HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PDittie » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 7,320

Journal Archives

I watched on a Jumbotron at the TX Dem Party state convention

in the Austin Convention Center as she conceded. It was a Saturday afternoon. I saw grown men in blue jean overalls and Cat Diesel Power caps with tears running down their face.

The next day, at the general assembly of delegates, I saw two people from a Deep East Texas Senate district wearing black T-shirts with NOBAMA on the back. That was a first.

Those folks are going to be real mad all over again if Hillary chokes a second time.

It is troubling

that after 6.5 years of America's first black president's terms, this is still such a massive societal problem that the people most affected by it need to protest so vigorously about it. And not to the man in charge but to the two men who (allegedly) won't be in any position -- such as the White House -- to do anything about it.

They might have well been protesting in Phoenix last weekend, when Donald Trump was there speaking to his minions.

Bernie Sanders coming to Texas this weekend

Sunday, July 19:

Dallas: https://secure.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/townmeeting/4jv52

Houston: https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/townmeeting/4jv59

Sanders' unemployment/underemployment comparisons

are drawing accusations of "Republican talking point" and even "liar" from the usual suspects (Clintonites). Not on DU but other places on the InterTubes. I'm not an economist so I don't really understand what this is about, and Google is unhelpful (I probably can't get the search query correct).

Does anyone understand what's going on with this?

So those will be elected in 2016.

About one third of the Texas Senate and all 150 state representatives in the House. The filing deadline for the 2016 election is at the end of December, 2015.

Are you familiar with Michael Quinn Sullivan and Empower Texas? They're the most conservative activists in the state. They have released a report card on the 2015 Legislature, just concluded a month ago. They score the worst ones (in our HO) from 100 and on down. If you want to take a look at that, the key is to read it bottom to top, to get a feel for who they consider the most liberal, up to the most conservative.

There's also Texas Monthly's Ten Best and Worst. That just lists the names, though; the juicy details are in the dead tree version, on stands now.

On the Issues is woefully behind in updating Texas officials. Ballotpedia has scorecards for 2013 and 2011, probably working on 2015. There is no "Wiki" that I am aware of at this time that, at a glance, will give you what you appear to be looking for.

Finally, keep in mind that there are about a dozen retirements from the Lege just concluded, that people are announcing for those vacancies now, primary challenges to incumbents, and so forth. So everything is in a state of flux, and will continue to be until the filing deadline at the end of the year.

For the best day to day coverage of the Lege, in and out of session, subscribe to Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report, specifically the Daily Buzz (a regular subscription is a few hundred bucks, if you're so inclined; the Buzz is free and will give you truncated teasers). He can get deep in the weeds for newbies, but his information is indispensable. And also the Texas Tribune. They're corporate-backed, and the bias is occasionally evident, but since the newspapers in Texas have all abandoned their Austin bureaus, nobody is in the Dome on a daily basis, even out of session as we are now, like them.

What other questions might you have?

DNC kills Texas Two-Step

(Sorry if this duplicates; I looked but didn't see one.)

Seven years after Barack Obama earned the majority of Texas' delegates despite losing the primary to Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic National Committee has put an end to the state's hybrid presidential nominating process, saying it "had the potential to confuse voters."

Under the two-step process, two-thirds of a candidate's convention delegates are awarded on the basis of the primary election results. The remaining third are chosen at caucuses, which are held after the polls closed on primary night.

Now, at the direction of the national party, delegates will be based solely on the primary results, a shift some party members lamented Tuesday.

"It's not the way we would prefer to do it," said Harris County Democratic Party Chair Lane Lewis. "I still think that there is plenty of opportunity for individuals who want to participate in the delegate process to be able to participate."


My humble O is that this was done in order to prevent HRC from being Obama'd again, as she was in 2008. The Frontloading blog agrees...

As a side note, it hard to resist viewing the denied waiver request as a signal of if not the Clinton campaign's pull on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, then the reality that there are folks on the committee (Harold Ickes comes to mind) that are or have in the past been aligned with the Clintons. That comment is not meant as some form of conspiracy theory. That is how the Democratic process has worked: Surrogates of the various campaigns get involved in the rules process. Given that Clinton folks were not fans of the two-step (and for arguably legitimate reasons) after 2008, it is not a real shock that it would meet its end now.

But why now and not four years ago? Parties holding the White House tend not to tinker as much with their delegate selection rules. And by extension, those in the White House at the head of their parties often prefer to maintain the same combination of rules that got them to the White House in the first place. The denied Texas request is as much about the DNC transitioning to life after Obama as it is about Clinton (and company) not liking the two-step because of 2008.

This reinforces my POV that Bernie Sanders has a more difficult road to the nomination than even many of his supporters may be aware of: the institutional Democrats (party officials, super-delegates, elected officials, and DNCers like these) will bend the rules to the benefit of Clinton and the detriment of Sanders should he gain even more traction.

Does anyone disagree with the premise that the rules were changed to protect Clinton and thwart Sanders? I'd like to hear your argument if you think that wasn't the intention here.

I believe there are only two things that stand in his way

One of them is not the questionable intelligence of the average voter.

1. He MUST begin to draw minority voters to his campaign and message. He cannot win the primary, much less the general, if Latino and African American voters don't peel away from Clinton. This is her greatest strength; they know her and love her. Hard rock to crack. He can't win the nomination without attracting minority voters. But even if that happens...

2. The party insiders/super delegates/elected officials must be driven back from rigging the game in her favor. Bernie has essentially no institutional support at this moment. And the institution is likely to harden against his bid as he gains additional traction.

The clearest example of this isn't what happened after McGovern was swamped in 1972, or even when Eugene McCarthy got silenced in '68. Go all the way back to when Henry Wallace was pushed out of the vice-presidency for Harry Truman in 1944, and hope history doesn't repeat itself.

I share your weariness

as posted at the beginning. And I was also an Edwards supporter. One of about 233 at my precinct convention (all the rest Obama or Clinton, with most of the Obama supporters young and new to the process, and some African Americans among the Hillary caucus who thought the country just wasn't ready for a black man to be president).

I thought Edwards was a man of decency, integrity, and who understood the plight of the middle class. Laughable now, yes? One out of three ain't a passing grade.

As time and the primary season passed, some Clinton supporters -- they called themselves PUMAs; see also here -- held a grudge, but I feel certain most of that melted away by November of 2016 (though this recent New Repub article takes exception with that premise). I can recall being at the Texas Democratic Party convention in May of 2008 on that Saturday afternoon when Hillary Clinton conceded the nomination to Obama. I saw grown men cry -- older white rural gimme-cap men in blue jean overalls.

The next day I saw some delegates wearing T-shirts that said "NObama" on the back.

So yeah, we Democrats have some mitigating to do with each other (especially in Texas, where we fight with each other over 40% of the statewide vote).

I think most of those are generalizations

in the extreme. But there's no point in quarreling about your impressions.

If you were here in 2008, you know that this is child daycare compared to that time. Democrats bicker with each other as a ritual and as a routine, in every election, right down to city dogcatcher. It's just what we do.

I don't think it's unhealthy. It might not be pleasant but it does seem to be the only way that the sausage gets ground, cased, and cooked.


People who take offense to criticism of the president's policies by screaming 'racist' have completely worn out the trope.

The pictures in the OP are unflattering and insensitive -- all presidents are fair game for that -- but are not racist. if he had a bone through his nose or were eating fried chicken then I would agree that they are racist. But let's stop yelling racism every time somebody says something or posts a picture that doesn't exalt our Democratic president.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »