Final Totals Of Early Voting In Texas (15 Biggest Counties)

The charts above show the early voting in Texas for the last three midterm elections. Note that this year is different -- far outpacing the early voting in 2014 or 2010. In fact, it more than doubles the early voting totals of either 2014 or 2010.

Democrats needed a huge turnout to have a chance in Texas. They got it! On election night, we'll find out if it was enough/

Note that about 40% of the registered voters have already voted.

The charts above are from the office of the Texas Secretary of State. They are totals from the 15 largest counties in the state. Those counties have 65% of the registered voters in the state.

2018 Is Looking Like A Repeat Of 2010 - Only In Reverse

This image from an 1877 Harper's Weekly seems particularly apropos to the situation Republicans find themselves in today. They are desperately clinging to majorities in the House and Senate which could easily disappear in the midterm elections next year -- and their base keeps nominating extremist and very unsuitable candidates (which the general public doesn't want).

John Bresnahan and Elana Schor have written a great piece at Politico.com on the dilemma the GOP finds itself in. Here is part of what they have written:

A first-term president and unpopular congressional leaders are pushing a controversial legislative agenda that sparks a nationwide movement from the infuriated opposition. Retirements are suddenly putting the majority’s safe seats in play. Party leaders jam major legislation through Congress on a partisan vote, and are in such a hurry to pass it they’re rewriting it by hand hours before a vote. They lose control of their message and can't find an easy way to get back on track.

Then comes a stunning upset in a Senate special election for a seat the majority party had controlled for decades.

That year was 2010, when Republican Scott Brown’s upset win in the Massachusetts' Senate race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy previewed a tea party-fueled Republican revolution that swept the GOP into power on Capitol Hill.

But after Democrat Doug Jones’ upset in Alabama on Tuesday, it could also describe the political trajectory of 2017 — except with Democrats instead of Republicans on the winning side. . . .

Republicans ended up winning 63 House seats and six Senate seats in 2010, essentially wiping out a Democratic majority on Capitol Hill. It was a stunning result that no one thought possible in 2008, when former President Barack Obama led Democrats to a historic victory.

This year, President Donald Trump — who has the worst poll numbers of any president this early in his term — is leading House and Senate Republicans into a midterm election where their majorities are clearly at play. And Jones’ victory on Tuesday left other Republicans wondering if it’s their turn to get wiped out by an angry electorate fed up with Trump and the GOP. . . .

Trump’s poll numbers are clearly scaring Republicans on Capitol Hill. He has a 24-point negative poll rating (32 favorable, 56 unfavorable), according to the latest Monmouth University poll. Obama never was this far down in the polls, and former President George W. Bush only reached those depths in his second term, amid a barrage of dismal news on the Iraq war and Republican scandals.

But it’s the generic “Republican vs. Democrat” poll that is most concerning for Republicans. Right now, Democrats have a 15-point lead, Monmouth said. For comparison, when Democrats won the House in 2006, they had a 10.5-point lead in the generic poll. . . .

One key similarity between this year’s political landscape and 2010 is the emergence of a network of anti-Trump resistance groups that swarmed GOP town halls earlier this year to fight against the party’s Obamacare repeal plans. Parts of the liberal resistance were consciously modeled on the tea party — but unlike the tea party, Democratic moderates have largely escaped the left’s ire this year.

Teabagger Support Has Dropped Significantly Since 2010

The charts above reflect information from the Gallup Poll -- the most recent of which was done between April 24th and 30th of a random national sample of 1,513 adults, with a margin of error of 3 points.

The charts show some good news for Americans -- a significant reduction in support for the teabaggers. At the time of the 2010 election, public support for the teabaggers was at 32% (almost a third of the population). That has now dropped to about 22% (just slightly above a fifth of the population). I think the teabagger-initiated government shutdown woke a lot of people up, and they are starting to realize that that the teabagger politicians are willing to trash this country to get their way.

Even more significant is the drop in support for the teabaggers within the Republican Party -- from 61% in 2010 to 41% currently. This is important because the teabaggers have never been a movement crossing party lines, but are primarily just an extremist wing of the Republican Party. It looks like many Republicans are tired of being painted as extremist and racist because of that teabagger wing of their party.

The drop in Democratic support for the teabaggers was small (only 2%), but that is because there was very little support there to begin with (never rising to a double-digit level).

I think teabagger support will drop even more radically in 2017 (after President Obama leaves office). That's because the teabagger movement, whether they want to admit it or not, has been made up mostly of people who just can stand this nation having an African-American president. It is a movement that was started and funded by rich right-wing extremists who saw an opportunity to exploit the nation's racists to achieve their own goals. Once the president leaves office, they will no longer be able to hide their extremism behind an anti-Obama (anti-Black president) cover -- and that extremism will be exposed for what it is (a naked grab for power by rich white men).

Can LePage Squeak Out Another Win In Maine ?

Back in 2010, Republican teabagger extremist Paul LePage was able to get elected governor of Maine, even though he only got about 38% of the total votes cast. That's because it was a three-way race -- with Democrat Libby Mitchell and popular Independent Eliot Cutler (who had once been an aide to Ed Muskie and Jimmy Carter) splitting the Democratic / Independent vote. Cutler finished second with 36%, and Mitchell came in third with about 19%.

