Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Trump’s Weakness in Texas Is a Fluke

Don’t be fooled, Democrats. Texas is still a deeply Republican state.

By Comments

Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images

On Monday, the Real Clear Politics site declared that Texas is up for grabs in the presidential election. The shift comes after a series of polls showing a tight race in the state between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and makes for a dramatic image on the site’s election tracking map, where Texas is no longer colored its usual red but is now the dark gray that connotes a “toss up.” For Democrats, seeing their state change color on one of the most widely read and respected campaign outlets—after decades of Republican dominance and years of unfulfilled hopes that Texas might turn blue—must be cathartic. And it might be tempting to view this sudden shift to competitiveness as the start of Democrats’ long-hoped-for return to relevance, as a turning point.

Well, they should keep the cork in the champagne, because Texas remains a Republican state.

As my colleague R.G. Ratcliffe pointed out, the Texas polls are close not because of a huge spike in Democratic voters—Clinton’s numbers are roughly in line with Obama’s totals from 2008 and 2012—but because Trump’s support has cratered. He’s drastically under-performing previous Republican presidential nominees. John McCain and Mitt Romney garnered 55 percent and 57 percent of the vote in Texas, respectively. Trump is polling 10 to 12 points below that.

That isn’t just a Texas phenomenon: Other reliably Republican states like Utah, Arizona, and Georgia have also become competitive, and swing states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Colorado now appear out of reach for Trump.

All of which makes the close race in Texas look like a fluke—the product of a weak Republican candidate running a disastrous campaign.

Many Democrats may already know this, but for anyone tempted to misread this election as a sign that something is fundamentally shifting in Texas politics, let’s run through a few more reasons why this close race is likely fool’s gold.

For one, it was possible to predict that Trump’s nomination could make Texas competitive in the presidential election; in fact, our own Erica Grieder called it months ago.

It’s also telling that the state became a toss up only after Trump’s campaign began to meltdown from scandals probably too numerous to list here. You’ve no doubt read a story or two about them.

That seems to indicate that the free-falling Trump campaign has made Texas a close race rather than any particular action taken by Democrats (Clinton’s recent small television ad buy not withstanding).

While it’s true that the national GOP looks like a smoking ruin right now, the state party remains fairly strong. It still has huge advantages over Texas Democrats in money, organization, and candidate depth, and Republicans start every statewide race with at least a ten-point edge, if not more. And if you’re thinking that built-in advantage may be shrinking, keep in mind that we’re just two years removed from an across-the-board Republican blowout of nearly 20 points. In Wendy Davis, the Democrats had their best known and best funded candidate in years, and she lost to Greg Abbott by nearly a million votes.

It’s also worth remembering that most statewide offices in Texas come up for election in non-presidential years in which the electorate generally tends to be whiter and older—in other words, more Republican.

The one caveat is the potential increase in Latino voters. R.G. wrote on Monday that more than 530,000 people with Latino surnames have registered to vote since 2012, according to the Texas secretary of state’s office. It’s not hard to envision Trump’s candidacy increasing the number of Latino voters who turn out to vote in Texas, offering Democrats the opportunity to begin building a coalition that could one day make them competitive again. But capitalizing on that opportunity requires the difficult party-building, community-organizing, voter-turnout work that Democrats in this state haven’t exactly excelled at in recent years.

In other words, two years from now—without Trump at the top of the ticket—Texas Republicans will once again be heavily favored to sweep the statewide offices.

So Texas Democrats should enjoy the moment. They should have a long, satisfied look at that Real Clear Politics map, maybe take a screen shot of it, because it’s not likely to last.

Related Content

  • roadgeek

    Coincidentally, the Austin daily is running a series on the lack of Hispanic representation in local government in Texas. The one theme that keeps leaping out of every installment is that Hispanic voter turnout is miserably low. The series pointed out several cases in which Hispanic voters in a specially-drawn district were numerically superior to other groups, but continued to lose elections to Anglos. Because. They. Just. Won’t. Vote. I don’t expect that to change this time either.

    • dave in texas

      Yes, Hispanic voting in Texas has tended to be about 10% less than Hispanic voting in other states, but don’t underestimate their motivation to get out and vote against a candidate that has insulted and disparaged them at every turn. Will that motivation continue after 2016? That’s a whole ‘nother question, and given the state of the Texas Democratic Party, I’m not holding my breath.

      • roadgeek

        Doubt it. They just don’t care about participating in politics, or have the attitude of “what’s in it for me?” See the articles in the Austin paper for more details. The whole phenomenon is fascinating to me. For so long they couldn’t vote, now they won’t vote.

        • dave in texas

          “Doubt it. They just don’t care about participating in politics”
          That’s a mighty broad brush you’re using. Perhaps they just haven’t been sufficiently motivated. Perhaps more barriers to vote have been placed in front of Hispanic voters; poorer people tend to vote less.
          “or have the attitude of what’s in it for me?”
          You’ve just described practically every voter ever. I’ve read the articles; they’re much more nuanced than your “Hispanics just don’t care” blanket statement.

          • roadgeek

            Well, you keep on making excuses, and in the meanwhile, Anglos will continue to run the state. If Hispanics wanted power they’d reach out and grab it; they don’t, and they won’t. You can make bank on that.

          • dpcesq

            The question is — has Trump been the one to make them get their fannies off the couch and vote? And if so, is it a one time phenomenon or the start of gradual change? I don’t know. We’ll see, but the Hispanic voters I know are PISSED and many have already voted, which is new for them.

    • Jed

      won’t vote or are being prevented from voting.

      • roadgeek

        Won’t vote. The article makes that abundantly clear. Districts are drawn that guarantee a Hispanic victory, but the Hispanics just won’t vote. Article talked about an Abilene school board race in a specially-drawn district. Voter turnout was only 2%, however, and an Anglo won. The articles are interesting. No one is preventing Hispanics from voting; they just choose not to vote.

        • Jed

          “No one is preventing Hispanics from voting; they just choose not to vote.”

          whatever it takes to get you through.

      • Wilson James

        Little bit of both, I reckon.

  • Jed

    “So Texas Democrats should enjoy the moment. They should have a long, satisfied look at that Real Clear Politics map, maybe take a screen shot of it, because it ‘s not likely to last.”

    this is why I am especially disappointed that Texas Dems have failed to capitalize on this fleeting moment in more down-ballot races.

    even with Trump melting down, Dem SBOE candidates, for example, probably needed to campaign to actually manage the upset. and for certain, not even running a credible candidate for RRC looks like a huge huge huge gag.

    • Unwound

      The fact that they’re handing an office to Wayne Christian is depressing

  • Rules of Blazon

    You seriously think all the (former) Republicans Trump alienated are gonna come rushing back to vote for his little bootlickers like Jade Helm Greg and Bathroom Dannie? Get real.

    We’re killing it. You wanna be butthurt about it? We don’t care. It’s clobbering time.

    • pwt7925

      I don’t see them coming around for Wendy Davis 2.0,or somehow becoming big government liberals either. Particularly if Hillary Clinton tries to outdo Bernie or becomes captive to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic party.

      • Rules of Blazon

        Now that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN OFFICEHOLDER IN TEXAS has made perfectly clear they are all in lockstep with der fuhrer Trump, they will not be able to shake him. Ever. And it won’t matter what Clinton does.

        People like Jade Helm Greg got away with it for so long because they were able to cloak their bigotry and fascism in a veneer that made them acceptable to people like Erica Grieder. Well, that’s gone now.

        Clobbering time!

        • pwt7925

          Well perhaps, but, if I can borrow your overcaffeinated, undermedicated and surreal style for a moment, ‘EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC OFFICE SEEKER IN TEXAS will be personally responsible for and accountable for Hillary Clinton’s adoption of the Bernie/Elizabeth Warren agenda of socialism, overregulation, and the like. Or something like that.

          • Unwound

            “Hillary Clinton’s adoption of the Bernie/Elizabeth Warren agenda of socialism, overregulation, and the like.”

            gimme a break. thats not going to happen. i wish.

          • pwt7925

            We’ll see. I know that Bernie and Sen. Warren will certainly make a lot of noise. for those of us who aren’t Bernie or Liz fan (IMO Bernie would have been a disaster, and Sen. Warren does appear to want to expand intrusive regulation into all sorts of areas of our lives). There will be at least 20 or so groups claiming that “Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have been elected but for us” and demanding that their Christmas wish list be granted in full. Sen. Warren already wants veto power over any financial regulators. She’ll get some, but she won’t rest until she gets everyone who actually conducts business for a living thrown in jail. that won’t happen.

          • BCinBCS

            pwt wrote: “…but she won’t rest until she gets everyone who actually conducts business for a living thrown in jail.

            Hyperbole much?

          • pwt7925

            Just a tad; but she certainly appears to have a public mindset of “guilty until proven innocent, and probably still guilty” with respect to most in the business community.

          • BCinBCS

            Guilty of what?

          • pwt7925

            Whatever she accuses them of.

          • BCinBCS

            And of what, exactly, is she accusing them?

          • Unwound

            considering theres $2.1T in tax revenue being held overseas by US companies, shes right.

          • pwt7925

            Blame Congress and the Tax Code for that one.

          • Unwound

            Happily. I’ll also blame the businesses for exploiting loopholes and lobbying for them to remain in place.

          • Rules of Blazon

            I think you should give Liz another look. You’ll like what you see. She’s good people, and she makes a lot of sense.

          • Unwound

            clintons a neoliberal and her first instinct is to tack right. shes going to have some serious problems navigating between sanders and warren (who are also, incidentally, 2 of the most popular politicians in the country) but she’s going to do what shes always done: kotow to big business and follow wall street’s lead on econ policy while happily advocating any and every war she comes across.

          • Gary Denton

            We have had 40 years of every Democrat being tarred by association with every out of state liberal Democrat. You don’t think it is time Texas Republicans suffer the same way?

          • Jed

            “‘EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC OFFICE SEEKER IN TEXAS will be personally responsible for and accountable for Hillary Clinton’s adoption of the Bernie/Elizabeth Warren agenda of socialism, overregulation, and the like. Or something like that.”

            would that. truly too bad none of that is going to happen.

        • Gunslinger

          Sir, I believe it’s spelled “CLOBBERIN’ TIME!”

          • John Bernard Books

            Dems would know about getting clobbered….

          • Gunslinger

            Chawlee, are you so old that you don’t get a Fantastic Four reference?

          • Rules of Blazon

            The Thing!

    • Unwound

      Stop being delusional if you can help it.

