the country.  Hence, the military vote here is pretty important.  As I’ve noted in previous posts, the Democratic candidate for TX-31 is MJ Hegar.  She’s an Air Force veteran who served three tours in Afghanistan as a rescue helicopter pilot and who earned a Purple Heart after being shot down by enemy fire.  The Republican incumbent is John Carter, who never served in uniform.

Hegar has run a generally good campaign that raised almost $2M in Q3 – beating Carter’s fundraising by a 3-1 margin.  Unfortunately, this is Texas, TX-31 is a Republican stronghold, Carter’s been in his seat for 15 years, and Hegar’s running well behind in recent polls.  But that’s okay.  She’s trying.  She has my vote and I was a small part of her Q3 haul.  There’s always hope.

What’s not okay is this flyer mailed to my home address (front & back):

Let’s imagine an internal conversation by a typical voter at the mailbox.  This internal dialogue lasts mere seconds in real time:

Great.  A junk mail flyer.  There’s a soldier, holding his smiling daughter, holding an American flag.  Okay, got it.  This is a good thing.  Of course we need to take care of our military veterans.  Let’s flip it over.  The name “JOHN CARTER” stands out in all caps and there’s a picture of a smiling guy.  Guess that’s John Carter.  He must be taking care of the vets.  Good for him.  Elections are coming up.  Maybe I’ll vote for John Carter – if I vote at all.  But first I’ll trash this flyer.

Sure, if you actually read the smaller text, you’d see that the flyer claims Carter is actually making it harder for veterans to get health care.  If by some minuscule chance you read the even smaller text, you’d see that the flyer was paid for by the Texas Democratic Party.

Yes, that’s right.  This is a Democratic piece.

NEWS FLASH:  No one reads this crap (unless they happen to have a political blog).  You have a few moments at best to make an impression.  And, congratulations!!  You did.

Gee, guys.  Thanks for the help.  I know this independent “attack ad” wasn’t coordinated with Hegar’s campaign but did you have to spend good money to make it look like you coordinated with Carter’s?

 

Video Intermission

Posted on by admin

My work-in-progress modus operandi for this blog is to first simply collect random notes, articles, and references that I find interesting.  These artifacts occasionally combine to form the raw idea of a blog topic and a few of the collections eventually morph into an actual post.  This week, however, I’ve found myself largely unable to form complete sentences.  Turns out I’m still thoroughly pissed off.

In the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) took a victory lap proclaiming he wasn’t done remaking the courts; Sen. Tom Cotton (R) provided a detailed conspiracy theory that would make Flat-Earthers wince; Trump held a raw political rally with then-sitting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that was beyond disgusting; the latest polls are providing conflicting insights into whether the Kavanaugh Krap helps Democrats, Republicans, both, or neither; …

Breathe.

Anyway, instead of working on my blog over the weekend, I started firing off donations to several Democratic Senate candidates.  While flipping the Senate is still very unlikely, monetarily flipping off Senate Republicans did make me feel just a wee bit better.  Thereafter, in recognition that I violated my own advice to focus money where it can do the most good, I then felt the need to make additional donations to help flip the House.  Winning the House won’t help with any future Supreme Court vacancies but it’s still the most reasonable Democratic goal this cycle.

The end result was that I was poorer, I was still pissed off, and I still had no blog post.  Dandy.

In search of an idea that required minimal thought, I read through my notes and found a few video links that might not make it any further in my notes-to-blog process.  Since it doesn’t get much easier than just posting links to the works of others, consider this an intermission with a few random political videos (some perhaps NSFW) that I think are worth sharing:

  • Texas entertainer Lynzy Lab shot this simple but spot-on video of her response to Trump’s assertion that “it’s a scary time for young men in America“.
  • This Kavanaugh / Pulp Fiction mashup video made the rounds last month and has the approval of Samuel L. Jackson himself.
  • Richard Linklater (a native Texan) directed this video reminding voters why they should #FireTedCruz.
  • Here’s a Willie Nelson video with a new and quite relevant song he debuted at a recent Austin rally for Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke (D).
  • This video seriously kick-started the campaign of MJ Hegar (D) in my Congressional district (TX-31).
  • Randy Rainbow did Gilbert & Sullivan proud with his video take on Donald Trump declaring himself to be a “very stable genius“.
  • This 2012 SNL video on undecided voters is still sadly relevant in 2018.