LePage has not been a popular governor, and I think most Maine voters would like to see him go. The problem is that it is once again going to be a three-way race. The Democrat this time is Mike Michaud, and he is doing much better than his predecessor did in 2010. But Independent Cutler is again running, and while he isn't garnering the support he got in 2010, he is getting enough to make the race very close between Michaud and LePage.

The chart above was made from a recent Rasmussen Poll (taken of 830 likely Maine voters between April 23rd and 25th, with a 3 point margin of error). It shows LePage and Michaud in a dead heat with 40% of the vote each, with Cutler getting about 14%. I had hoped the voters of Maine had learned a hard lesson from 2010, and would unite to toss LePage out (who has been disastrous as governor). But it's starting to look like we may witness a replay of the 2010 election -- with LePage squeaking out a win as the other two much more moderate candidates split the non-Republican vote.

I hope I'm wrong, because LePage has been every bit as bad a governor as the teabaggers in Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida. The people of Maine deserve better.

Record Amount Of Outside Money Flowing Into The Election

The chart above (from PBS Newshour) shows the shocking results from recent Supreme Court decisions (particularly Citizens United vs. FEC, which ruled that outside groups can spend unlimited amount of money to influence elections in the United States).

2010 was the first off-year election to see a significant amount of outside money being spent. About $23 million was spent in the first quarter of that election year. That pales however to the amount that was spent in the first quarter of 2014 by outside groups -- about $56 million (more than twice as much as was spent in 2010). And this is well before most primaries have been held and the general election season has started. Some are predicting that over $500 million will be spent by outside groups in this election.

As the chart below shows, so far most of that outside money (about $32 million) has been spent in just six states -- North Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Georgia. And twice as much has been spent to support Republicans as was spent to support Democrats.

I believe this is one of the biggest dangers facing our democracy, and it is quickly turning the democrat into a plutocracy (rule by the rich). We need to fix this -- even if it takes a constitutional amendment to do it.

Seniors Are Turning Against The GOP

If there is an age group that has been pretty solidly Republican, it is those Americans over 65. In the 2010 election, seniors gave their votes to the GOP by a 21 point margin (59% to 38%). That's almost as big a margin as the Democrats have with young people, and what's better for Republicans, seniors always vote in large numbers (and with boomers now becoming seniors, those numbers are growing). Seniors even vote in off-year elections (when there is no presidential candidate). To say this is an important demographic for Republicans would be an understatement.

That makes it amazing to me that the Republicans in Congress have taken such an anti-senior path for the last few years. They have been trying to either privatize Social Security or cut its benefits since the administration of George W. Bush. And the budgets passed by the Republican-dominated House, both before and after the 2012 election, included a provision to abolish Medicare (putting seniors back under the non-existent mercy of the giant insurance companies). It almost seems like the Republicans are trying to rid themselves of senior voters.

And they might be succeeding at that. The folks over at Democracy Corps say the seniors are starting to turn against the Republicans, and they have some numbers from a recent survey of theirs to back that view. Back in January of 2011, seniors gave the Republicans an approval rating of 43%. Today, that approval rating from seniors has dropped to 28%. And the number of seniors who are willing to identify themselves as Republicans has also dropped (from 39% to 33%), while those who identify as Democrats has risen (from 29% to 39%).

And the views that many seniors have of the Republican Party is not positive. About 55% say the Republicans are too extreme, while 52% say they are both out-of-touch and dividing the country.

The Republicans are counting on the off-year 2014 election to be a good one for them -- a repeat of what happened in 2010. But to make they happen, they need to hang on to all of their senior voters. If they lose a significant portion of that vote, 2014 could turn into a disaster for them. And it looks like that may well happen.

Texas House Delegation

Texas is sending three more Democrats to the House of Representatives for the new Congress, and one more Republican. In 2010, Texas had 32 seats in the House -- and sent 9 Democrats and 23 Republicans to Washington. In 2012, Texas was awarded an additional four seats for population growth -- and is sending 12 Democrats and 24 Republicans to Washington. It looks like the Republicans were very successful in protecting their incumbents through redistricting.

District 1
2010 -- Gohmert (R)
2012 -- Gohmert (R)

District 2
2010 -- Poe (R)
2012 -- Poe (R)

District 3
2010 -- Johnson (R)
2012 -- Johnson (R)

District 4
2010 -- Hall (R)
2012 -- Hall (R)

District 5
2010 -- Hensarling (R)
2012 -- Hensarling (R)

District 6
2010 -- Barton (R)
2012 -- Barton (R)

District 7
2010 -- Culberson (R)
2012 -- Culberson (R)

District 8
2010 -- Brady (R)
2012 -- Brady (R)

District 9
2010 -- Green (D)
2012 -- Green (D)

District 10
2010 -- McCaul (R)
2012 -- McCaul (R)

District 11
2010 -- Conaway (R)
2012 -- Conaway (R)

District 12
2010 -- Granger (R)
2012 -- Granger (R)

District 13
2010 -- Thornberry (R)
2012 -- Thornberry (R)

District 14
2010 -- Paul (R)
2012 -- Weber (R)

District 15
2010 -- Hinijosa (D)
2012 -- Hinojosa (D)

District 16
2010 -- Reyes (D)
2012 -- O'Rourke (D)

District 17
2010 -- Flores (R)
2012 -- Flores (R)