      • Rules of Blazon

        Butthurt alert! BEEP BEEP BEEP

        • Unwound

          grow up and take your ritalin. however left you might think you are, i promise you you arent as far out on the spectrum as i am. but im not under the mistaken impression that dem performance in tx because of a clown candidate means we’ll see any improvements in 18 or 20. the dem party in tx is still on life support, as evidenced by the entire second page of my ballot not having any dem candidates. they cant even pretend to put up anything more than a token resistance.

          • Rules of Blazon

            I’ve repeatedly said I’m right of center. I’m a Democrat cause I fkn can’t stand bigots and liars and cheaters and malicious crazy people, and that’s all the Republicans have.

            Also: BEEP BEEP BEEP

          • Unwound

            so you genuinely think that we’re going to see a dem gov, sen or some other office in 2018

            or even, maybe that they’ll bother running for the full ballot then?

          • Rules of Blazon

            I think if Hillary comes within a few points of Trump, that will encourage the level of investment and quality of candidate we need to win statewide in 2018, which will be possible if the investment materializes. And with that, I expect we’d also start seeing more candidates emerge for down-ballot races even in tough counties — but it will depend on the numbers in individual counties. Hillary coming within 5 points of Trump in, say, Collin or Williamson may well coax some people into filing as Democrats for offices there like, say, county court-at-law judge.

          • Unwound

            you had the quality of candidate to win statewide in 2014. she lost by 20 points.

          • Unwound

            so by all means, keep sticking your fingers in your ears going BEEP BEEP and shaking your head, dems in texas are going nowhere until 2030 at least.

          • WUSRPH

            I, unfortunately, have to agree with you. The Dems have to build up from the base in the same way the GOP did. This will require carefully selecting races and concentrating funding and effort on them as the GOP did under the direction of the old Associated Republicans of Texas headed up by Norman Newton in the 70s and 80s.

            When it comes to statewide races it may have to adopt the same policy the GOP used as it built from the base of putting up token candidates just to fill ballot spots since there is little chance of winning statewide unless the GOP really screws up in picking its nominees.

            As I noted previously, it will be made more difficult by the fact that virtually all redistricting will be under the GOP”s control in 2021….but even an even greater obstacle will be breaking the GOP’s strong habit of straight-ticket voting.

            The Democrats had much better candidates (at least on paper) for several down ballot races in 2014 especially for Comptroller and Attorney General, but they were demolished by straight ticket voting. At this point, I don’t think anyone has a real handle on how to get more GOP-leaning Independents and the few real Independents to cross-over but I am sure that plenty of thought and effort will be put into finding some ways to attract them.

          • WVU Grad

            And you don’t think Democrats are bigots, liars, cheaters and malicious crazy people than you need to take off your blinders.

          • Rules of Blazon

            BEEP BEEP BEEP

          • Unwound

            youre right of course, this is why i think liberals are idiots and wont vote for clinton under any circumstances.

          • Jed

            “however left you might think you are, i promise you you arent as far out on the spectrum as i am. ”

            i’ll take that bet.

          • Unwound

            i actually advocate single payer healthcare and nationalizing banks, and im writing in sanders on my ballot. still taking that?

          • Jed

            well the sanders thing doesn’t make you a leftist, it makes you a failure at tactics and math.

            the rest is a good start. nationalize energy resources and the water supply, guarantee a basic income and basic standard of living, stop funding private schools and give free tuition (need-based) to all public universities, and we’ll be getting somewhere.

          • Unwound

            im not doing it because of the math. im doing it because clinton is a terrible candidate and person.

            besides, i think she’ll be just fine but will still lose texas with or without my vote.

  • WUSRPH

    I doubt any serious analyst thinks that the Democrats are suddenly going to surge back into power as a result of the Trump debacle. There is little or no chance that Democratic statewide candidates will be successful in 2018….BUT if Clinton has any coattails it can make a difference in the only competitive congressional district (HD 23) and a few seats in the Texas House and maybe even a shot at a SBOE spot. This “success” after years of defeats can serve as an encouragement for the kind of build-from-the-bottom effort that is really required. It may make more people willing to become candidates at the local and state legislature level……and make it once again socially respectable in some areas to publicly be a Democrat. A close race this year can, as such, be a turning point…..or, to perryphrase, Churchill while it “is not the end (of the rebuilding effort). It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

  • Wilson James

    if you look at the numbers and the demographic trends in Texas the GOP gerrymandering and voter repression can only last so long before giving up the ghost. But short term, Texas will remain red. But think how many eyes were opened by Trump ( and his surrogates Danny Patrick, Greg Abbott, Louie Gohmert, Bill Flores)and how many potential D’s are getting their first taste of the GOP and its new alt-right leadership and you have to wonder if 2020 or 2024 we are not blue.

    • WUSRPH

      In theory I have to agree with you…..but the reality is that any Democratic resurgence is going to be limited by the fact that the Republicans will still be in control when the lines of the various elective districts are drawn in 2021 and beyond. This means another round of skillfully drawn gerrymandered districts at both the state government and local government levels which will tend to artificially limit the number of possible Democratic districts.

      • pwt7925

        Yes, the Democratic gerrymandering that we used to see in old days (usually packing all the Republicans into a single district) will have to wait probably for another 10 or 20 years.

        • WUSRPH

          Yep…..we are likely to see a repeat of what happened in the past where the dominant party, then the Democratic Party, gradually and grudgingly gave way to demographic changes by yielding one or two districts at each redistricting. The Democrats have to hope that the courts will be as helpful to them as they were to the GOP in moving the process forward.

          • Kozmo

            Perhaps its not impossible to hope for a genuine sea change in our electoral options as well, so that we don’t merely exchange domination by conservative Democrats for domination by ultra-conservative Republicans and then on to yet another manifestation of quasi-conservative stagnation and misgovernance.

        • Wilson James

          Yep, its coming. Turnabout is fair play, eh?

  • nickthap

    What makes you think the GOP is capable of nominating anyone better than Trump next time? Maybe this is the GOP’s future. Now.

    • Unwound

      cotton/cruz ’20

      • Gary Denton

        Yes, objectively worse than Trump. That ticket will be insulting women and minorities and with a big helping of intolerant far right theocracy on top.

      • Wilson James

        That is beyond Trump. The Grand Wizard and the Ayatollah, great for America.

  • John Bernard Books

    The dems have put forth a flawed candidate, one almost as corrupt as LBJ and TM remains silent…go figure.
    If Hillary is the best and brightest dems have to offer it will be another 20 years before dems can expect to try for a statewide office let alone a national office.

    • Unwound

      and the republicans put forward a clown who has zero interest or idea in governing, whos going to wind up dealing a huge amount of damage to the party nationally and will lose them the senate as well.

  • WUSRPH

    A more recent Austin A/S poll gives Trump a 7 point lead with a 3.5 point margin of error. I think it is closer to reality…with the total non-Trump vote approaching 49% when you combine Hillary and the two minor parties. A slight improvement on past years, but not enough to shift the balance. It still may be enough to win 5 or more Texas House seats and put Gallego back into the US House. One can hope that is enough to give the Democrats more encouragement when they go into 2018.

  • WUSRPH

    Isn’t it nice having two BB threads in two days…..I hope this is a sign of things to come, especially with the Legislature coming to town in January.

    • John Bernard Books

      and you’re still off topic…go figure

  • glennwsmith

    What’s the purpose of this post? And who are you talking to, Dave? Most of us know what’s possible and what’s not. As to those who hope with their hearts for change, is demoralizing them entertaining?

    • Dave Mann

      Glenn,
      I’d say the purpose of the post is to inform readers, many of whom may not follow these issues or know them as well as you do. As I stated in the post, many Democrats and political observers are all too aware of everything I wrote about. But I’ve also heard from a number of people on the left who are hoping this fluke year somehow represents Texas finally turning blue/purple, and, for all the reasons stated above, I just don’t believe that’s the case. I don’t mean to demoralize or entertain (OK, maybe entertain a little), but rather to inform readers and to analyze what I see as the reality.

      • glennwsmith

        First, thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I was late posting and deep in the thread and your attention is greatly appreciated. My own view is that Trump will open some eyes of Texas (so to speak) to the depredations of the GOP’s ruling era. The tale will be told in turnout patterns, not the horse race numbers. Don’t forget, Abbott, Patrick, Bush, Paxton et al are in the first-class car of the Trump Train. Post-election they will try to pretend Trump never existed, that he wasn’t a fluke but a bad dream best forgotten. But Trump did exist, and his statements/beliefs/pronouncements/policies should stick to his Texas pals. Like I wrote in the Statesman, GOP rule is like cigarette smoking. It’s a bad habit. The damage is invisible at first, but ultimately people will pay attention to the warnings on the GOP pack.

        • dave in texas

          But Trump did exist, and his statements/beliefs/pronouncements/policies should stick to his Texas pals.

          I couldn’t agree more, but the cynic in me doesn’t see a good way to make that happen. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the course of this campaign (or over the last 10-15 years, for that matter), it’s that facts and evidence don’t make much difference to a significant portion of the electorate. How exactly does one change the minds of people who believe with absolute certainty that demonstrably false things are true? I don’t really expect an answer to an unanswerable rhetorical question, but this has been on my mind a lot lately.

          Nice to see you here, by the way, and hope to see you back. Don’t let all the trolling dissuade you.

          • SpiritofPearl

            We could start by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan killed. We have an uneducated voter population.

          • SpiritofPearl

            I would also advocate for national service for all young people, male and female, to build espirit de corps – a “gap year” after high school.

          • BCinBCS

            Absolutely.

            In exchange for the national service, the young person would get free university, community college or trade school.

          • Shelly H.

            Please don’t under-estimate the anger of women. While I do understand that many either ignore or are OK with and defend Trump’s comments, along with those of his spokesmen – Gingrich, Giuliani, Pence, Alex Jones, etc. I think you’ll find a majority of women under 50 who no longer feel welcome or represented by the GOP.

            How these women move forward could be a game changer. My 26yo daughter who is a very conservative pro-life Christian, has said there is not a place for her in the GOP any longer and many in her age group agree. They also are not voting for Trump – they will either vote for Johnson or write in McMullen and some will vote for Hillary.

            I doubt that these women will forgive and forget those who made the choice to support Trump.

          • dave in texas

            I’m pretty sure you’re right about that; I certainly hope so anyway.

  • Samantha Hall

    Yeah, you hope.

  • John Bernard Books

    Here’s the question for you bozos….just how stupid are dems?
    “You can’t do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that,” Gruber said. “In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever,”
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-yeah-we-lied-to-the-stupid-american-people-n1916605

    I don’t believe there has ever been this large block of stupid voters dems can use to loot tax dollars….

