Early Voting Among The Young More Than Double 2014

One of the big arguments among political pundits this year was what would happen with the youth vote (those under 30). Would they turn out in bigger numbers than normal, or would they mostly stay at home as they have in the past?

Some polls have shown that young voters are more enthused than in past midterms, and early voting totals seem to bear that out. The early voting totals from Catalist (as reported in The Washington Post) show young voters are turning out to vote in record numbers for a midterm election. In 2014, about 1,027,499 young people voted early. This year that number has more than doubled -- to 2,314,126.

Will this large turnout of young voters continue on election day? I believe it will, and that bodes well for Democrats (since young voters, more than any other age group, support Democrats).

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.

First Week Of Texas Early Voting Far Stronger Than 2014

These 15 largest counties contain about 65% of the total registered voters in the state of Texas (which has 254 counties). The top chart shows the total number of voters who voted in the first week of early voting in Texas. Note that the numbers easily eclipse the number of early voter in the first week of 2014 (the last midterm election).

The second chart shows the percentage of registered voters in each county who voted in that first week of early voting, compared to the percentage in the first week from 2014.

The numbers in both charts are from the office of the Texas Secretary of State.

NRA Is Spending Far Less In 2018 Than It Did In 2014

A few weeks ago, I read some articles that said the National Rifle Association (NRA) is having some funding problems. That its contributions are way down. The chart above (from McClatchey newspapers) shows that may be true. At this point in the 2014 elections, the NRA had spent about $16 million to support their favorite Republican candidates. In 2018, they have spent only about one-tenth of that -- about $1.6 million.

Democrats Increase Early Voting In Texas By 105.12%

Early primary voting is now over in Texas. It shows that Democrats seem to be energized to vote in this off-year election. In 2014, Republicans outvoted Democrats by 138,693 in the primaries. That was flipped in 2018 -- with Democrats outvoting Republicans by 44,916.

Both parties increased their votes in the primary early voting. The Republican increase was a respectable 15.02%. The Democrats increased their primary voting by a whopping 105.12%. I think it's safe to say that Democrats are enthusiastic about voting this year -- much more than in past off-year elections.

The numbers in the charts above represent only the 15 largest counties in the state, because those are the only early voting totals released by the office of the Texas Secretary of State. But those 15 counties contain about two-thirds of the state's registered voters. We will have to wait until the March 6th election to see how the numbers shape up for the state as a whole.

I suspect when we see the final primary voting numbers for the state, it will be very close between the two parties. That means the elections statewide will depend on which party can convince Independents to vote for them. Whatever happens, this is shaping up to be a very interesting election season in Texas -- and the November results could be closer than they've been in over two decades.

Texas Dems Lead Primary Early Voting In Texas After 3 Days

If you had any doubt that Democrats are enthusiastic about this year's election, Texas Democrats are answering those doubts. After 3 days of early voting, Democrats lead the Republicans in turnout for early voting in the party primaries -- and Democrats are far ahead of their turnout numbers for 2014 (the last off-year election primary).

While the Republican number of voters after three days is very similar to 2014, the Democratic numbers are not. 43,895 more Democrats have voted this year than did in 2014. That's 5,953 more Democrats that have voted in the first three days than Republicans.

We'll have to see if this enthusiasm among Democrats continues, and whether they can duplicate it in November, but I see no reason why it wouldn't happen -- and if it does, then the statewide races in Texas could be much closer than prognosticators are predicting (especially in the Senate race, where Cruz is not really very popular).

The numbers in the chart above are from the office of the Texas Secretary of State.

Who Votes In American Elections ?

The 2016 election will depend a lot on who shows up to vote, so I thought this was interesting. It is from the Pew Research Center. They looked at demographic groups -- both is the percentage of the population (determined by the U.S. Census) and the percentage of 2014 voters (according to 2014 national exit poll).

As expected, some groups failed to vote up to their percentage of the population -- which means their voice was diluted in the election. Other groups voted in a greater percentage than their percentage of the population -- which means their voice was increased beyond what it should have been.