Brett Kavanaugh, Revisited

Posted on by admin

Thus far, I’ve purposely steered clear of the “Issue of the Day” when selecting blog topics.  My preference is to pick a topic that is important, but not one that is currently flying across cable news chyrons.  I find value in stepping back a bit to gain some perspective before weighing in.

But not this time.  This time, I’m angry.

Over the weekend, I tried to convince myself to wait to see how this story would develop.  It will most certainly develop quickly and in unforeseen directions.  But I restarted this blog to allow me to vent when necessary.  And I really need to vent.

I previously offered an opinion about Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court – an opinion that was decidedly unpopular among my more liberal friends.  I do wish that Democrats had pushed further on some of the issues that I raised, but they didn’t and that’s on them.  In any case, I stand by my original opinion that Kavanaugh should have probably been confirmed “barring any surprises.”

Well.  We’ve had a few of those.

During the first round of the confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee members on both sides of the aisle were predictably partisan — 11 came into the process thinking Kavanaugh walked on water; 10 were predisposed to waterboard him.  No surprise there.  At this point, I’d have seen no reason to update my original post.

And then came the allegations.

While I’ll spare everyone a romp through the details of Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusation, the relevant timeline is as follows:  the accusations became public soon after Kavanaugh’s appearance before the Judiciary Committee, all hell broke loose, Ford got to testify, Kavanaugh got to respond, additional hell broke loose, and a limited FBI investigation is now grudgingly underway.

Thrust into the national spotlight on live television, Ford was clearly a competent witness.  No sane person listening to her could have doubted her sincerity.  She was relatively calm, obviously very nervous, but quite confident in her testimony.  Did she offer concrete proof of an assault?  No.  But she wasn’t a witness in a criminal trial; she was a witness in a confirmation hearing.  She was a sympathetic figure with no apparent agenda other than telling her story.

In response, Kavanaugh came out swinging.  SNL’s subsequent parody of his statement was sadly a bit too accurate.

While Kavanaugh’s performance seems to have endeared him to Trump and most Republicans, it was perhaps the most politically tone deaf approach humanly possible.  Before that speech – and the accompanying GOP cheers – I saw both sides of this unfortunate situation.  I saw the obvious pain of the accuser but also understood the horror that someone wrongfully accused might rightly feel.

Had Kavanaugh himself firmly requested an independent FBI investigation into this matter, he could have immediately silenced most everyone.  While still forcefully stating his innocence, he could have recognized the valid emotions on both sides, disregarded all political implications, and calmly reminded an attentive nation that facts matter and that a full investigation was both appropriate and necessary.  You know… LIKE A JUDGE IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

But no.

Kavanaugh’s whole statement is well worth viewing and reading.  However, here’s just a few highlights:

“The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment.”

”No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out.”

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

“The 10-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the Supreme Court and to the country.”

“You’ll never get me to quit.”

Wow.

Is the confirmation process political?  Of course it is.  The Judiciary Committee members – on both sides of the aisle – are all career politicians.  For better or worse, that’s their job.  As a sitting judge, however, it is specifically Kavanaugh’s job to NOT be political.  His party-focused diatribe was insulting, infuriating, and wholly inappropriate.

Is the confirmation process fair?  I don’t give a damn.  That process is all we have standing in the way of a lifetime appointment to one of nine positions on our nation’s top court.  This is not an elected position; it is not term-limited.  It matters a whole lot and it will matter for a very, very long time.

Make no mistake:  This was a job interview.  Elevation to the highest court in the land is not a birthright.  Kavanaugh could have taken the high ground that we expect a sitting judge to inhabit.  Instead, he chose to become a politician himself – and a poor one at that.

The SNL parody included a line that, while unspoken in Kavanaugh’s rant, certainly seemed to be implied:

“If you think I’m angry now you just wait until I get on that Supreme Court because then you’re all going to pay.”

It no longer matters what the FBI probe may or may not reveal.  It no longer matters whether or not Kavanaugh was a “sloppy drunk” as his contemporaries have recently claimed in contrast to his testimony.  It no longer matters how members of either party attempt to spin his nomination.

This is now a simple matter of Kavanagh’s temperament, judgment, and ability to remove himself and his personal opinions from the deliberative process.

Kavanaugh’s own response has independently and definitively disqualified him from serving on the United States Supreme Court.  He does not deserve the honor.  And we deserve better.

2018 Elections – Texas

Posted on by admin

The syndicated columnist Molly Ivins once opined that Texas politics was “Better than the zoo.”