  • John Bernard Books

    Time to hold dems accountable for the massive debt, and the Obamacare debacle….$20,000,000,000,000.00. thats 20 Trillion Dollars of debt…..and
    “ObamaCare has suddenly been injected back into the 2016 election debate, on the news of the law’s 25%-plus average premium increase for 2017. Even Donald Trump is talking about it. With only two weeks to go, this is a moment for voters to hold accountable the Democrats who imposed this debacle on the country over voter objections.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/accountability-for-obamacare-1477435661

    This election isn’t about the dems fascination with sex or their war on women….its about democrat incompetence. Now go vote you buncha knuckahaids……

  • John Bernard Books

    Should California voter’s votes be counted or disqualified?
    “Why are Democrats so uniformly opposed to proof of citizenship in order to vote? They and their interest group surrogates insist there is no problem with voter security. But why should we believe this when we know illegal immigrants routinely lie to obtain employment?”
    There is a huge problem with voter fraud. And, in my opinion, it is proven by the vehemence of the Democrats, the beneficiaries of the fraud, toward enforcement of our laws.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-foster/democrats-benefit-from-illegal-immigrants-voting_b_1418523.html

    The obvious answer is no because the pool is tainted.

    • BCinBCS

      Here’s a thought:
      Why not let everyone who resides in the U.S. vote, regardless of eligibility?

      Any person over 18 years of age affected by a law, rule or political leader should have a say in approving or disapproving that law, rule or leader.

      We get into a mind-set about the way things are done, believing that they should continue as they have always been because that’s the way they have always been. Voting should be encouraged, not discouraged.

      Seems simple and fair to me.

      • WUSRPH

        It is constitutional too……There is nothing in the US Constitution that limits voting to citizens. In fact, resident aliens were allowed to vote in many states up to the early 20th century (including in Texas). That changed as part of earlier voter suppression movements.

        • BCinBCS

          I remember when I was young that voting was encouraged; all that was needed to vote was a utility bill.

        • John Bernard Books

          There is a federal law prohibiting illegals from voting signed in 1996 by Prez Bill Clinton.
          “Since 1996, a federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections, punishing them by fines, imprisonment, inadmissibility, and deportation”

      • Jed

        why 18?

        my kids make better vote decisions than many adults i hear from daily. in fact, they did so yesterday.

        • Shelly H.

          18 is legal age aka the age of majority – used to be 21 until the 27th amendment? where it was lowered circa 1970 the argument being that if 18 was old enough to be drafted it was old enough to have the right to vote.

          Traditionally, the age of majority was where you could legally be in control of all legal decisions including ownership of property. Maturity and intelligence is not tied to any specific age.

          • Jed

            since we no longer require landholdings to be eligible to vote, you are agreeing there is no rationale for a minimum voter age?

          • Shelly H.

            No, I was merely explaining the legal reasoning behind the voting age. There has to be some sort of threshold of a minimum voting age or you will have people getting to vote twice once for themselves, then again for their children if there is no minimum age to vote.

            While landholdings are not a requirement, the legal ability to own property is. Even today, inherited property or funds are usually held in trust, or are under the control of a legal guardian for a minor until they reach the age of 18 or the age stipulated by the trust if one was set up.

            IMO just because some under the age of 18 can make a reasoned decision on voting, that alone is not enough to lower the age to vote or to remove it altogether.

          • Jed

            why? wouldn’t that be voter fraud? only one vote per person. that’s not a new rule.

          • Shelly H.

            Aren’t you proposing no minimum age to vote? So a 6 month old would have the right to vote – who is going to exercise that right for them? or let me rephrase, how is a 6 month old going to exercise their right to vote? How about a 5 yo? a 10yo? (Yes, I acknowledge that I am tap-dancing with a straw-man argument here)

            Do we allow those who are mentally disabled – cognitively unable to understand their right to vote, or those who are incapacitated mentally to cast a ballot or to allow their guardian or surrogate to vote for them? If you open voting to a person of any age, what’s to prevent a parent from telling their child to vote for X candidate or referendum? Would that not also be voter fraud?

            When children are born they are 100% dependent on their parents for everything and as they grow they become less dependent and more autonomous. Since there is definitive age where a human in fully autonomous from their parents society has chosen a mean age where a majority of children have become autonomous.

            Parents are legally responsible for their minor children and make legal decisions for them which is why they do not have full rights as citizens until they reach the age of majority, which in the US is 18.

            If age is not a reasonable standard for determining who is eligible to vote what standards should their be? How do you determine if someone meets that standard?

          • Jed

            “Do we allow those who are mentally disabled – cognitively unable to understand their right to vote, or those who are incapacitated mentally to cast a ballot or to allow their guardian or surrogate to vote for them?”

            yes, i believe we do, which i think answers your entire concern. we have no competency testing for voting, nor should we.

            all these sorts of arguments that you want to trot out to explain why 6 months shouldn’t vote have also been used to prevent other groups from voting in the past.

            we now consider those efforts to be disgraceful efforts to restrict the franchise to citizens. kids are citizens, too, and they are affected (arguably more than the rest of us) by the political process.

  • Wilson James

    Politico and CNN are saying this morning Texas is in play. Probably not, but watching the heads explode on the old man right is worth it.

  • BCinBCS

    There is an interesting Christian Science Monitor article on the economy that places a lot of the blame for the lack of recovery on the disfunction in Washington.

    Despite somewhat encouraging news this week that the middle and lower-wage workers appeared to see relief in 2015 as the US median household income finally rose, most Americans are much worse off than they were two decades ago.

    This is not the product of the natural dips and bumps that typically punctuate our economy. According to a study released Thursday by Harvard Business School, the biggest threat to US competitiveness is our crippled political system and the “unrealistic and ineffective national discourse on the reality of the challenges facing the U.S. economy,” study authors reported.

    “A lot of people think that what’s going in is we had a bad recession and that we’re just recovering,” Michael Porter, a study author and co-chair of Harvard’s Competitiveness Project, which conducts an annual survey of US business leaders, tells CNBC. “What we find is that all the major data points that started moving in the wrong direction started in the late 90s and 2000s.”

    [snip]

    According to thousands of Harvard alumni, MBA students and non-Harvard responders, the country’s biggest problem is a tax code that hasn’t been updated in decades, even as the world has become more globalized, digitized, and as closed-off economies have opened for business.

    [snip]

    A dearth of national investment in secondary education and infrastructure, the political system, and health care were identified as other major barriers to American competitiveness. At the right levels, the study’s authors that, investment in those things should lead to equal prosperity for all.

  • dpcesq

    The points you make are all valid ones, and it is likely that the GOP will remain dominant for several election cycles – especially midterms. I do think, however, that the “degree of dominance” will be reduced. Texas is changing and changing fast, not just with Hispanics, but with people from California and other places moving to Dallas, Harris, Travis, Tarrant, Collin,Denton, Fort Bend Counties, etc.
    Assuming Trump loses the national election, I think the GOP’s reaction will determine how much ground it loses, and how fast. If sane Republicans like Joe Strauss are in control, the GOP will be in good shape. If, however, the “Trump” faction (Dan Patrick, for example) of the GOP becomes dominant, and we hear more and more about “sanctuary cities”, “bathroom bills”, illegal immigrants, disastrous tariffs, and attacks on women and gays, it will go down faster and farther. They will continue to alienate the educated, blacks and Hispanics, suburban women, and young, urban voters. And they may change Texas’ history of extremely low voter turnout by motivating these people to show up for midterms. If the House GOP spends two years “investigating” Hillary Clinton, and the Senate blocks all HRC’s Supreme Court nominees as some are now threatening, then a lot of moderate Republicans I know will be FED UP. I think the best way to describe the fact that the GOP is on a downward trajectory in Texas is to paraphrase Winston Churchill when the war in Europe started to turn: “This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, it may not even be the end of the beginning, but it is the beginning of the beginning.” And the biggest variable — will Texas D’s be up the challenge? They haven’t been yet.

    • BCinBCS

      Excellent analysis.

      You questioned whether the House GOP will investigate President Hillary Clinton. This is what Jason Chaffetz the Congressman from Utah who heads the House Oversight Committee said earlier this week: “It’s a target-rich environment, even before we get to Day One. We’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.” Republican leaders have endorsed Chaffetz’s plans.

      • Unwound

        and that, i think, is clintons only hope for a successful run in 2020- the GOP wastes all their time investigating her and she uses it to play the victim and hang them all with that, and their support for white supremacy.

        • dpcesq

          I think that is what will happen. The GOP does not appear to be capable of learning from their mistakes. They just think “we weren’t extreme enough”. Their impeachment of Bill Clinton backfired. It made him and Hillary more popular. They are going to do it all over, while ignoring the “autopsy” after the 2012 election and doubling down on a “base only” strategy. It is unbelievable.

          • WUSRPH

            I hope that in her victory remarks and in her inaugural address Clinton will stress that, as far as she is concerned, the slate is clean…in which she says things along the line of:

            –The American people tonight have sent all of us in public office a message tonight…a message that they want change….but they understand that change can only come when we work together as we truly are STRONGER TOGETHER.

            —In that regard, I want to tonight call upon the members of the Congress—Republicans and Democrat alike–to–as I pledge to do tonight— put aside old grievances and struggles and to work TOGETHER for the benefit of All Americans…

            –I stand here tonight ready to begin afresh and to work together with the members of Congress to begin a new day of cooperation in which the party that gets the credit or the blame is not a consideration, but only that we resolve the nations problems.

            …..I ask the Congress to join me in this effort. The American people have a right to expect no less than that from all of us…”.

            In doing that she offers a spirit of cooperation. If it responded to by the GOP all the better. If not, she is on record as wanting to work with them….any failure is thus their fault.

        • SpiritofPearl

          “Playing the victim”? Bad strategy that makes
          her appear weak and girly.

          • Unwound

            seems to work for trump

          • WUSRPH

            But there still is a double standard for a woman.

      • Jed

        this alone should be a campaign platform for democrats running for the house.

        vote for a democrat for congress, or you get nothing but four more years of whitewater/benghazi/email/demon-spawn hearings.

        • Unwound

          republicans are ok with that.

          + cruz and mccain saying they wont fill a supreme court vacancy.

          • Jed

            right, but i’m talking about the house, where these threats of more investigations are coming from.

          • Unwound

            no im aware, i meant in addition to endless house committees and worthless time wasting investigations that go nowhere.