District 18
2010 -- Lee (D)
2012 -- Lee (D)

District 19
2010 -- Neugebauer (R)
2012 -- Neugebauer (R)

District 20
2010 -- Gonzalez (D)
2012 -- Castro (D)

District 21
2010 -- Smith (R)
2012 -- Smith (R)

District 22
2010 -- Olson (R)
2012 -- Olson (R)

District 23
2010 -- Canseco (R)
2012 Gallego (D)

District 24
2010 -- Marchant (R)
2012 -- Marchant (R)

District 25
2010 -- Doggett (D)
2012 -- Williams (R)

District 26
2010 -- Burgess (R)
2012 -- Burgess (R)

District 27
2010 -- Farenthold (R)
2012 -- Farenthold (R)

District 28
2010 -- Cuellar (D)
2012 -- Cuellar (D)

District 29
2010 -- Green (D)
2012 -- Green (D)

District 30
2010 -- Johnson (D)
2012 -- Johnson (D)

District 31
2010 -- Carter (R)
2012 -- Carter (R)

District 32
2010 -- Sessions (R)
2012 -- Sessions (R)

District 33
2012 -- Veasey (D)

District 34
2012 -- Vela (D)

District 35
2012 -- Doggett (D)

District 36
2012 -- Stockman (R)

Voter Enthusiasm

The 2010 election was a disaster for Democrats and progressives. The House of Representatives was lost to the Republicans, and the Senate majority of Democrats was reduced. The reason for this electoral disaster was voter enthusiam. The Republicans, especially the teabaggers, were very enthusiastic about voting in the 2010 off-year election, while the Democrats and progressives (disappointed by the failure of their majority to get much done) were not.

There have been those in the last few months who say the voter "enthusiasm gap" still exists, and will work to the advantage of the Republicans again in the 2012 election. But that may not be true at all, at least according to a recent survey done by Public Policy Polling. While this poll shows that Republicans in general have a small voter enthusiasm gap over Democrats in general (54% to 49%), that could be offset by both the larger number of Democrats and the high enthusiasm of certain groups within the Democratic Party.

The enthusiasm of the teabaggers is still high, registering about 62%, but that is offset by an equal enthusiasm among African-Americans (also 62%, and sure to grow larger as the election approaches). One largely Democratic group that many have said will not vote in as large a numbers as they did in 2008 are young people (age 18 to 29). That may be changing though, as they now show a 55% enthusiasm about voting in the next election. Liberals (progressives) also show a high enthusiasm, coming in at 54%.

The fact is that Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country, and if they show up to vote in large numbers (as they did in 2008) then good things happen for Democratic candidates. Fortunately, the enthusiasm gap is closing as the electorate starts to focus on the next election, and that is good for Democrats. I don't think we're going to see a repeat of 2010 at all in 2012. With a little hard work and luck, it could look a lot more like 2008.

The Bloom Is Off The GOP 2010 Election Rose

The Republican Party was riding high after the 2010 mid-term elections. They had come back from a crushing defeat in 2008 and actually taken over control of the House of Representatives with a significant majority. The 2010 results had many Republicans believing they were back on the path to once again becoming the majority party in this country. They were wrong.

The truth is that the 2010 election was the population showing their displeasure with the relative inaction of the Democrats in fixing the economy and encouraging job creation the two things that remain the biggest issues concerning voters. But the Republican leadership misread this. They thought they had been given a mandate to return to their disastrous "trickle-down" economic policy and anti-government fiscal policy -- and they did that with a vengeance.

After the 2010 election, the public had some hope that the Republicans were truly repentant of their mistakes during the Bush years, and would work with Democrats to find a solution to the country's faltering economy -- and their favorability numbers showed that. In December 2010, before the new Congress was sworn in, this is how the public viewed the two parties (according to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll):

REPUBLICAN PARTY
Favorable...............38%
Neutral...............23%
Unfavorable...............37%
Rating...............+1

DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Favorable...............37%
Neutral...............20%
Unfavorable...............41%
Rating...............-4

The Republicans were actually viewed a little more positively than the Democrats (with the Democrats having a higher unfavorable rating). But then the new Congress started and the Republicans revealed they had no real interest in job creation or fixing the economy (except for the richest Americans). They took their illusion of a mandate to heart and began to demand programs be slashed or eliminated (even programs popular with most Americans like Medicare, Social Security, the EPA, Education Department, Unemployment Insurance, WIC, etc.). They coupled this with a demand for huge new tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

While the Republicans thought their posturing about cutting the deficit and giving tax cuts would help them politically, it has actually had the opposite effect. The people seem to realize that the tax cuts are only for the rich while the budget cuts are only meant to affect ordinary Americans. The unfairness has not gone unnoticed.

Now the NBC News/ Wall Street Journal Poll has done a new survey (of 1,000 adults between June 9th and June 13th). This newest poll shows the public is now moving away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats once again. Here are the results:

REPUBLICAN PARTY
Favorable...............30%
Neutral...............24%
Unfavorable...............44%
Rating...............-14

DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Favorable...............38%
Neutral...............21%
Unfavorable...............39%
Rating...............-1

While the Democrats have shown some positive movement (moving from a -4 rating to a -1 rating), it is the Republicans who have shown the most movement, and it is not goos. They have moved from a +1 rating to a -14 rating in favorability (15 points). While voters may still not be impressed by the timidity they see in the Democrats, they are horrified by the meanness and unfairness of the Republicans (and are abandoning them in large numbers).