Yeah, I don’t know.  Wild animals at the zoo do tend to shit on everything, but they can’t cause nearly as much permanent damage as Texas politicians can.  From my perch in Austin, perhaps I’m on the wrong side of the cage to fully appreciate the entertainment value.

For those of you who don’t live in Texas, you might want to keep reading anyway.  We have over 8% of the votes in the U.S. House.  Take that, Alaska!

Texas Demographics

I contend that Texas is intrinsically purple.  I say that knowing full well that Republicans currently have a rock solid red grip on, well, everything in the state.

It wasn’t always that way.  From 1978 to 2003, Texas government was a power-sharing exercise between Democrats and Republicans.  Outsize personalities (okay, Texas-sized personalities) were substantially more important than political parties.  Sure, there were issues.  But, in general, we had a quarter century of fairly pragmatic government until Republicans gained the complete control that they still have today.

The reasons for this stranglehold boil down to two factors:  maps and turnout.

With respect to maps, Texas Republicans have done a very good job of gerrymandering U.S. congressional districts to minimize Democratic representation.  While there are ongoing legal battles regarding our district maps, Republicans hold most of the cards.  The major cities of Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso are blue dots of Democratic strength in Texas but their influence has been largely marginalized by very creatively drawn maps.  For example, the quite liberal city of Austin has been divided between six congressional districts with Austin residents being a minority in every single one.  Five of those seats are currently occupied by Republicans.  So much for representative government.

With respect to turnout, Democrats can’t blame the Republicans.  Texas holds “semi-open” primaries where voters can choose the party primary in which they want to participate for a given election cycle.  This metric thus provides the best solid data point we have to determine voter turnout by party in Texas.  Here, we need to give Republicans in my home state some credit.  They simply show up to vote more often than their opponents.  That’s on us.  We suck.  In the 2018 Texas primaries, Democrats turned out 1 million voters; Republicans turned out 1.5 million.  (While we independents get to pick a primary each election cycle, we can assume that most of us vote – or don’t vote – in the primary that best reflects our priorities.)

The primary voting metric tells us something about the people that turn out to vote and is, of course, is the most important metric.  However, in terms of “eligible” voters, Democrats in Texas are on the rise and may indeed already have an edge.

While Hillary Clinton carried all of the Texas cities noted above in 2016, she didn’t turn out enough of the urban vote to offset the rural vote that went solidly and heavily for Donald Trump.  However, the urban population in Texas is rapidly growing and is showing signs of becoming more politically active.

It has also long been presumed that if Hispanic voters in Texas turned out in larger numbers, Democrats would see gains.  Indeed, almost 80% of the votes cast by Texas Hispanic in 2016 were for Hillary Clinton.  Unfortunately, while Hispanics accounted for 28% of the eligible voters in Texas in that election, only 40% of them actually voted.  By contrast, 63% of eligible White voters cast ballots.  However, Hispanic turnout improves every year.  A third of the Texas Hispanic population isn’t yet of voting age and 95% of these young Hispanics are U.S. citizens.

Thus, at some point, there will be no way to draw a district map that protects Republican candidates from a population that gets more actively blue each year.  It’s just a matter of time.

And that brings me to the 2018 elections in Texas at both the federal and state levels.

Federal Races in Texas

In the U.S. House, Texas is currently represented by 25 Republicans and 11 Democrats in 36 strangely-drawn districts.  While Democrats are fielding a candidate in all 36 races this year for the first time in a quarter of a century, the reality is that the most of the districts are drawn to be safe seats.  As noted in my previous post on the 2018 elections, my best guess is that only two races (TX-07 & TX-23) provide Democrats with a decent chance to flip Republican-held seats in Texas.  Two other races (TX-21 & TX-32) provide non-zero chances to flip (R) seats to (D), but both seem unlikely at the moment.  I’ll also personally continue to support MJ Hagar in my home district (TX-31) but that’s an even longer shot.  The good news is that the Democratic challengers in each of these five races raised more money than the Republican incumbents in Q2.  Texas Democrats will likely see some minor gains in the U.S. House this cycle.

On the other side of the Capitol, the U.S. Senate race in Texas has become very interesting with Beto O’Rourke (D) running a surprisingly competitive race against incumbent Ted Cruz (R).  O’Rourke has proven to be a good candidate and a solid fundraiser.  Current polls rate this a toss-up.  In Texas!

The two candidates just completed the first of three televised debates and gave some credence to the zoo metaphor.