            The GOP base is totally ok with this, and they would be angry if their house members werent actively trying to put clinton in jail for jaywalking

          • Jed

            yes, but the GOP base is not sufficient to control any part of the national government. the GOP base is less than 30% of the electorate.

            the problem is the self-proclaimed moderates and others who won’t vote democrat, even while they complain about the behavior of republicans.

          • Unwound

            ¯_(ツ)_/¯

          • Jed

            nothing to say to that, eh? well, at least you recognize you have a problem. next up, seeking help.

          • Unwound

            naw, you give me a candidate worth voting for, ill be happy to cast a ballot. in the meantime, keep your boomer centrist neoliberalism. its not for me.

          • Jed

            funny, this is where i came in.

    • Erica Grieder

      I agree with you on almost all points, @dpcesq, which is slightly exasperating because I’ve spent most of today drafting a post elaborating on why I’m not as eeyore-ish as my colleague Dave at the moment and you’re sort of scooping me with this comment. 😉 But on the bright side, I’m heartened that other Texans can see this and I wish more of our statewide leaders could.

      • dpcesq

        Thank you. Good reporting like yours helps people figure things out.

    • WUSRPH

      As to Dan Patrick’s likely shenanigans during the upcoming Session:

      I had lunch today with a well-connected lobbyist who told me that Patrick has at least three issues that he insists that the Legislature MUST PASS. That being:

      —School vouchers (at least in a pilot program but he wants more);
      —Transgenders in bathrooms; and
      —-Caps on local property tax increases. (Perhaps setting the roll-back election level at a 4% increase.)

      He supposedly says that there will be no general appropriations act until……

      Of course, Patrick has other issues on his wish list including such things as extending the “spending cap” to the entire budget (as I suggested in an earlier post) and “sanctuary cities”. But these are the third “session or no session” items.

      Whether these are the kinds of things that will cause the Texas GOP to loose more ground with the voters is to be seen. I would think that school vouchers is the least likely to pass and the one that would get the most people upset……Doing something on property taxes (or at least looking like you did something) is always a top seller with the voters and most GOP voters will cheer him on for the attack on transgenders, etc.

    • WUSRPH

      You put a lot of weight on the fact that people are moving into Texas fro other areas, suggesting that they will change the political dominance. This is a common hope, but it overlooks the fact that that the largest number of them are coming from southern or surrounding states that are also Red. These people are coming here because they feel comfortable–socially and politically–and are likely to only increase the Redness. Few “liberals” or “progressives” are included in the newcomers and, when they are, they will tend to move into already Blue or Purple areas.
      I did a piece on this some time ago which I will try to dig out in case you are interested in the facts about our in-migration.

      • WUSRPH

        I found the table that summarized my findings. The important ones are that:
        — 40.57% of those coming to Texas from other states come from either our direct neighbors or the states of the Old South.
        —-This compares to only 3.29% who are coming from the more liberal Northeast of the US. and 15% from the West Coast.

        • dpcesq

          15% from West Coast is enough to make a YUGE difference.

          • WUSRPH

            In sheer numbers, yes, but that does not answer important questions about these new Texans……such as why did they come and what are their political leanings? Just because they are from the West Coast does not mean that they are liberal. Of course, the same couid be said about the 40% that come from our four surrounding states and the Old South being conservatives.

            In both cases, that is the supposition, but it requires more analysis to make any real determination.

            These newcomers—from wherever they come—will produce some change in Texas, but it is not as likely to be as important a factor in changing Texas’ political climate as some would suggest..

            It is interesting to note that the largest number of new Texans from a single state each year are from California just as the largest number of NEW CALIFORNIANS are from Texas.

      • dpcesq

        I don’t pretend to know all the demographic statistics. Here’s what I do know. For this first time in I don’t know how long, there are quite a few D’s on the ballot in Collin County. They will probably all lose, but in the recent past no one even bothered to run. Lots of people from CA are moving to Collin County because of Toyota moving its North American HQ there. Lots of people from Illinois are going to move to N. Dallas, Richardson, etc. for State Farm’s new campus. My daughter works at the Dallas office of a NYC firm that moved people here – she was the first “native” hire. In the last few months, I’ve met people who moved to DFW from: Mexico, El Salvador, India, rural parts of Texas, OK, LA, CA, NY, NJ, IL, MI, MS, NM, AR, MO, and MA, and probably other places I forgot.
        I didn’t say Texas would instantly turn into Vermont. It is going to be slow. Ideally, it will turn “purple”. Legitimate competition between parties who actually have to compete in the general election would be good for everyone.

        • WUSRPH

          I appreciate your points, but just wanted to add a little more realism to the idea that “new Texans” will save the day.
          As you note, the change—which I too think is coming—will be gradual and will be shown when, of if, Democrats start picking up a few seats in local government offices (county, city, ISDs) in areas like Collin County and the Troll’s Fort Bend County. That development can be helped along if the Democrats carefully pick their candidates and the races to enter as the Republican ART did in the 70s, etc. But, as I have noted before, it will be slowed by the nearly complete GOP control of how election district lines are drawn and the need to get more voters to go back to “I vote for the candidate, not the party” and stop their straight-ticket voting. A “purple” Texas would be nice…but I do not expect it to become a reality anytime in the next 15 to 20 years barring some dramatic shift at the national level or the breakup of the GOP.

        • John Johnson

          Thousands of American Airlines people moved from NYC to Fort Worth when they moved their HQ here years ago. They are scattered all over this area…many in my neighborhood. For years, I have recreated them; called on them at their corporate office. I have yet to meet one that is a Democrat. If they were when they got here, they caught on in a hurry. I would expect the same metamorphosis to occur once Toyota and the other corporate transplants get situated here. As Mr. Mann espouses, this year is an outlier.

      • John Johnson

        “I did a piece…”. Hahaha! You create word salads. You are a pedantic chef. You offer an opinion in a thousand words or more. You are prolific.

        • Hcalla

          Right, a common hope? Give me a break, maybe for an Austin dweller.

    • WRP5

      Oh please Republicans oppose liberals even so called moderates and Rpeublicnas font around half the Latino vote in 2014

  • John Bernard Books

    Is she?
    “CNN’s John King stated on Wednesday that the hacked emails published by WikiLeaks show that Hillary Clinton’s closest confidants — who allegedly “love and support her” — really think the former secretary of state is “nuts and she’s secretive.””
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/26/cnn-host-wikileaks-showed-people-who-love-and-support-hillary-really-think-shes-nuts-video/

    The people who know her well and love her say she’s “nuts”……Huma says, “she’s still not perfect in the head.” This explains why the nuts here are voting for her.

    • Unwound

      as opposed to everyone whos ever worked with trump, who screwed every business partner he ever had and lost almost a billion dollars in 1996?

      • John Bernard Books

        oh lookie a nut…..

        • Unwound

          youre the republican booster

          • John Bernard Books

            Most nuts are liberal till they start paying taxes then they grow up….time to growup junior

          • Unwound

            unlike you i actually pay my taxes.

  • John Bernard Books

    “You’d be surprised how often people double vote”…..
    “In six of the new cases, voting records show the same people voting twice in Colorado elections. In another six cases, people are suspected of voting in Colorado and another state during the same election cycle.”
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/10/25/cbs4-investigation-finds-people-voting-twice/

    no I wouldn’t…..I know dems…..

  • Texas, please VOTE!!

  • John Bernard Books

    Any idear of why the “Affordable” Care Act wasn’t implemented until 2017?
    “State insurance regulators across the country have approved health care premium increases higher than those requested by insurers, despite a national effort to keep rates for policies sold on Affordable Care Act exchanges from skyrocketing, a USA TODAY analysis shows. In eight states, regulators approved premiums that were a percentage point or more higher than carriers wanted, said Charles Gaba, a health data expert at ACASignups.net who analyzed the rates for USA TODAY. As of Tuesday, those states are Arizona, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota and Utah…“To consumers, this seems terrible like, ‘Oh, they’re price gouging us,’ ” Gaba said. “But part of regulators’ jobs is to keep insurance companies solvent so they can continue to give people insurance.” In fact, this year many insurance carriers have requested premium rate increases that are closer to what regulators think are appropriate, says Gaba. “Ideally you want what’s requested to be what’s necessary,” he added. “And that was part of what happened.” Insurer withdrawals from some markets and rate hikes of more than 50% in some areas prompted fears that some insurance marketplaces were at risk of collapsing.”
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/10/20/usa-today-the-cascade-of-obamacare-premium-hikes-has-arrived-n2234719

    Dems knew it would blow up the market….now they can offer single payer as the option……jeeez dem voters are stupid……

  • John Bernard Books

    Insurance premiums going through the roof? Rest assured…
    ““No, I had nothing to do with that,” Obama said, calling it “complicated” despite the “hysteria” that was growing.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/20/nothing-obama-dodges-blame-skyrocketing-premiums/

    Did you believe him….how stupid are you…..

  • WUSRPH

    Trump claims the polls are fixed….This from Bloomberg makes me wonder does he think his own daily polls are also fixed:

    “Despite Trump’s claim that he doesn’t believe the polls, his San Antonio research team spends $100,000 a week on surveys (apart from polls commissioned out of Trump Tower) and has sophisticated models that run daily simulations of the election. The results mirror those of the more reliable public forecasters—in other words, Trump’s staff knows he’s losing. Badly. “Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” says Parscale, referring to the polling analyst and his predictions at FiveThirtyEight, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.” The campaign knows who it must reach and is still executing its strategy despite the public turmoil: It’s identified 13.5 million voters in 16 battleground states whom it considers persuadable, although the number of voters shrinks daily as they make up their minds.

    Trump’s team also knows where its fate will be decided. It’s built a model, the “Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,” to weight and rank the states that the data team believes are most critical to amassing the 270 electoral votes Trump needs to win the White House. On Oct. 18 they rank as follows: Florida (“If we don’t win, we’re cooked,” says an official), Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.”

  • WUSRPH

    I was just wondering: Every day Trump seems to add more groups to the list of those involved in the great conspiracy against him…. I have not actually conspired with anyone….but I’d sure like him to know that I’m not for him. Is there anyplace that we can sign up to get included on the list?

    • BCinBCS

      W, you’re batting 0-for-2. First you wiffed getting on Nixon’s “Enemies List” and now you can’t get on Trump’s “I’m going to sue you” list. You must be doing something wrong.

      • WUSRPH

        Guess I will just have to try harder.

  • BCinBCS

    In the two previous blog posts I commented on how the Democrats could change the rules of the Senate to reduce the number of votes necessary to confirm Supreme Court Justice nominees. Part of me was unhappy with this maneuver since it changes precedent and because it can be used by conservatives when they are back in the majority. I was unhappy until now.