Of course, the Republicans are not paying any attention at all to the negative feelings they are creating among the voting public. If anything, they are just doubling down on those policies, as though they were on a religious mission to destroy democracy and install a new corporate dictatorship (it's called a plutocracy).

And all of the Republican presidential candidates seem to be infected with the same disease. They may have to embrace these mean policies to appeal to their teabagger base, but it is affecting their own favorability numbers with the general public. This same poll shows the public views the president much more favorably than any of the Republican hopefuls. Here are the numbers:

PRESIDENT OBAMA
Favorable...............49%
Unfavorable...............37%
Rating...............+12

MITT ROMNEY
Favorable...............27%
Unfavorable...............26%
Rating...............+1

TIM PAWLENTY
Favorable...............14%
Unfavorable...............15%
Rating...............-1

JON HUNTSMAN
Favorable...............7%
Unfavorable...............9%
Rating...............-2

RICK PERRY
Favorable...............12%
Unfavorable...............15%
Rating...............-3

SARAH PALIN
Favorable...............24%
Unfavorable...............54%
Rating...............-30

NEWT GINGRICH
Favorable...............16%
Unfavorable...............48%
Rating...............-32

Voting Against Their Own Interests

The Republican Party has been engaging in a war against the elderly for several years now.   It started in earnest during the Bush administration when they tried to privatize Social Security, and has continued until this day.   The effort to privatize Social Security has not been stopped, but just put on hold by the Democratic victories in 2008.  

When it was announced that there would be no cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for Social Security recipients in 2010, the Democrats tried to at least get those depending on their Social Security checks a one-time payment of $250 to help out.   This was killed in the United States Senate by Republicans.

Now it has been announced that for the second year in a row there will be no COLA increase for Social Security recipients.   While the rich are making record profits and bonuses, those depending on a small Social Security check to live are once again left out in the cold.   The right-wing will say the COLA is not needed because there is no inflation, but that is not true.

Inflation has been held down by lower gas prices, while food and rent and medicine prices have continued to climb.   Of course, it is the food and rent and medicine prices that hurt the elderly the most.   The Democrats recognize this.   That's why they are going to try and use the lame-duck Congress to give the elderly Social Security recipients a $250 check to help cover some of the inflationary costs they are experiencing.

But don't count on that check yet.   The Republicans filibustered this to death a year ago, and they are already promising to do it again.   The Democratic-controlled House will surely pass the bill, but the Republican senators will kill it again by refusing to let it come up for a vote.

And you can bet any talk of helping Social Security recipients will end when the new Congress is sworn in next year.   The Republicans will be taking over the House of Representatives, and their interest is in helping the rich become richer -- not helping those on a fixed income.   There were already well over a hundred Republicans in Congress that have publicly stated a desire to privatize or abolish Social Security, and many of the new Republicans have they same desire.

That's why I found it very puzzling to find out that a majority of the elderly voters voted for the Republicans in this last election.   The thinking is that they bought into the Republican lies that the new health care program passed by Democrats would hurt Medicare (and create "death panels").   Of course it won't.   It actually puts Medicare on a firmer footing (and there never was a plan for death panels).   But I guess if you repeat lies long and loud enough a lot of people will eventually believe them.

The fact is that it was the Democrats that instituted both Social Security and Medicare, and it has been the Democrats that have protected these programs over the years.   The Republicans have always opposed both programs and would love to dismantle both of them. They have tried in the past and promise to keep trying to do it.

Anyone who thought he/she was helping Social Security or Medicare by voting Republican is just a damn fool.   But it seems there were a lot of these in the last election -- people who voted against their own interests because they believed Republican lies.   The only saving grace in this sad situation is the fact that a Democrat still sits in the White House, and he will veto efforts to hurt Social Security and Medicare (at least I hope he will).

But if the elderly haven't gotten any smarter by 2012, they might vote to cut their own throats.   If the Republicans can get hold of both the Congress and White House again, they will surely try to privatize Social Security and dismantle Medicare -- and this time they might succeed.

Republicans Misreading Election Results

Judging by the Republican reaction to the recent elections, one might think that they had been given a mandate by the American people to continue the disastrous policies that threw America into a recession in the first place.   The only things they have offered so far is more tax cuts for the rich and cuts to so far unnamed government programs.   And to get what they want, they are already threatening a government shutdown.

And it's not just the new congressmen, who may not fully understand what they are getting into, but experienced Republicans like Mitch McConnell are also calling for the Democrats to give in or suffer a government shutdown.   I find it hard to believe this is what the voters wanted when they put the Republicans back in power (at least in the House of Representatives).

A large part of the teabaggers who voted for them (about 50%) are over the age of 55.   Many of them are already on Social Security and Medicare, and many more will be there very soon.   In addition, more than half of elderly Americans voted Republican in this last election.   Were they voting for a government shutdown?   I doubt it.   A government shutdown for any length of time at all will mean no Social Security checks will go out and Medicare will be discontinued.

Clear majorities of all Americans do not want Social Security messed with, and I have to believe the Republicans will reap the whirlwind if they shut down the government and elderly Americans are left to fend for themselves.   The medical bills of these elderly Americans will not stop and the rent and groceries will still have to be paid for.   How will this happen if the government is shut down?