I was a bit surprised to see that women and men voted exactly as their proportion of the population in 2014 (52% to 48%). That's a change, since several past elections have seen women voting beyond their percentage of the population and men voting below theirs. Women still have a larger voice, but only because they outnumber men in this country.

When it comes to race, Whites both beyond the population percentage, Blacks vote about equal to theirs, and Hispanics vote significantly less than their population percentage.

There are real differences among age groups also. While those under 40 make up 38% of the population, they were only 24% of 2014 voters. Those 40-49 voted equal to their population percentage. Those over 50 voted in a much larger percentage than their population percentage. They compromise 45% of the population, but made up 59% of voters.

As the charts show, there are also differences according to education (with voter participation going up as education level rises) and income (where those making the least vote significantly less than do those at least middle class).

Will these participation levels hold in the 2016 election? It is a presidential election, so there will undoubtably be a bigger turnout overall -- but that doesn't necessarily mean the participation percentages will change. It will be interesting to see what happens though.

South Carolina Democrats Prefer Clinton By Big Margin

The latest polls show Hillary Clinton has garnered a pretty good lead in Iowa, while Bernie Sanders is again edging ahead in New Hampshire. It possible that the two candidates come out of those first two states roughly equal in delegates. But if that is true, then the third state to vote (South Carolina) seems poised to slam the door in Sanders face.

South Carolina Democrats prefer Clinton over Sanders by a 44 point margin (65% to 21%). This could easily be the state where the dream of "Feel the Bern" begins to die.

The chart shows the results of the Fox News Poll -- done between December 5th and 8th of a random sample of 364 likely South Carolina Democratic voters, with a margin of error of 5 points.

Wendy Tries To Explain Her Insane Gun Position In 2014

This picture (by Kevin Sutherland in 2013) is of Wendy Davis -- the Democratic nominee for governor in Texas in the 2014 election. Progressives across the state cheered when she was nominated. We thought we finally had a statewide candidate who was not afraid to campaign as a real Democrat (on progressive principles). After all, she had made a courageous stand in filibustering an odious GOP law that would close most of the state's abortion clinics just the year before.

But it didn't take long for her to disappoint many of her progressive supporters. She caved to the gun lobby, and said she supported allowing citizens to openly carry handguns (and other firearms) in public -- a position that made no sense in light of the enormous gun violence that plagues this country.

She now says she regrets taking that position, and in an article for Politico, tries to explain why she made that decision. Here is what she said:

I am a lifelong Democrat. I proudly boast an “F” rating from the NRA. And, yet during my 2014 gubernatorial campaign in Texas, I supported the open carry of handguns in my state.

It is a position that haunts me.

Every few months, on the heels of a shooting that devastates a different corner of America, we find ourselves arriving at exactly the same place: Republicans offer their prayers; some offer up the idea of focusing our attention on mental health; almost none of them mention guns. Democrats talk background checks, magazine limits, closing the gun-show loophole and, ultimately, get exasperated. In the wake of the San Bernardino and Planned Parenthood shootings, the conversations we’re having now are almost exactly the same. Meaningful gun reform still seems as distant as it did when the Manchin-Toomey bill, which would have required background checks on all commercial gun sales, failed in 2013, mere months after 20 children and six adults were killed in a mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

As baffling as this would appear to an outside observer, I know why we keep ending up here. I know why because, even with my history of supporting sensible gun laws, I was cowed by the political realities of my state. Me, a Democrat who wasn’t afraid of making waves when it came to strapping on a pair of pink sneakers as a state senator and filibustering an anti-abortion bill for 13 hours. I might be doggedly progressive most of the time, but when it came to staking out my position on the open carry of handguns in a red state, none of that mattered.

I vividly recall where I was when I hatched the idea for the open carry position I ended up taking. It was a late night in February 2014, and I was bone-tired after finishing fundraising in Colorado. Standing in the noisy, crowded TSA screening area of the Denver airport, I received a call from my strategy team back home. My opponent, the current Gov. Greg Abbott, had staked out his position in support of the open carry of handguns and I was being asked to stake mine out as well. Ever since I had announced my run the prior October, we had known this day, when I would have to declare my stance on this issue, would likely come. In every previous conversation that I had had with my team about open carry, I had been resolute in my opposition to the policy. Still, their concern that the issue threatened to “suck the oxygen” out of the conversation on other issues was a worry for me too.