    Why?

    Our illustrious weasel of a Senator, Ted Cruz, had this to say Wednesday in Loveland, Colorado about whether the Republican party should block Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court nominations:

    You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue. There is certainly [a] long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.

    According to the Washington Post:

    “…Several conservative legal writers have argued that the threat of a Clinton presidency should get Republicans thinking about a long-term blockade on nominees. Last week, in National Review, Minneapolis law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen argued that a new Congress should pass a law shrinking the Supreme Court from nine to six seats. “A smaller court means diminished judicial activism,” Paulsen wrote. “As the Court’s size shrinks, activist majorities become mathematically harder to put together. Four votes out of seven is harder to achieve than five of nine.”

    On Wednesday, in an essay in the Federalist, Cato Institute legal scholar Ilya Shapiro went further, suggesting that Republicans refuse to appoint any high court nominees put forward by Clinton.

    “As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” Shapiro wrote. “I’m not sure such a position is politically tenable — barring some extraordinary circumstance like overwhelming public opinion against the legitimacy of the sitting president — but it’s definitely constitutional.

    The weasel went on to say:
    I think for those of us who care passionately about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, who care about free speech and religious liberty and the Second Amendment, the best way to protect those rights is to win on Election Day so that we see strong conservatives nominated to the court, and maintain a Republican majority in the Senate to confirm those strong conservatives, and that’s what I’m fighting to do.

    So Ted, Weasel, Cruz is ready to block nominees to lower the number of Supreme Court justices to six unless Republicans win the White House and the Senate in which case he wants strong conservatives nominated and confirmed.

    Hypocrite.

  • BCinBCS

    The Yale Record has refused to endorse Hillary Clinton for President
    Here is their editorial:

    In its 144-year history, The Yale Record has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. In fact, we have never endorsed any candidate for president. This is, in part, due to our strong commitment to being a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization, which mandates that we are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

    This year’s presidential election is highly unusual, but ultimately no different: The Yale Record believes both candidates to be equally un-endorsable, due to our faithful compliance with the tax code.

    In particular, we do not endorse Hillary Clinton’s exemplary leadership during her 30 years in the public eye. We do not support her impressive commitment to serving and improving this country—a commitment to which she has dedicated her entire professional career. Because of unambiguous tax law, we do not encourage you to support the most qualified presidential candidate in modern American history, nor do we encourage all citizens to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all by electing Secretary Clinton on November 8.

    The Yale Record has no opinion whatsoever on Dr. Jill Stein.

    —The Editorial Board of The Yale Record

    Clever, clever.

    • John Johnson

      And the Huffington Post and WaPo this morning in their online news, have not one mention of yesterday’s Wikileaks revelations regarding the stink emanating from the Clinton’s. What’s it going to take for you lemmings to wake up to the fact that these two are flat out crooked?

      • BCinBCS

        JJ, let’s talk about campaign financing. As you may know, there are people across the nation, both Republican and Democrat, who do the hard work of raising campaign funds. These “bundlers” go to their friends, acquaintances and fellow company leaders and solicit donations, putting all of the money that they raised into a bundle and donate it to the political candidate that they support.

        If their candidate wins, it is very common for them to ask for and be granted favors ranging from favored treatment at social and political events, access to the “ear” of the politician or even political appointments. These type of rewards to loyal supporters have been in existence since the time of George Washington.

        Are “bundlers” and other “hangers-on” ethical? Are they legal? Apparently so because they have existed from the founding of this country and they are essential for the successful operation of political campaigns.

        Can they get out of hand into the realm of illegality? Absolutely. And this is where degree, intent and actions become important.

        These sorts of activities not only occur with politicians but with important and powerful people. And when one combines the political with the powerful, as in the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton, it is not unreasonable that they will attract many people willing to associate themselves in order to be close to power, to bask in its aura or to take advantage or its opportunities. This is the phenomena of the Clinton Foundation, some of its fund raisers, Bill and Hillary Clinton and their paid speeches.

        Since 2013, the media has been concerned with fund raising and access to Hillary as Secretary of State. Were these quid pro quos or were they “constituent services”? Republicans claim quid pro quo (despite doing the exact same thing when they were in power) while Democrats claim constituent services.

        The current round of WikiLeaks did not implicate the Clintons of any impropriety but they did show that Vice Chair of the Foundation Chelsea Clinton became concerned enough with one Foundation member to send multiple e-mails to her parents about him. She also proactively enlisted an outside law firm to audit the Foundation’s finances. (It concluded that the Foundation should “ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”)

        Is this an unforgivable violation of the law as claim Republicans, “Nothing to see here” as claim the Democrats or, business as usual? I suspect that the answer depends on your political point of view.

        • John Johnson

          You apologists floor me. $1M as a birthday present from Qatar? And you must have missed the Podesta’s ties to Raytheon and the Clinton’s and arms sales…and Band’s email outlining all he had done for Clinton and his foundation that is as stinky as it gets. I can’t make you understand how quid pro quo works and what it looks like, but this is as clear a trail as you will find. Shuck the blinders and be honest with yourself for a change. You will feel so much better about yourself.

          • BCinBCS

            I’m not going to pronounce those deals quid pro quos until I do more studying and I’m not going to do more research because the only alternative to Hillary is Trump and I cannot, under any circumstances, vote for him.

            I’m certain that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, or GE wouldn’t describe their donations as quid pro quos, merely philanthropy.

            Band is in hot water, he is the one that Chelsey e-mailed her parents about that I described in my previous comment.

            The Clinton Foundation has several small wounds that have an odor but overall it is a remarkably successful charity that isn’t “as stinky as it gets”.

            BTW, I don’t recall you raving about Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton during the Shrub administration.

          • John Bernard Books

            “BTW, I don’t recall you raving about Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton during the Shrub administration.”
            You have comprehension deficit disorder. A comparison wouldn’t be Cheney and Halliburton but Feinstein and her hubby’s no bid contracts of billions of $s she gave his non-existent company.

          • BCinBCS

            And you’re blind if you don’t see that Cheney/Halliburton is the same currency as Clinton/Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.

            I’m sure that Cheney’s defenders would opine that someone had to provide support to the troops during the Iraq war just as Clinton’s defenders would argue that someone had to sell arms to those countries.

          • Jed

            “And you’re blind if you don’t see that Cheney/Halliburton is the same currency as Clinton/Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.”

            are you kidding?

            cheney and cronies *directly profited* from the wars.

            there is no parallel with either clinton.

          • John Johnson

            You seem fairly intelligent until you keep up this “I can’t see the significance” stuff. As far as Bush/Cheney…you weren’t even around here then. If you had been, you would know that I pounded on them regularly.

        • John Johnson
          • BCinBCS

            That article is behind a paywall and I don’t want to purchase a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.

  • John Bernard Books

    Pay to play….
    “John Podesta’s sister-in-law, Heather Podesta, earned money as a lobbyist before the State Department at a time when John was a top adviser to Secretary of State Clinton.”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/27/john-podestas-sister-law-worked-state-department-lobbyist/

    dems love their crooks….

    • BCinBCS

      And my uncle hired his son and me for his construction company and he was as conservative as you, JBB. I guess he was a Repub crook.

      • John Bernard Books

        Not the same…do you expect a ribbon for these meaningless comments?

        • BCinBCS

          Well, to a computer bot they are not the same.

          • John Bernard Books

            all I have is a yellow ribbon….see it matches the stripe down your back

          • Gunslinger

            How did you get a yellow ribbon?

          • BCinBCS

            Commendation from the 101st Chairborne.

          • Gunslinger

            Man, they must just hand those things out to anyone.

  • John Bernard Books

    Lest we forget…before it was Obamacare it was Hillarycare.

    • BCinBCS

      JBB, you are remarkably ignorant of the reasons for the failure of Hillarycare and this year’s rise in prices of Oamacare.

      You are simply a computer bot blindly vacuuming right wing talking points and re-posting them with no understanding of the meaning of any of what you do.

      • John Bernard Books

        It was Hillarycare before it was Obamacare……both are failed dem policies. How did you miss that point?!?

        • BCinBCS

          Actually, no they’re not.
          Too bad that you are too partisan to see that.

          • John Bernard Books

            Yes both are dem failed polices….but as they have nothing to do with sex, skin color or gender I can see why you have trouble comprehending

          • BCinBCS

            You just keep on flailing – it’s somewhat amusing to watch.

  • John Bernard Books
  • Hcalla

    Another wrong article from TM. The early vote lines were long and Trumpish in this Dallas suburb. Working hispanic voters can afford Obamacare no more than any other working families.

    • SpiritofPearl
    • John Johnson

      Ignore Pearl’s b.s. She epitomizes “smug”. She also wants to go to a goofy northeastern group for info on what is happening here. It figures. Any GOP operative stating Clinton has a chance here is someone still smarting over Cruz’s tail whipping. You are right…lots of middleclass Hispanics are getting screwed by medical premiums, too; lots of them would also like to see the flow of illegals stopped. It would make no difference if Latinos heading across the border were all English speaking, blond headed and blue eyed…the color makes no difference …the cost and the illegality of it is the problem. Don’t waste your time trying to explain it to her. She suffers from some anger issues having something to do with abuse at a Catholic school it would seem. She is not into others’ viewpoints if they don’t mirror her own.

      • Shelly H.

        Pot meet kettle.

  • John Bernard Books

    Can she steal it….
    “The latest is San Francisco, where the Nov. 8 ballot will include a measure allowing the parents or legal guardians of any student in the city’s public schools to vote in school board elections. The right would be extended to those with green cards, visas, or no documentation at all. “One out of three kids in the San Francisco unified school system has a parent who is an immigrant, who is disenfranchised and doesn’t have a voice,” says San Francisco Assemblyman David Chiu, the son of Taiwanese immigrants. “We’ve had legal immigrants who’ve had children go through the entire K-12 system without having a say.” Undocumented immigrants should also have the right, Chiu adds, to bypass the “broken immigration system in this country.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-28/some-cities-want-their-immigrants-to-vote

    Prez Clinton signed into law illegals cannot vote……now Hillary needs their votes…can she steal it?

    • BCinBCS

      As I said in my previous comment to you “You are simply a computer bot blindly vacuuming right wing talking points and re-posting them with no understanding of the meaning of any of what you do or say”.

      A vote in a San Francisco Unified School District election is not a vote for Hillary.

      Sheesh.

      • John Bernard Books

        I can explain it to you….I just can’t understand it for you.