And then there's the exit polls conducted.   Most of them show that the voters aren't happy with either political party.   They're mad at everyone and just want something to be accomplished in Washington, and the number one thing they want is job creation.   Nobody was given a mandate and most voters want the two parties to compromise and get things done -- not argue and shut down the government.  

An exit poll done by CBS News shows this clearly.   Huge majorities said they wanted both the Republicans and President Obama to compromise -- and this was not just voters in general, but also Republican voters.   Here are the results:

ALL VOTERS
Republicans should compromise...............75%
Obama should compromise...............71%

REPUBLICANS
Republicans should compromise...............66%
Obama should compromise...............79%

I think the Republicans, especially those talking about a government shutdown, have misread the election results.   They can probably accomplish a shutdown if that's what they want to do, but that's not what they were put back in power to do.   And if they do shut it down, they could well regret their action in 2012.

Newspaper Endorsements - Worthless?

There was a time in this country when getting the endorsement of a major (or even a small-town) newspaper was a necessary element of a political campaign.   Newspapers were the major way that voters learned about the candidates, and an endorsement by a newspaper could mean thousands of votes that a candidate would not have had otherwise.   In many races it was the difference between winning and losing an election.

But we live in a different world these days.   In this age of television and computers, there is mounting evidence that the political endorsement of one or more newspapers doesn't carry much weight -- maybe no weight at all.   A prime example of this is the 2010 race for Texas governor between incumbent Republican Rick Perry and Democrat Bill White.

Rick Perry is a far right-winger who has aligned himself with the teabaggers.   I think he knew that he would not be able to adequately answer the tough questions about his teabagger views to the satisfaction of newspaper editorial committees (who are known to throw tough questions at all candidates).   So he made a political decision.   He decided to not put himself in any position where he would have to answer any tough questions.

Part of this was to refuse to debate or appear with his opponent.   But another part was to refuse to meet with any newspaper editorial boards or answer any questions posed by them.   He had a ton of money and pinned his hopes on flooding the state with advertisements, while making appearances only before groups he knew were friendly to him.

The result was that Perry did not get a single newspaper endorsement.   Even right-wing friendly and traditionally Republican newspapers such as the Dallas Morning News and my own hometown paper, the Amarillo Globe News, endorsed Perry's opponent Bill White.   What else could they do?   White was the only one who would talk to them.

What did this landslide of endorsement support from state newspapers accomplish for Bill White?   He lost by nearly 13 points -- an even larger deficit than any of the polls had predicted.   It turns out that the newspaper endorsements accomplished nothing for the Democratic candidate (except maybe to give some Democrats false hope before election day).

Now Perry did have a couple of advantages.   He had a lot of money, and every Texan already knew who he was.   It is debatable whether he could have gotten away with ignoring the media had he been less well-known.   Sharron Angle (Nevada) and Christine O'Donnell (Delaware) tried the same tactic and lost.

But it is still obvious that all of the state's newspapers endorsing Bill White did him no good at all.   A case can easily be made that while newspaper endorsements were once a valuable commodity to a campaign, they no longer are.   They are now just an anachronism -- of interest only to us political junkies.

A Fitting Analogy

Last Tuesday, the American people turned the recession-riddled economy back over to the same people that caused the recession in the first place -- the Republican Party, with their voodoo "trickle-down" policies.   It's like the people think if you give the fox the keys to the henhouse then he won't eat anymore chickens.

I am personally shocked at the short memory span the American public is demonstrating.   A huge majority of the voters said the most important issue was jobs, but they still put the party that cost America all those millions of jobs back into power (and it's also the party that continues to support the outsourcing of American jobs).

One of my blogging friends, tnlib at Parsley's Pics, came up with a beautiful (and very true) analogy of what has happened.   Here it is (and I urge you to go over and read her whole post):

"About two decades ago Lisa the Loon hired a big shot, smooth talking stock broker to manage all her assets. She lived high on the hog until she discovered that her broker had mismanaged all her investments. Overnight her portfolio dwindled to minus zero. Undaunted, she fired the hot shot and hired a sharp young man to help rebuild her depleted assets. But two years later she fired the bright young man because he hadn’t brought about enough change fast enough. So, what did Lisa the Loon do? She rehired the big shot, smooth talking stock broker who brought her to ruin in the first place.

Isn't this just what happened in this election? Puzzling, isn't it?"

The Democrats Brought It On Themselves

Well, that didn't take long.   Blue Dog Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, who retired this year and gave his senate seat to a Republican, has decided that the Democrats lost because they aren't enough like the Republicans.   He says if the Democrats would just move to the right (where he is) and take more conservative positions like the Republicans have, then the American people would flock back into the polls to vote for them.

Frankly, that's a stupid position.   The country already has one conservative political party.   Why on earth would it need another?   Texas Democrats have already tried this approach  -- time and time again.   All it has done is insure a long string of defeats.   Why should voters support conservatives who call themselves Democrats when they have the real thing in the Republican Party?   It seems to me that it would make a lot more sense to offer voters a real choice -- something different than the Republicans can offer.

Perhaps Bayh didn't notice but a lot of his conservative Blue Dog buddies in the Democratic Party got beaten last Tuesday (at least 23 of the Blue Dog Caucus suffered defeat).   If the public is looking for Democrats to be conservative, then why did these Blue Dogs lose?   The people need Democrats to offer something different -- not a pale imitation of the Republicans.