Cruz is a massive asshole, but he’s not an idiot.  He’s a competent speaker and he’s very experienced in debate tactics.  On debate points alone, Cruz probably won.  I fully suspect that O’Rourke will improve in subsequent debates, but I frankly don’t think it really matters.  Both candidates needed to do exactly two things:  (1) motivate their respective bases to cast ballots and (2) appeal to undecided voters.

I’ll contend that both did (1) fairly well.  Cruz went with fear; O’Rourke went with inclusion.  While there was absolutely nothing that either could have said to change any minds in the other’s camp, Cruz’s style likely provided motivation to Democrats as well as Republicans.  Hence, the edge here goes to O’Rourke.

As for (2), O’Rourke won handily.  Any issue voter already had a favorite candidate; others might be more inclined to consider intangibles such as likeability.  O’Rourke came across as a nice guy; Cruz did not.  Absolutely no one liked Cruz before the debate and he spent an hour making sure everyone knew exactly why.

In addition to two more debates, both Cruz and O’Rourke have big events planned:  Cruz with Donald Trump, O’Rourke with Willie Nelson.  While it seems likely that a Willie Nelson concert wins in Texas, I have to admit that I am so looking forward to the Cruz/Trump rally.  Can a train wreck be awkward?  (Cruz: “I know I called you a ‘sniveling coward’, but thanks for coming!”  Trump: “And I know I said you’ve ‘accomplished absolutely nothing’  for Texas while insulting your wife and father, but I’m glad to be here!” )  Again, while Trump “may” help motivate Republican voters in Texas, he will most certainly motivate Democratic voters.

I’m optimistic enough to personally continue donating to O’Rourke’s campaign.  He’d be good for Texas.  Also, while successful navigation of the precariously steep & winding path to a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate is still highly improbable, that path most likely runs through Texas.

The data analyst in me, however, insists on being at least a damp blanket.  The fundamentals in Texas heavily favor Republicans.  If the Texas Senate race remains a toss-up on Election Day, Cruz will win.

While O’Rourke still has a small chance to actually win the election, it is important to note that he’s also doing an excellent job as the de facto head of the (D) ticket in Texas.  Even if he doesn’t prevail, he’ll help bring out the Democratic vote for other races in Texas.  Additionally, O’Rourke is making national Republicans spend a ton of money on a Senate race that should have been a slam dunk.  They can’t spend that money elsewhere.

State Races in Texas

The 2018 state-level picture in Texas is pretty bleak for anyone without an (R) after their name.  The Texas superfecta (Governor, Lt. Governor, House, & Senate) is a safe bet for Republicans.  In fact, state-level politics in Texas – at least in the short term – will likely get even more radically conservative than it already is.

There’s nothing much new here.  Texas Democrats haven’t held a statewide office since 1994 and the last Democratic governor elected in Texas was Ann Richards back in 1991.

The 2018 races for Governor and Lt. Governor (both of which are important in Texas) are foregone conclusions and will remain in Republican hands.  Early Democratic hopes that Lupe Valdez (D) at the top of the ticket could energize Hispanic voters have largely dissipated – partially due to a lackluster campaign and partially due to Democratic infighting.  <insert heavy sigh here>

Republicans have controlled both state legislative chambers in Texas since 2003 and that’s not going to change in 2018.  While all 150 Texas House seats and 15 of the 31 Texas Senate seats are up for election, the state districts are way too Republican-friendly and the current margins are way too great to overcome even if Democrats somehow manage to make gains this year.  That’s just the way it is.

Of most interest in the state legislature mess will be the race to succeed the retiring Joe Straus (R) as Speaker of the House.  In Texas, the Speaker is a very powerful position and Straus has used it to modulate some of the more aggressively partisan inclinations of the rest of his party.  While definitely a Republican, Straus has been a reasonable, old-school, consensus-focused politician and his voice will be missed in Texas politics.  The Speaker is elected by his peers in the Texas House and, since Texas Republicans aren’t any more cohesive a force than Texas Democrats, it is possible (but by no means guaranteed) that the new Speaker will require at least a few Democratic votes to get a majority.  That fact just might help elevate someone in the mold of Straus.  Personally, though, I’m not holding my breath.

The one possible chance for Democrats at the state level is the race for Attorney General where Justin Nelson (D) is running a close race against incumbent Ken Paxton (R).  Of course, Nelson is aided by the fact that Paxton was indicted in 2015 for securities fraud in a case that has yet to go to trial.