Texas has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, with no minimum age requirements for possessing a firearm and no waiting period requirements. When I was running for governor, passage of open carry and campus carry in a state as gun-loving as Texas was just about all that the gun lobby there had left to achieve. Although federal gun laws place no restrictions on the open carry of handguns, six states, including Texas, had banned the practice since the Civil War. Open carry of long-barreled guns had always been allowed, and open carry advocates had taken to the intimidating practice of gathering in public places with shotguns and rifles strapped across their chests as an expression of support for extending that right to handguns. The issue had been heating up in the months prior to my decision, with several demonstrations in my home district of Tarrant County.

I wanted the campaign conversation to be about education funding, equal pay for women and access to healthcare—not guns. But this was Texas. Fifty-eight percent of voters in the state think gun restrictions should be either loosened or left alone. Texas is home to more licensed gun dealers than any other state in the country, and Lone Star Sen. Ted Cruz tops the list of senators who have received the most money from the NRA. The gun lobby reigns supreme in the state legislature and has the power, at a moment’s notice, to rile up its passionate member base. Earlier this year, the state house passed a bill to allow members to install panic buttons in their offices after open carry advocates confronted a lawmaker in his.

Members of my team had long memories of what it meant to go against these folks, having watched Democrat Ann Richards lose her 1994 gubernatorial re-election campaign after she vetoed a concealed carry bill. In the wake of that election, it became conventional wisdom that vetoing a gun bill would bring a Texas governor’s career to an end—the “Ann Richards Rule,” as it became known in the state’s political parlance. At a packed campaign event in deep-blue Travis County, I posed for a photo opportunity after Ann Richards’ adult children gave me her shotgun—a keen reminder of how fresh the lessons from that loss still are, especially for Texas Democrats.

Against that backdrop, I chose to do something that was cleverer than it was wise. I decided to take a position in favor of open carry, one which would include the caveat that any property owner who wanted to opt out should be able to do so, whether it be a school, hospital or a private business. Understanding that most of these property owners would likely take advantage of an opt-out provision if the legislature were ever even to agree to pass such a diluted version of the law, I thought I could go forward with a clear conscience.

Such was the dictate I gave my team from the Denver airport. But, as I hurriedly finished the conversation before boarding the airport terminal train, I couldn’t shake the shameful feeling that I had just done something I had never done before—I had compromised my deeply held principles for the sake of political expediency.

No One Got A Mandate From Voters In 2014 Election

Republican officials are wanting to act like the voters gave them a mandate to implement their extremist policies (since they now have control over both houses of Congress). But that is simply not true. They benefitted from having the more energized voters in an election in which an embarrassingly small percentage of voters bothered to vote. And the reason few went to the polls is because, as the charts above show, most Americans are disgusted with Congress and both political parties. Note that the huge disapproval of both parties is about the same (well within the survey's margin of error).

No one got any kind of mandate, and if the Republicans try to act like they did, they could easily be spanked hard by the voters in 2016 (when much larger numbers of Independents and Democrats will be voting, due to the presidential election). The truth is the voters are disgusted with Congress in general, and they want the two parties to finally compromise to get the country and the economy going again. And any failure at real compromise is going to be viewed very dimly by voters.

These charts were made from a Quinnipiac University Poll done between November 18th and 23rd of a random national sample of 1,623 registered voters, with a 2.4 point margin of error.

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

That same survey queried respondents in each political party about their choices for their party's presidential nomination in 2016. The charts below show those results -- with the GOP charts showing both with and without Romney, and the Democratic charts showing results both with and without Clinton. (Margin of error is 3.7 points for Republicans and 4 points for Democrats.)

Does The New Congress Represent You ?

It is just a sad fact in America that the groups that have little (or no) representation in Congress tend to get ignored when legislation is passed. This brings up an important question -- just what groups are represented in the make-up of the 114th Congress (which will be sworn in next January)?