The Democrats lost because the people don't see them as a viable alternative with coherent beliefs and a willingness to defend those beliefs vociferously.   Voters know what Republicans believe in, and they know they will fight for those beliefs (even if they have to do it unfairly). What do Democrats believe?   Does anyone know?   I'm not sure I know anymore.

Whenever a Democrat introduces a bill, you can be sure that a number of other Democrats will oppose it.   And if a sufficient majority is finally assembled, then they will probably give in and weaken the bill when Republicans complain and threaten to filibuster.   How are Americans supposed to respect and vote for a party that can't agree on it's beliefs and won't fight to the bitter end for those beliefs?

The Democrats need to get together and develop some policies and ideas they can ALL get behind, and then they need to learn how to play political hardball to defend those policies.   If they can do this, they will find they have a lot of support.   If they don't, then 2012 will be a repeat of 2010 -- an unmitigated disaster.   A couple of other bloggers have put this very well.

Here's what txwordpounder at Prairie Fire Journal says:

"The Democratic Party is a waffling spineless bunch of opportunists who literally stand for nothing. They are too busy trying to appease conservatives and play both sides of the fence. With Democrats, you never know whether you'll get progressivism or Republican-light.

On the other hand, while Republicans and Teabaggers advocate a vile right-wing ideology that I personally find repugnant, they have the balls to stand up for what they believe in. You can bet they'll push their agenda without regard for bi-partisanship. That's why they're in and the Democrats are out."

And then P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula chipped in with this:

"Democrats are uninspiring, boring, and unfocused. They can't deliver a strong message that makes a case for why we should continue to vote for them, and I know in my case that when I went into the election booth, I was simply making an anti-Rethuglican vote; with the exception of a few local candidates, I was not excited about any of the Democrats here.

What really makes me despair, though, is that I can guess exactly how the Democrats will respond to this drubbing. Instead of refocusing on the liberal and progressive values that ought to be their main message, they're going to turtle up. They do it every time. Instead of trying to distinguish themselves from the loonies on the right, they'll all move closer to what they'll call 'moderate', but is actually more of a conservative right-wing position. And the next election will be even worse."

They are exactly right.   Votes must be earned, and they cannot be earned with spineless waffling or intra-party squabbling over policies.   The Democrats must decide who they are and then act on that, and hopefully they can then offer the country a real choice -- a progressive choice that offers a better future for America.

Voting For Common Sense In Colorado

Tuesday was a crazy election day in America, and I'll have to admit there were a lot of election outcomes I didn't particularly like (for instance, Rand Paul and Ron Johnson becoming U.S. Senators).   But it wasn't all bad.   There were some choices made by voters that made a lot of sense.   Among these were a couple of ballot initiatives voted down by Colorado voters.

One example is initiative 300 in Denver.   This would have created the world's first government commission for "extraterrestrial affairs".   The commission, to be funded by a combination of grants, gifts and donations, would evaluate the risks and benefits of extraterrestrial contacts and would require Denver officials to post on the city website any evidence of extraterrestrials.

The ET commission would be composed of seven members appointed by the mayor of Denver.   At least one commission member would have to be someone "who had consulted at least 100 people regarding their alleged close encounters with extraterrestrial intelligent beings."   The initiative also said that commission members "who are not Denver residents may participate from anywhere in the universe by any means available."   Sounds like they expected someone like Marvin the Martian (pictured above) to be appointed to the commission.

Denver officials had campaigned against the measure, thinking if it passed it would make the city the butt of world-wide ridicule -- and it certainly would have.   Fortunately, the people of Denver are not that nutty.   The measure was easily defeated with about 84% of voters voting in the negative.

While it needed to be defeated, initiative 300 was just silly.   Far more serious was the statewide Amendment 62, also called the Personhood Amendment.   This was a sneaky back-door effort to ignore the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision and outlaw abortion in the state.

The amendment would apply protections of the Colorado Constitution to "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."   This would give a fetus, no matter how small or undeveloped, the same rights as all Colorado citizens -- meaning abortion could be prosecuted as murder (possibly treating any woman who paid for an abortion as someone who instigated a murder-for-hire).

Opponents of the ridiculous amendment said it would also ban "emergency contraception in rape cases, and would limit treatment for miscarriages and tubal pregnancies and would impact infertility treatment."   But the people of Colorado saw through this nefarious amendment and 70% of them voted to defeat the amendment.

Colorado voters also did their fellow countrymen a favor by electing a Democratic governor and a Democratic U.S. Senator (while defeating teabaggers running for those seats).   Thank you Colorado.   You did good.

Thoughts On The Election

Well, it's over.   And it was pretty bad.   Here in Texas things went pretty much as expected.   We started the night with no statewide elected office holders who were Democrats and that's still true.   Blue Dog Bill White lost to Rick Perry and he didn't even come close -- a 14 point deficit with more than 80% of all precincts reporting.   The other statewide Democratic candidates did even worse.

There was a hope at the beginning of the night that perhaps the Democrats could retain most of their State House seats and be a player in the redistricting battle.   However, it looks like they will lose several seats in the Texas House.   That means the Republicans will have a free hand to gerrymander to their heart's delight and make sure they rule Texas for a while to come.   That's not good, but it is the way it is.