In any other state, Nelson’s election would be a given.  He’s a well-respected Professor of Constitutional Law at the UT Law School and a former clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.  His opponent in the race for the chief legal officer in Texas is under indictment.

But this is Texas.  The latest polls give Paxton a slight lead.

Molly Ivins might have a had a good point after all.

2018 Elections Update

Posted on by admin

Time to update my previous Congressional election postings.  While the Democrats have improved their chances in both chambers, it’s still a numbers game.

My Top 20 House race targets have changed a bit.  Again, this list reflects my analysis of where money can be best spent to flip the House.  See my previous posting for details.

Three House races fell off my list that are now likely (D); one race fell off that is now likely (R).  There are now 11 other seats that already look likely to flip.  Thus, additional wins in these Top 20 close races would now give the Democrats a 6-vote margin in the House.  Since Democrats currently have a slight lead in 18 of these 20 races, the House is well within their reach.

My new Senate prognosis also puts Democrats in a slightly better position than I first estimated.  Of course, that’s rather like doubling your chances of winning the lottery by buying a second ticket.  The odds are technically better, but it’s still a rather long shot.

To just barely take control of the Senate, Democrats would need to win all 11 of the competitive races where they currently lead AND win 6 out of the 8 remaining competitive races where they are even or behind.  While not impossible, it’s unlikely.

Of course, with seven weeks to Election Day, anything can happen.  And it undoubtedly will.

Political Spectra

Posted on by admin

I generally find political labels to be rather pointless and I don’t consider myself to be a member of any political party.  I also acknowledge that any political positioning on any scale is largely a matter of perspective.  That said, I have indeed self-identified as “a little left of center” within this blog.  While I stand by that overly broad characterization, some readers have questioned my underlying rationale.

In the interest of full disclosure, I thought some further insight might be appropriate.  (Nah.  I really don’t give a crap about full disclosure.  I just find political positioning to be an interesting topic.)

There are various online quizzes that attempt to derive some definitive placement on various political spectra.  Most of them are a waste of time since the multiple choice format doesn’t allow much room for nuanced answers.  However, I do find two of these methodologies to be somewhat interesting.

In this blog’s previous incarnation, I published a link to the Political Compass.  Recognizing that “left/right” is itself a flawed scale, the Political Compass attempts to classify a respondent within a two-dimensional grid – using the horizontal axis to represent economic positions and the vertical axis to represent social positions.

The compass currently uses a 62 question survey to derive a grid coordinate.  The grid itself is very Euro-centric – representing a political spectrum that is much broader on the other side of the pond.  While U.S. Republicans would be generally positioned to the upper right of U.S. Democrats, almost all mainstream American politicians would find themselves in the upper right quadrant of the international grid.  Within that context, the compass has been around since 2001 and still seems useful.

Numerous attempts to position various politicians and parties on the Political Compass can be found online, but here’s what looks like a rationale take from the 2012 and 2016 U.S. election cycles:

Here’s my personal results from November 2007:

I recently retook the test (almost 11 years later) and the compass positions me in virtually the same spot today.  Hey, at least I’m consistent!  And I can’t really argue a whole lot with the result.

Another characterization attempt is 8values.  This methodology uses a 70 question survey to position a respondent on four separate axes, each with its own a linear scale bookended by two opposing values.  The axes and their respective values are Economic (Equality vs. Markets), Diplomatic (Nation vs. World), State (Liberty vs. Authority), and Society (Tradition vs. Progress).

Here’s my results:

8values also tells me that I’m a Social Libertarian – whatever the hell that means.  Again, I’m not fond of labels.  However, the general placements on the four axes seem reasonable enough.

I’d be interested to hear if others find these to produce more-or-less accurate results.

Fun with Flags

Posted on by admin

“Fun with Flags” is a recurring bit on “The Big Bang Theory” sitcom where Sheldon records a video podcast on the exciting topic of vexillology – the study of flags.  I wondered how the gang might weigh in on the various flag stories currently in the news…

Scene:  The apartment.  Sheldon and Amy are on the couch, facing a video camera.  Behind the camera are Leonard and Howard who appear to be to silently playing a computer game.  Sheldon’s Mom, Mary, is reading her Bible.  Penny and Raj are at the kitchen counter, respectively drinking coffee and a wine cooler.