        • BCinBCS

          If it wasn’t for other’s writings that you can quote and inappropriate platitudes that you can quote, you wouldn’t have anything to say.

          • John Bernard Books

            so why do you spend your day waiting for my comments…..get a life loser

          • BCinBCS

            Here at BB you are like an obnoxious fly that is always flitting around irritating everyone. It’s impossible to avoid being bothered by your lack of thought and reason – short of blocking you, that is.

          • WUSRPH

            You have to accept that he believes he is on some divinely inspired mission to battle the evils of the world….nothing will deter that.

          • BCinBCS

            I wish that he’d simply go to his room and flagellate himself for some divine inspiration.

          • WUSRPH

            I fully expect him to be even worse over the next four years as he will view the Trump defeat as proof that evil is even more powerful than he thought. Blocking is the only way to deal with him.

          • BCinBCS

            I’ve considered blocking him several times but he keeps my research chops sharp.

          • John Bernard Books

            nothing sharp about you atall sonny…

          • Unwound

            its way more fun making fun of him. hes as thin skinned as trump and threatens to run “background checks” and “inform local authorities” for people being mean to him online. he positively cant stand not having the last word or being mocked.

          • John Bernard Books

            So explain why the FBI is again looking at your team…..I’ll wait

  • John Bernard Books

    In case you don’t realize the significance of this election. Dems are desperate for power and they see the path to retaining it through illegals voting. If you want to destroy America vote for Hillary.
    “Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216#ixzz4ONkvvKQQ

    It is that simple dems are trying to steal this election…can she do it?

    • BCinBCS

      Ex-Senator from Idaho Larry Craig: “I have a wide stance” (when caught playing footsie in a men’s restroom).

      Ex-Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford: I’ll be “hiking the Appalachian trail” (while off having an affair with his mistress).

      Ex-Representative from New York Anthony Weiner: “I was hacked” (to explain his sexting).

      Ex-Mayor of Washington, D.C. Marion Barry: “B_tch set me up” (to explain being caught smoking crack cocaine).

      Soon to be ex-Presidential candidate Donald Trump: “The election was rigged” (to explain his disastrous loss).

      • John Bernard Books

        Off topic again…..you really have some anger issues nancyboy

        • BCinBCS

          JBB: “It is that simple dems are trying to steal this election…can she do it?”
          BC: “The election was rigged” (to explain his disastrous loss).”
          JBB: “Off topic again…”

          I know that it’s a mental leap for you to see the similarity of topic but it’s there if you have the brains to recognize it.

          (Or maybe you do not recognize that my reply was to your off topic comment.)

          • John Bernard Books

            so the question is can she steal it?

      • John Johnson

        You forgot a major one…”I did not have sex with that woman!”

        And another…”All Bill’s accusers are liars and publicity seekers!”

        Or … 37 “I don’t remember’s.”

        Or…”What difference does it make?”

        Or…dozens of others.

  • John Johnson

    Oh, boy…this gets stinkier and stinkier. Pull those blinders off folks. She’s incompetent, as her handlers’ and speech writers’ emails attest; she is careless with national security as her handling of her email server attests; and she is getting rich from selling her influence. On top of all this, she is a liar. Maybe this next round by the FBI will finally get you dunces to wake up. Trump is a pompous, egotistical, rule, law and truth twisting embellisher; Hillary is senior government official who is lying to those who employee her, after putting our country at risk in all sorts of ways (not just the email server), as she continues to get rich by selling influence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation

    • WUSRPH

      But we still come back to the basic question: Who is a greater threat to the well-being of America? And those of us who see the danger in all you say about Trump–“pompous, egotistical, rule, law and truth twisting embellisher”— have to conclude that he is. It is that simple.

      • John Johnson

        Your balance scales are screwed up. What is worse is that you do not even acknowledge that she stinks. You would have us all believe that she is just being picked on and there is nothing there. That defines you and your ilk, and is why I have no respect for you.

        • John Bernard Books

          He can’t admit she is corrupt that would mean his whole life he worked for crooks….

          • John Johnson

            The truth does not require an admission.

        • WUSRPH

          I said nothing about why I support Clinton….or whether I believe that there may be some fire below the often false smoke. You, as usual, attribute thoughts to others with no basis. I said why I oppose Trump. ….Nothing I have seen in Clinton—none of her weakness or her doings—equals the threat he presents. That he is crypto-fascist who preys on racial/ethnic bigotry and exaggerated the fears of economic, social and military decline of those who have lost faith in their country not mentioning that he is totally uninformed and unprepared to be president is enough reason to oppose him and outweighs any concerns I have about Clinton.

          • John Johnson

            Like I said…

          • John Johnson

            Hillary and Huma know what was on Huma’s computer. Why is she asking Comey to tell her? As stated by others, Clinton has no one to blame for this but herself. She chose to employ a private server; she failed to turn over all of her emails in a timely manner; thousands were destroyed after they were requested; and she failed to tell the truth. It should be pointed out that Pence asked Comey to immediately release pertinent emails, as well. Hillary made the bed she is now having to sleep on. This is going to be interesting.

          • WUSRPH

            Interesting, yes.. Significant, probably not. At the most it will probably drive a few more votes to the third party…..but it isn’t going to do much for Trump. She may win a few states by a smaller margin—maybe only by a mid-40s plurality–but the odds are still that she is going to win. There are just too few votes left for him to pick up. He is probably close to or has already topped out…..Just too many people dislike or fear or both Trump.

          • John Johnson

            Won’t affect the vote? That’s rich. Those Repub’s who where thinking about flopping…the large number of independents??? You’re in denial. The spinmeister mode. Hide and watch. Hide and watch.

          • WUSRPH

            I said it probably won’t affect the outcome, not the total number of votes. I think most voters will see it as just another part of the e-mail mess which they have already taken into their calculations of how to vote. It make cost Hillary some votes….but, as I said, I doubt it will add many to Trump’s totals.

            P.S. If you have learned anything from BB over the years you should have learned by now that there are very, very, very few true “Independents” and that voters, once they have made up their mind, rarely change it. It is true that a majority of the voters dislike Hillary but many, many more dislike, fear and distrust Trump. Those who feel that way are not going to change their votes to Trump….They may stay home or go to one of the third party candidates…..but not Trump. This makes the probable outcome a narrower win for Clinton.

          • John Johnson

            “Probably”??? You don’t even know what the new revelations might be, and you are saying it probably won’t make any difference. You are died in the wool.

          • WUSRPH

            “Revelations” is your word. “Probably Duplicates” is the word most even semi-objective observers are using. As I said, unless there is something really significant in these e-mails…..which I doubt….most voters will see it as only another part of the e-mail scandal which they have already weighed in deciding how to vote. As I have said, it could cost Hillary some votes. But they are not the kind of people who are going to vote for Trump. She well could loose some Bernieites….but not her core vote. Hillary’s “distrust” factor may go up a point or two…but Trump’s is much higher and this is not going to change that.

            It still comes down to who do you want with their finger close to the nuclear button and who do you think is more prepared to be president. There is only one answer—and it ain’t Donald Trump.

          • John Johnson

            You are saying that those flip over Repub’s are still going to vote for her? I think this group, indies and some blue collar Dem’s are thinking long and hard right now.

            All her four or five cellphones are missing; her servers were beat with a hammer and had acid poured over them; she lied five times in her congressional testimony, according to Comey. I think that those emails that were destroyed on all these devices mentioned have been discovered on one of Huma’s home computers. If it was nothing pertinent, Comey would not be sticking his neck out now. There is something significant coming, in my opinion. I feel that I am not the only one speculating the same. I understand that you aren’t. No way you could let yourself do it.

          • WUSRPH

            What I said…and continue to say…is barring some major revelation, which is unlikely, this is not a big enough development to change the outcome.
            As to why did Comey do it now. Because he had too….think of what the GOP would have done to him if 20 days after the election it came out that there were “new e-mails” and he knew about them before the election. It makes no difference whether they really are new or whether they are significant…..they would have had him before their witch hunt committees for years and people like Trump and you would be screaming “rigged election”. By doing it now, he is off the hook and you guys are denied the chance to challenge the legitimacy of her win.

          • John Johnson

            Posted like a true professional spinmeister. Hillary and Huma know what’s on her computer. Why are they asking Comey for it? If she is elected and there is some damning stuff there, watch what happens. It will be ugly. Absolutely nothing will get done for four years.

          • WUSRPH

            They are asking for it to show that they have nothing to hide–or, for people like you who hate them so much to question anything they do—to at least give the impression that there is nothing to hide….and that they are more than willing to let the world see all of it. In all likelihood it is a combination of the two reasons…..As to what happens if she gets elected, your GOP friends are already planning for “Operation Obama II—Keep Anything from Happening”…..If that happens, it will be a shame and a bad thing for America….but no where near as bad as a Trump presidency might be.

          • John Johnson

            Just saw your boy, Nate Silver, interviewed on MSNBC. He is disagreeing with you. He says it could get real tight by the middle to end of next week.

          • WUSRPH

            I’m beginning to wonder if you can read. This is what I have said in several ways:

            “This makes the probable outcome a narrower win for Clinton…”

            “As I have said, it could cost Hillary some votes.”

            “She may win a few states by a smaller margin—maybe only by a mid-40s plurality–but the odds are still that she is going to win.”

            I did not see Silver….but I don’t think what I am saying is too far off from what he means.

            To close, always remember that Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It makes no difference in the electoral college.

          • John Johnson

            “At the most it will probably drive a few more votes to the third party…..but it isn’t going to do much for Trump.”

            You initial words on the subject. Silver says Trump was down about 5 and could have dropped that lower by now without today’s activities coming into play. He says it will be Tuesday or later before today’s revelations will be reflected in the polls. He can win. Hide and watch.

          • WUSRPH

            A little math problem for you:
            Clinton 48
            Trump 42
            Johnson 8
            Stein 2
            Becomes
            Clinton 45
            Trump 44
            Johnson 9
            Stein 3
            Who wins?

          • John Johnson

            You numbers are old numbers according to your man Silver. Five points difference without the effect of today’s revelations. Won’t know anything solid until Tuesday or Wednesday.

          • WUSRPH

            But as of today he still rates Clinton as having an 80.6% chance of winning…Down a couple of points, but still an overwhelming lead.

          • John Johnson

            Silver said last night that it would be Tuesday before movement related to yesterday’s Comey letter would show up in the polls. However, this morning’s ABC poll has Trump down just 2 points.

          • John Johnson

            Isn’t this speculating fun?
            We have people calling for a special prosecutor to gather a grand jury to hear the facts immediately. That’s what Hillary is asking for, right?