The only bright spot in Texas is that it looks like the Green Party candidate for State Comptroller will finish with about 6% of the vote.   That means the Green Party will have a spot on the Texas ballot in 2012.   The Libertarians will also be on the state's 2012 ballot.

This election has been a mixed bag for the teabaggers with their extreme Republican candidates.   So far, they have won with Marco Rubio (Florida), Rand Paul (Kentucky), Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) and Ron Johnson (Wisconsin).   They lost with Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), Linda McMahon (Connecticut), Sharron Angle (Nevada) and Carly Fiorino (California).   The Colorado and Washington races are too close to call, and there are no results from Alaska yet.

Nationally, the Republicans have taken the House of Representatives and although they may not take the Senate they have increased their strength there.   That means President Obama will either give in to the Republicans or we are in for some serious gridlock for the next couple of years.   Frankly, considering the weakness he has shown thus far, I'm not sure which way that will go.

I do know that the Republicans can no longer do nothing.   The issue in this election was jobs, and the fact that the Democrats did not do enough to stimulate new job creation.   Now it is the turn of the Republicans to stimulate jobs, and unless they change their policies, I don't see that happening.   They will increase the chasm between the rich and the rest of us.   They will give the rich new tax breaks (although they are the only Americans who don't need them).   They will continue to support the outsourcing of American jobs.   And they will continue to block any new spending to stimulate jobs.

I believe they will just continue their same old policies -- the ones that got this country into the current economic mess in the first place.   There will be little or no job creation for the next two years.   The only bright spot is that it will most likely be the Republicans who get the blame for no jobs in 2012 (and I firmly believe that will be the most pressing issue at that time, just like it was in this election).

Unless the Republicans come up with new ideas and policies real quick, the win they had tonight could go sour on them in 2012 when they get the blame for not fixing the economy.   The economy is fixed for the rich and the fat-cat Wall Streeters.   Giving them more won't help the Republicans.   They need to help workers and the middle class, and their current policies won't do that.   Tax and deficit cuts are very poor job creators, and they have nothing else.

So buck up Democrats and progressives.   Tonight will stifle the economy for a couple more years, but it is not the end of the world.   In fact, the seeds may have been planted for a much brighter 2012.   I have to warn the Democrats though.   They need to be much bolder in trying to help ordinary Americans and in fighting the disastrous Republican policies.   The timidity they have shown in the recent past will get them nowhere.

-------------------------

NOTE -- Proposition 19 (to legalize marijuana in California) is trailing and looks like it may be defeated.

Time To Vote

It's finally that time -- time to vote.   In a representative democracy, the most important thing a citizen can do is vote.   It is by voting that we select those who will govern us for the next couple of years.   And only a fool would think that government doesn't affect his or her life.   Government on all levels affects nearly every aspect of our lives -- including taxes, defense, police and fire protection, jobs (or the lack of them), level of pay, benefits, medical quality and insurance, roads and bridges, laws and regulations, food safety, work safety, national defense, and a ton of other things.

If you're a regular reader of this blog then you know I recommend voting for progressive candidates (mostly Democrats).   But regardless of which end of the political spectrum you are on or which party you belong to (Democrat, Republican, Third Party, or Independent), I urge you to go to the polls and vote.   It is not only important, it is your duty as a citizen of this country.

Democracy works best when all citizens participate.   Go to the polls and vote your conscience.   Then pop some popcorn, get your favorite beverage and watch the results.   It'll be a good show.

But after it's all over, remember one thing -- regardless of party or where we are on the political spectrum, we are all Americans.   We are not enemies and the world will not end if the party we didn't vote for wins.   We all love this country and want the best for our fellow citizens.

And we'll do it again in a couple of years.   If your candidates win tonight, congratulations.   If not, then try again in 2012.   But whatever you do -- VOTE!!!

Republican Enthusiasm Not Apparent In Panhandle

The Texas Panhandle is one of the reddest areas of a red state.   There are no Democratic incumbents in the Panhandle, and once this election is over that will probably still be true (although I'm still hoping for a minor miracle in State House District 87).   Knowing that, I have to admit I was a little surprised at the early voting turnout in Potter and Randall counties -- the most populous counties in the Panhandle (each of which has about half of Amarillo).

The political pundits have been telling us that there is a large "enthusiasm gap" between Republicans and Democrats in this election.   Because of this enthusiasm gap, they have been predicting that Republicans will vote in larger numbers than Democrats -- resulting in a huge Republican victory on election day.   But is that true?

When you look at the early voting figures for the 15 Texas counties with the most population, it looks like it could be.   These counties showed a significant increase over early voting in the 2006 election -- the last off-year election.   In 2006, there were 1,074,824 early voters (about 13.21% of registered voters).   But in 2010 there were 1,724,486 early voters (about 20.68% of registered voters).   That's an increase of 60.44% in those counties.

But it's hard to say whether that rise in voters was due to Republican enthusiasm or not.   After all, these are the counties with the largest urban areas where the Democratic Party has its greatest strength.   The large jump in new early voters could be due to Republican enthusiasm or it could be due to large numbers of Democrats voting early (or both).

It seems to me that it would be more telling to look at an area that is dominated by Republicans to see if they are truly enthusiastic about voting -- an area like the Panhandle.   But the Panhandle (at least Potter and Randall counties) simply doesn't back up the enthused Republican idea.