Sheldon:  Hello, I’m Dr. Sheldon Cooper.  Welcome to Sheldon Cooper Presents Fun with Flags.  Today, we have a very special episode on “Old Glory” – the American flag.  I’m joined by Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler who I see is dressed in a football uniform.  Amy, may I presume that your sartorial choice is a clever analog for the disrespect shown by NFL players towards the American flag?

Amy:  On the contrary, my garb expresses my solidarity with the players and their protests.

Sheldon:  Now hold on a minute.  We agreed that we weren’t going to get political here.

Amy:  You agreed with yourself.  I didn’t participate.  And, besides, you just called the protests disrespectful.  That’s a political opinion.

Sheldon:  No.  That’s a fact.

Amy:  Sheldon, reasonable people can have different opinions.

Sheldon:  No, they can’t.  I’m sorry.  I was raised to respect our flag.

Mary:  You tell her, Shelly.

Amy:   Leonard, help me out here.

Leonard:  How did I get dragged into this?

Sheldon:  When did this turn into a town hall?

Amy:  Come on, Leonard, if you were an NFL player, wouldn’t you want the right to protest?

Leonard:  I’d want the right to get the hell out of there.  Those guys are huge!  But, okay, if I owned an NFL team, I guess I’d expect my players to stand without protest if they’re on the field during the National Anthem.

Amy:  Really?  You don’t think freedom of speech means that people can stand, sit, kneel, or knit during the National Anthem if they so choose?

Leonard:  Of courses it does.  But the team is a business with a valuable brand.  I’d tell my players they can protest when they’re not on my clock and not in my uniform.  Hey, I wouldn’t allow on-field protests against puppy torture, either.

Raj:  <gasp>

Leonard:  Well, okay.  Maybe for puppies.  But in general, if it’s not football, don’t bring it onto the field.  My team; my rules.  Hey, I like owning a football team!

Amy:  I saw a clip of Beto O’Rourke recently – the guy running for Senate against Ted Cruz in Texas.  He gave a quite thoughtful and nuanced answer to a question about the NFL issue.

Sheldon:  I saw that clip.  Thoughtful nuance won’t exactly play well in Texas.

Amy:  Nor here, apparently.

Mary:  It’s not a crime to be a patriot, Amy.  You sound like one of those flag-burning hippies.

Amy:  I have a doctorate in neurobiology.  Flag burning wasn’t on the curriculum and, in fact, it seems like a rather stupid act to me.  But if we made stupidity illegal, we’d have to build a lot more prisons.  Several in Texas, perhaps.

Mary:  Well, I agree with our President.

Amy:  The same President that prematurely raised the American flag flying over the White House to take a cheap political shot at the recently deceased Senator McCain?

Mary:  Don’t you go trashing President Trump!

Sheldon:  Mother, the President doesn’t even know what the American flag looks like.

Mary:  Sheldon Cooper!

Sheldon:  I’m sorry, but he incorrectly colored the American flag in front of school children!  He’s an idiot.

Mary:  I’m not talking to you.

Howard:  You know, the new Neal Armstrong movie isn’t going to include a scene where the astronauts plant the American flag on the moon.

Sheldon:  Oh, great.  Another comment from the cheap seats.

Leonard:  The movie’s not even out yet!

Raj:  No, I read about that.  The director says the flag is on screen a lot but he made a creative decision not to dwell on the actual planting of the flag.  He wanted to focus on Armstrong’s humanity rather than the space race aspects.

Howard:  It was a NASA mission.  We paid for it.

Raj:  They left a plaque on the moon that says, “We came in peace for all mankind.”  I’m pretty sure that includes me.

Leonard:  Hey, we haven’t heard from Penny yet.

Sheldon:  Oh, goodie.  Maybe we can drag a homeless person off the street to weigh in as well.

Mary:  Manners, Shelly.  Go ahead, Penny.

Penny:  Hmm.  Okay.  Let me get this straight.  Amy thinks the symbol isn’t as important as the values it represents, Sheldon thinks the symbol and the values are the same thing, Leonard thinks it’s all a business decision, Howard wants to tell a director how to edit his movie, Raj just wants to be included, and Mary would be cool with Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

Mary:  I’m sure they’d deserve it.

Sheldon:  That’s a rather plebeian summary, Penny, but it’s not inaccurate.  However, you still didn’t tell us what you think.

Penny:  I think there’s a whole lot of important things going on in the world right now that are screaming for attention and you people have just wasted an evening arguing about a flag.  Y’all really need to get out more.

End Scene.