            Then there is all of next week for more Wikileaks offerings.

          • John Johnson
          • John Johnson
          • WUSRPH

            Colin Powell he ain’t.

    • John Bernard Books

      Doesn’t matter Dems like WASSUP and pearl were told to vote for her

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/hpv7353

     The National Review on putting the GOP back together again. Mentions Erica’s unhappiness with Cruz.

    • BCinBCS

      Crap, W, now I have to learn French revolutionary history to know what the article is about. 😉

      I have no sympathy for the dilemma in which the Republican Party finds itself. When they became the party of absolute obstructionism, embracing the dog whistles of racism, sexism, misogyny and selfishness that, with the selection of Donald Trump, became overt racism, sexism, misogyny and selfishness, it surprises me not that they found trouble that led to huge numbers, like the many here at BB, stating: “I didn’t leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me”.

      The author, Mario Loyola, decries the leftward swing of the Supreme Court if Hillary gets to appoint a liberal Justice, all the while a moderately liberal Judge Merrick Garland has sat over 125 days waiting on Senate hearings blocked by the Republicans.

      Loyola show his political stripes when he complains that: “Starting with this election, every president will be a danger to the Constitution”…because there “are serious concerns…whether the Constitution still has sufficient checks and balances to prevent a president from establishing a dictatorship”.

      And what is Loyola’s solution if Trump’s election doesn’t follow strict Republican policies?

      But if someone whose GOP credentials are highly dubious (who for example scoffs at the conservative label) comes along and executes an essentially hostile takeover of the party, maintains hostile relations with the party leadership in Congress, flames out in a spectacle of incompetence, and sees his approval rating fall below 30 percent — all of which are realistic possibilities in the first year of a Trump presidency — then Republicans in Congress will start to jump ship. At that point, impeachment becomes a highly realistic possibility. (I’d love to see the Democrat’s position on a Trump impeachment.)

      I can’t get into the idiocy of the “special interests” that Hillary supports at the expense of the oppressed such as her vow to increase taxes on the wealthiest and to increase the minimum wage. Wow, such discrimination and such pandering on her part.

      He ends with a diatribe against progressivism and a call to return to the time of almost no government regulation on businesses and the economy and of lower taxes. All I have to say about that is that very script is being followed in Louisiana and Kansas. How’s that working out?

      • dave in texas

        Yeah, that was a real dog’s breakfast of an article. Now, I admit to some degree of prejudice about this, but anyone for whom the Texas Public Policy Foundation is “beloved” gets the side-eye from me at the outset. He seems to be saying “let’s elect him, hope he nominates conservative Supreme Court justices, and then impeach him.” There are some good points scattered here and there in the article, especially about how the GOP did this to itself, but overall, it was just too scattershot. Plus, I kept waiting for him to say who’s the modern-day equivalent of Jean-Paul Marat, and he never did. I nominate Jeb!, who Trump pretty much murdered, politically speaking.

        • WUSRPH

          Don’t you think that Jeb was less important in this fiasco to be Marat? I see him more as a hold-over from the Old Regime who tried to go along but was pushed aside by history. Sort of a minor-grade Louis Philippe II, duc d’Orléans.

          • dave in texas

            Fair point. I was in a production of Marat-Sade* many years ago, though, and I wanted to find somebody to put in that role. 😉
            The actual title: The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. If memory serves, it holds the record for longest play title.

          • WUSRPH

            How about Alex Jones? He might make a good choice since Murat was a propagandist who could stir up the sans-culottes so well.

          • BCinBCS

            Oh, you damned Francophiles…speak English! 😉

          • Shelly H.

            I have yet to read the article and I will need to refresh my memory on the French revolution. But IIRC, Robespierre was the leader of the revolution before Bonaparte staged his own coup. So without reading and inferring from the above comments Trump would be Robespierre in the modern analogy.

          • WUSRPH

            The author termed Cruz Robespierre because he was the ultimate purist who purged others for not being pure enough.

          • Shelly H.

            I will read it all later, but yeah that makes much more sense than Trump.

          • dave in texas

            That’ll work. And speaking of whom, I wouldn’t be really surprised if he gets support in 2020. I really wouldn’t.

  • WUSRPH

    There is a lot of talk about the higher turnout for early voting this year, but most of what I have been able to see in the papers, etc. is just raw numbers. While that is of interest, it tells us little about the possible outcome. Has anyone seen any real data on such things as: age, gender, racial/ethnicity, areas of greater turnout etc. There was an interesting hint in a QR story the other day about 30% of the first day’s turnout being people with no discernible or traceable partisan history. This could suggest that there are a substantial number of non-voters and new voters, but even that information is not that useful unless you have some idea of their makeup. I know the national campaigns are tracking this stuff—-with the Trump campaign doing it out of their San Antonio data office…..and some of it must have leaked somewhere.

    • John Johnson
      • WUSRPH

        I don’t view history as foretelling the future….I am more in line with Lincoln’s comment:

        “Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from them”

        But I do think you can learn about human nature and how people will react to events from studying history.

        I have heard of this fellow and his system in the past, but did not know he had made a prediction for this year. I tend to think this is the year that he is going to be wrong….as had to happen eventually.

        He puts virtually all the weight of his judgment on public projections of the party in power and not enough on outside factors, especially in a year this different from most of the past elections. The difference, I think, is that he is not putting enough weight on the characters and public view of the candidates. In this case, we have two weak candidates, but one is more offensive to more people….and I think that Trump’s faults will trump any feelings about the party in power. But we will see on the 8th.

  • John Bernard Books

    Normally dems ignore the crimes against US laws by other dems……
    “In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
    Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html

    Will crooked Hillary beat the wrap again….will career bureaucrats close their eyes to the crimes again….getting a YYYYYUUUUUUGGGGEEEE bucket of pop corn…

  • John Bernard Books

    Can she steal it…..
    “let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.”
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/grifters-in-chief-1477610771

    The clintons have been exposed for what they are common ordinary crooks…and dem voters gotta be some really really really some kinda dumb…I know Bc is…

  • John Bernard Books

    Normally dems ignore the crimes against US laws by other dems……
    “In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
    Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24b640938abde6d96fbbf4733802f7a06653157f5ddf17a8a42e6d26273bb255.jpg

    Will crooked Hillary beat the wrap again….will career bureaucrats close their eyes to the crimes again….getting a YYYYYUUUUUUGGGGEEEE bucket of pop corn…
    and no I do not believe the FBI stumbled on new evidence…..they just didn’t know the public would see it too. There is some major azz covering going on by the FBI…..

    • BCinBCS

      FBI Director Comey, who was a Republican all of his life and has now declared that he is an Independent, cannot satisfy your warped mind, JBB. You called him a crooked Democrat when he closed the FBI’s initial investigation and now you accuse him of only covering his ass once he reopens it. I’m sure that there is a medical term for your mental pathology but I don’t happen to know it. Maybe Pearl or someone else knows.

  • John Johnson

    Hahaha. Hillary is now screaming for Comey to release all he has. Is this like a Congressional oversight committee requesting all she had, and getting bits and pieces after she destroyed thousands of emails and dribbled them into them months after requested? I can’t see much difference.

    • Shelly H.

      Did you actually read Comey’s letter? Which BTW the Judiciary committee should never have released to the press or public this close to an election – even Senator Cornyn was shocked by it.

      The letter said that Comey was AMENDING his testimony to the committee, which he was required to do by law, not that the FBI was reopening the case. No where in that letter did he even hint that they were reopening the case — that is purely conjecture by reporters and republicans. The amended testimony went on to say that they were examining these new emails in question that were from an unrelated case to see if they were in fact related to the SoS email investigation. BTW that last sentence is a summary of the letter itself not the precise legal language that was in the letter.

      Once again, much ado by the far right over something that will amount to nothing.

  • WUSRPH

    Of course he hasn’t read it…Nor have more than 10% of the public…..virtually everyone will get all they know about it from the headlines and the blurbs…..Those who hate Clinton, like JJ, will see it as saving Trump. Those who support Hillary will see it as a stumble, but not fatal. What happens over the next few days will determine which of them is correct.

    I have tried to be as objective as I can about and I see it this way:

    First, it will tighten the race for at least a few days as some voters move away from Hillary toward the third parties. I see very few Hillary voters moving to Trump….the distance is just too far…but some of the purists left may see it as another “proof” that she is not worthy of their vote and vote for the Green.
    Trump may pick up a few votes from some of those who leaned toward him but who had given up, but that is a very small group. It is very likely that he has basically topped out already with few potential Trump voters not already determined.

    Second, as the polls tighten with the publication of public polls by mid-week, the prospect of a possible Trump win will tend to frighten woman, gays, Blacks, Browns and liberals enough that they will have even more incentive to vote. (If the Clinton campaign is doing its job, it is already gearing up for a last minute drive to be unleashed by Wednesday night doubling its effort to get those targeted votes to the polls with the message “He could win”..)

    The result will be a Clinton victory, but one probably closer than most hoped. This may have a dampening effect on her coat tails in the important Senate and House races.

    Meanwhile, throughout all of his, JJ will be sitting deep in his bunker, like Hitler in March of 1945, desperate for any sign that the tide might turn. He has seized upon this news just like Hitler hoped that FDR’s death would save him…but, just as that did not change the outcome of WWII, neither will this,

    • John Johnson

      Where do you pull these “nor have 10% of the public” things from besides your butt? Surely, you are not going to point us to some poll. Maybe Shelly got her omnipotence from you. You two related?

      • WUSRPH

        The 10% is a guesstimate based on my experience with and knowledge of how the public approaches news. It reflects that most of us today rely on sound bites on the media or what we hear from someone else for our information. The public’s lack of knowledge and the vast amount of misinformation it believes has been demonstrated over and over again.

        • John Johnson

          You are extraordinary. What kept you from having your own syndicated talk show or being a regular guest now on Rachel’s or Matthews’ shows?

          • WUSRPH

            My desire for privacy……plus they have never heard of me and never will. I live in too small of a pond. But thanks for the compliment (sic).

          • John Johnson

            You are a special person, no doubt about it. Those programs call on subjective spinmeisters all the time. They hold the line like attorneys representing a guy they know is guilty. I have no respect for either group. You will never hear me say that you are not good at what you do.

          • WUSRPH

            Of course, there is also the question of my qualifications….If I had any would I be wasting my time going back and forth with you. .

          • John Johnson

            Oh, is there any doubt about them? You were the guy who spun stuff for one of the most heralded politicians in the state’s history. Who could ever question that?