In 2006 these two Panhandle counties had about 23,600 people vote early.   The 2010 early voting actually showed a drop of about 800 voters -- down to 22,863 early voters.   If the Republicans are so enthusiastic about voting in 2010, why did the early voting totals drop below 2006 numbers in this reddest of areas?

Is the "enthusiasm gap" just a bunch of baloney?   Have the Republicans decided they have won this election and don't need to vote?   Either one of these cases could turn out to be an unexpected boon for Democrats.

I would be interested to know how the early voting has gone in other red West Texas areas like Lubbock or Abilene.   Are the Republicans enthusiastically voting in those areas, or is the early voting turnout as poor as it is in the Panhandle?   Is the "enthusiasm gap" just a myth? It could be.

Ronald McDonald Is A Republican ?

Well, no one can say the Republicans aren't trying every dirty trick in their repertoire to try and win the 2010 elections.   All across the country they have been piling lie upon lie as they campaign -- so many lies that I wonder if they even have a concept of what truth is.   In Houston they are putting out misleading political flyers and intimidating voters in minority precincts.

Now an Ohio Republican businessman has decided he can pressure his workers into voting for Republicans.   Paul Siegfried, owner of Siegfried Enterprises which owns some McDonald's restaurants in Canton, decided a little threat might make his restaurant employees vote the way he wanted them to vote -- for Republicans.   The McDonald's employees got the following insert in their pay envelopes:

I'm sure many right-wingers will view this as just a little harmless campaigning.   I don't, and neither does election law, which forbids companies from putting pressure on employees to vote a particular way.   And as precious as any job is in this economy, even a McDonald's job (where the pay and benefits are certainly nothing to brag about), to have an employer putting pressure on voting employees is just unconscionable.

At least one of the employees wasn't intimidated.   He gave the insert to an attorney, who forwarded it to the local authorities.   That was exactly what he should have done since the insert seems to be a clear violation of state law.   Here is how the Ohio law reads:

"No employer or his agent or a corporation shall print or authorize to be printed upon any pay envelopes any statements intended or calculated to influence the political action of his or its employees; or post or exhibit in the establishment or anywhere in or about the establishment any posters, placards, or hand bills containing any threat, notice, or information that if any particular candidate is elected or defeated work in the establishment will cease in whole or in part, or other threats expressed or implied, intended to influence the political opinions or votes of his or its employees.

Whoever violates this section is guilty of corrupt practices, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars."

Now that it looks like he may get in trouble for his illegal campaigning, Siegfried has issued the traditional Republican non-apology apology.   He said,   "Distributing this communication was an error of judgement on my part.   Please know, it was never my intention to offend anyone.   For those that I have offended, I sincerely apologize."

General Manager for McDonald's Ohio region, Shirley Rogers Reece, said that the national chain had no knowledge of the illegal paycheck insert.   Then she went on to issue her own non-apology apology saying,   "While clearly this was poor judgement, we don't believe it was intended to offend anyone."

Obviously both Siegfried and Reece miss the whole point with their tepid attempts at an apology.   The point was not whether someone was offended or not (although they probably were).   The point is that the restaurant owner broke the law by trying to intimidate his employees into voting for Republicans, and that is far worse than being offensive -- especially in a representative democracy.

I have been a semi-regular customer of McDonald's for many years, but it will be a very long time before I will set foot in one again -- unless I hear a real apology from the corporate head office and get their assurance this will never happen again.

(NOTE -- the above picture is from the website thefunnyads.com.)

Most Third-Party Candidates In 76 Years

Third parties seldom do well in United States elections, and many political pundits usually just consider their candidates to be spoilers for one of the candidates of the two major parties.   For example, Greens can siphon off progressive votes from Democrats and Libertarians can siphon off conservative votes from Republicans.  

But recent polls show that Americans may be ready for a new political party to compete with the Republicans and Democrats.   Significant portions of the electorate have answered in the affirmative when asked this year if they would like to see a new major third party.   It seems that many voters are unhappy with both the Democratic and Republican parties.

And some existing third parties are trying to take advantage of that feeling this year.   In just races for the United States House of Representatives there are 443 third-party candidates.   That's the most third-party candidates running for the House in 76 years (since 1934 when 513 third-party candidates ran).

The Libertarian Party has fielded the most candidates.   They have 153 House candidates.   The Green Party is second with 58 House candidates, and the Constitution Party comes in third with 39 House candidates.   Several other smaller parties are running candidates, including a revived Whig Party (see above bumper sticker).

Since 1932, there have been 17,403 House races, and third parties have run candidates in 9,782 of them (for an average of 0.56 candidates per House race).   Here in Texas we have had 422 candidates out of 1,000 races.   That's pretty good considering how hard it is for a third party to get on the ballot in Texas.

It's hard for third-party candidates to get elected in America, but they keep plugging away.   I'm glad, considering the reluctance of both major political parties to make real changes that would take power from the corporations and rich and return it to ordinary Americans.   I hope both the Libertarians and the Greens do well enough to stay on the ballot in the next election.   I myself voted for some Greens and some Libertarians this year.

Frankly, keeping third parties on the ballot is a way to pressure the Democrats and Republicans to actually keep some of their promises.