          • WUSRPH

            He was “heralded” as you put it for never being afraid to tell it like it is…and for trying to do something to solve the state’s problems. He was far from perfect…but compared to this current crew he was a statesman while they are third rank hacks.

          • John Johnson

            As usual, you move the conversation into new territory. We are talking about you. Not Bullock; not other “third rank hacks”. You “spun” stuff for a “statesman”. You knew what he was doing personally, and politically, was not necessarily right for the citizens of Texas on occasion, but as a spinmeister, you painted the picture he wanted painted. You, obviously, were great at it. You should be proud of yourself. You were great at it.

          • WUSRPH

            Another interesting finding in the Pew Research poll is that Trump’s attempt to get his message across has been hurt by the fact that a majority of the voters find his personal attacks on Hillary have gone too far. You might consider that possibility when making your own posts.

          • John Johnson

            Every pollster is frantically trying to prove themselves relevant right now. We can have a relevant discussion about all of it on Nov. 9th.

  • WUSRPH

    Two points is still two points. More important that the national numbers is the swing state numbers. That poll did not tell us anything about them. Bush in 2000, Nixon in 1968 and many others have won by less than two percent nationwide…As I have to keep reminding you, it is the electoral college that counts.

  • Shelly H.

    So I’ll take that as a no, interpreting it as “I’m too lazy, couldn’t be bothered with reading the email itself.” Another of your “I have no desire to verify if what was reported in the rush to get the story out was actually true since it confirms my extreme bias” responses.

    The email was less than 500 words. Short enough that reading it was not time consuming at all. But then again, there were all those legal terms in there that have definitions that are different from everyday English that would confuse you.

    • John Johnson

      Shelly, is this the best you can do? I read the entire thing before you did, I bet. Last night, I watched MSNBC instead of FOX to see what the liberal side had to say. Matthews had Pence on, and they had a great back and forth. No denying that Hillary brought this on herself. I watched a rerun of Morning Joe; they all were shaking their heads more over the pay-for-play revelations than Comey’s actions. It is caving in on all sides. You can keep those blinders on if you want to; others are seeing the light.

  • WUSRPH

    I remind you because you seem to keep forgetting it.
    Two points in one poll…..does not a trend make….I expect the polls to tighten by mid-week…but I expect the fear of Trump by significant voting blocks will pull Hillary thru in the end. It is that simple. No spin….just my straight analysis.

    • John Johnson

      Stick to “spinning”…your history of prognostication sucks.

      • WUSRPH

        I’ll match mine against yours any day…..For two reasons, first, I rarely make one…and, second, when I do it is usually right…Like when I predicted—before she had announced–that Ms. Davis could not be elected governor or when—more than a year ago—than Cruz would not win. I admit I had hoped that Trump would not be the GOP nominee, but I never predicted that anyone else would be. Your have this habit of making up someone’s history…but, unfortunately, for you, in this case ALL my posts are open to inspection and confirmation….unlike you who hides his. Is that because you are ashamed of so many of them?

        • John Johnson

          You and Burka…twice…Davis will get beat for Dist 10 seat. Wrong. You got her run for Gov right, but I did, too. When she made abortion her red badge of courage, I said that she was toast. She never once mentioned abortion the entire time she was in the senate. She screwed up.
          You then predicted doom and gloom for Texas when the price of oil dropped. Then you moderated your position, and will even now probably offer up a retort about how we are going to be hurting this next session because of it. The average Texan is doing just fine. Maybe now our legislature will actually have to find ways to save money instead of spend it. You go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back; old habits are hard to break. As far as not opening my history up for inspection. I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that what I have stated here is a lie?

          • WUSRPH

            “Are you saying that what I have stated here is a lie?”

            Yes, I am especially when it comes to me having predicted anything about Sen. Davis’s Dist.10 races. You can check all my past posts–they are open to inspection—and you will not find any such prediction. You just keep making that up. What Burka may have predicted I cannot say. But I can say what I did or did not do.

            You also overstate my position on the effect of the oil prices….I said I was worried but hoped that Erica’s more optimistic view was correct. I also pointed out major differences between the 80s and now which could make the impact less damaging. However, I consistently said it that it would have an impact on the state’s revenues that might cause problems for the session beginning in January—which has proven to be correct.

            Again, check my history of posts. It is a shame we cannot do he same for you since you block access to them. Of course, you won’t do that….because you want to remember things the way you think they happen. That’s easier than having to prove something.

  • John Johnson
  • WUSRPH

    What you have is a distorted imagination. I disagreed with Burka on many things ranging from baseball (never could understand why he supported the Arlington Chokers) to politics….But you go ahead and remember it the way you want to…..That’s the approach you take to virtually every subject . It is easy to do that when you deliberate block anyone from checking your past statements. I have no fear of that. Mine are open to all.

  • WUSRPH

    The message that people fear Trump is clear:

    Pew Research: “As the presidential campaign enters its final days, opinions about American democracy and the candidates’ respect for democratic institutions – as well their respect for women, minorities and other groups in society– have emerged as political flashpoints. Donald Trump is widely seen as having little or no respect for Muslims, women, Hispanics and blacks. Moreover, 56% of registered voters say that Trump has little or no respect for the ‘nation’s democratic institutions and traditions,’”

    He’s worked hard to deserve that judgment.

    • John Johnson

      How long ago was this published? Did it mention those who are now deciding, after all the recent revelations, which is worse? Chris Matthews was as meek on the subject last night as I have ever seen him…ditto for Lawrence McDonald, and Joe and Mika yesterday morning. The worm seems to be turning. Next week will give us an indication of just how much. The vote on Tuesday will tell all. I’m being objective…I’ve even been quoting your guy Silver. You on the other hand…

      • WUSRPH

        http://tinyurl.com/zre2hrz

        YESTERDAY. It also found that

        “Far more voters think Hillary Clinton respects women, minorities and the nation’s democracy. And nearly twice as many describe Clinton as “well-qualified” than say that about Trump (62% vs. 32%). Yet concerns over Clinton’s honesty persist, and just 35% say that, if elected, she would make a good or great president; even fewer (27%) think Trump would make a good or great president. These views have changed little over the course of the campaign.”

        The reality you fail to understand—and are probably incapable of doing so—is that Trump is so far below her in ALL these categories EVEN AFTER everything you and others and he has said about her. When the voters think so much less of him, her loosing a point or two is not going to be that important. The voters agree that she may not be that trustworthy…but they think he is less. I suspect that most will view this new development as only part of the old scandal….and not some new shocking revelation. They may think she is a liar..but they are willing to accept that over the possibility of Trump being president.

        Anyone with any sense, expects that the polls that will be publicly released in mid-week next week while show some narrowing of the gap…with some loss by Clinton…It would have happened with or without this new development as Trump’s TV Ads start hitting the airways. (He is so concerned that I even saw one here in Austin tonight. Why is he wasting money in Texas?)

        PS…I’ve been referring to 5-38 too…which, by the way, updated its figures two hours ago—after all this frenzy–to say that Clinton, depending on which model they use, has between a 79 and 81% chance of winning.

  • WUSRPH

    There were times in the old days, such as the Odgen situation, where I believe I tried to explain to you how things in the Legislature do and must work….Your never were able to distinguish between “explaining” something and “agreeing with it”……I guess that takes too much mental agility or a willingness to accept that people in the real world sometimes have to change their position or do something they would prefer not doing…That, of course, Is never the case in the pure world of dreams in which you float. But you will remember it as you want…safe from having anything you said checked. I have no fear of anyone checking my posts. What do you fear?

  • WUSRPH

    Glad to hear you are getting help.

  • WUSRPH

    My nephew is a psychiatrist who specializes in people who have had shocks to their system that affected their ability to remember thinks correctly. I will be glad to refer you to him.

  • WUSRPH

    http://tinyurl.com/hyn45zn

    An analyis of the polls that puts the current frenzy into perspective…

  • WUSRPH

    According to the latest polls, 6 out of 10 voters say that the “new” revelations will not change their view of Hillary….and 2 of the 4 say that it will make them more likely to support her. About what I expected. Most have already discounted it and anything that makes it appear that Trump has a chance fires up the anti-Trump vote and makes those who thought they could stay home because Hillary was going to win anyway go vote.

  • WUSRPH

    Well there goes Trump’s last Black vote….Assume you saw where the threw a Black man who SUPPORTS TRUMP out of a Trump rally and that Trump called him a Thug. The man just knows how to appeal to those folks.

  • WUSRPH

    The Friday night thru Sunday early polls are in…..And, as JJ would hope, they show some tightening of the race. According to 5-38’s latest (2 hours ago) figures Clinton’s chances of winning have dropped to between 76 and 79% depending on which of their formulas they use. At this rate of decline, Trump ought to pass her by by February.

  • John Bernard Books

    2016 will be a “policy election” if you’re sickNtired of dem policies then vote for Trump.
    “The IRS cover-up began in earnest with John Koskinen. He marred his tenure as IRS head with gross incompetence and perhaps willful obstruction. Yet he has achieved his mission. His middle finger to congressional investigations ensured destroyed evidence, denied justice, and perpetrators walking scot-free.
    The Pedants see themselves as above the law…..
    The IRS’s litigation record mirrors its apathy for Congress. In defense of the IRS, the DOJ has vigorously fought to hide the most basic information from victims. One case in the federal Sixth Circuit illustrates the government’s approach. The plaintiffs sought names of groups targeted and the employees responsible. The plaintiffs needed this to certify its “class.”
    No IRS official ever suffered for the blatantly unconstitutional and unethical actions. Lerner pled the Fifth and then walked away with a $129,000 bonus and a pension that vests with 34 years of government “service”—she could receive almost $4 million over her lifetime.
    Targeting will continue…..the IRS and dems are out of control…..
    It may also just be the start. Evidence suggests targeting will continue and indeed spread —”
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/01/despite-investigations-obamas-irs-never-stopped-targeting-conservatives/
    If you’re good with using the government against its citizens then vote Hillary.

  • John Bernard Books

    Is the biased media finished….
    “It gets worse for the media after that. When asked whether the media actively coordinated with the campaigns for its coverage, only 47.8% said no. Another 38.8% believe that the media does coordinate with the campaigns, ”
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/01/suffolk-ap-polls-media-biased-rooting-hillary/

    The left has damaged themselves beyond repair this campaign. The spinmeisters like WASSUP will be ridiculed forever…a joke.
    The dem party is done…..You can fool some of the people of the people all the time……the fools.

  • noname_noslogan

    Every single thing you and the libtards said in this article and LITERALLY everywhere else has now been PROVEN

    *W R O N G*