The two charts above answer that question. They are made from information in an article from The Guardian -- who got their information from:

Source: AP; United States Senate; House Press Gallery; US Census, 2010; American Community Survey, 2012; NALEO; MAP and the Victory Fund. Additional research by Amanda Michel and Sarah Galo/The Guardian

This is no real surprise. As usual, if you are male, White, between the ages of 45 & 64, and educated, then you are over-represented -- and you can expect most legislation to be to your advantage. If you are not in one of those groups, then you are under-represented -- and it's probably going to be a very tough two years for you.

There are a couple of other groups that were not included in this survey -- the non-religious and the poor. Only one member of Congress, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), that claims no religion -- and there are no poor members of Congress at all (with most being rich, and a few coming from the middle class). These groups will have an extremely rough time getting an even break from this new Congress.

Senate Candidate Blasts Texas Democratic Party Leadership

Below is the election night speech of Dr. David Alameel (pictured), the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas for the 2014 election. If what he said is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then we have a serious leadership problem in our state party. Here is what Alameel said:

"Thank you so very much. I want to thank each of you, for all your support during this campaign.

I also want you to know that what started out as a campaign for U. S. Senate became a journey for many of us!

When I first announced that I was interested in running for the U. S. Senate, our Party Headquarters in Austin flat out told me not to run. 

And if that was not offensive enough, they offered me a deal: that if I gave them a really big donation, like half a million dollars, then they would in effect bless my candidacy across Texas. 

When I refused, they decided to use all of their relationships against me and supported my opposition in the Primary, forcing our campaign to waste millions of dollars in unnecessary cost.

We became the silent partner to ignore, as if the U.S. Senate race did not even exist. I complained, volunteers and supporters complained, and nothing changed. They worked against me the entire journey except during the run-off when they panicked about Keisha Rogers.

When other candidates would sneeze, our party Headquarters in Austin would create a buzz all over their social media. But no matter what we did across Texas, my campaign was made invisible. Even my debate with Cornyn was shamefully ignored. 

They fought hard to undermine the Alameel campaign. They didn’t care that they had a good candidate with the right knowledge and experience to help our people. Even Battle Ground Texas told their volunteers that they could not mention David Alameel.

That’s why I know that we have a lot of work to do in our party. It’s time to start a new movement of Democrats whose passion is to fight for “hard-working people”.

Because, if we are to prevail against those who are dragging our people down, we have to rid ourselves of these elites whose out of touch ideology and corrupt tactics have infected our party. And they sure don’t seem to care much about us.

These self-serving elites have failed us for over 20 years and they have the arrogance to assume that they can tell us what to think and what to do? Well, from here on, we’re going to tell them what to do.

The endless poverty in the Black and Latino communities, which are desperate for help, have been ignored by our party.

And I assure you that talking to them about abortion & gay marriage, or paying a short visit during election time, is not the answer for their struggle, and they remain totally uninspired. 

They represent 2/3 of our Democratic votes and we have to respect the fact that they’re all devout Christians.

They’ve been left behind by our system and Democrats always take “them and their faith” for granted.

But, the way they see it, when Democrats win they never gain anything, so why should they bother to get out and vote for Democrats?

It’s time for honesty and straight talk. Enough spin, hype, and fluff from our party elites. 

The truth is, that enthusiasm and support for Democrats across Texas is slipping away. 

But we can change all of that, if our Party gets serious about making a REAL change in the lives of hard working people who are struggling to make ends meet.

The reason our party managed to pull us out of the Great Depression, gave us the New Deal, and then gave us 50yrs of the best economy, the best education, and the best Middle-Class in the world is that back then our party used to be the “People’s Party”.

So tonight, I’m saying to you, as my friends and true supporters, that if we want to claim that we are the “big tent” party, that’s large enough to win campaigns, we have to change, and change begins at home, in our own Party.

We’re going to rebuild our party, starting at the local Precinct level with the help of County chairs, and instead of wasting money on Battle Ground Texas, we should raise money for County-Chairs directly to help us build our grass-root support across Texas.

This is just the beginning for David Alameel for US Senate. We knew going in that it’s going to be an uphill battle. But we also knew that we’re in this for the long haul.

So, I’m telling you tonight that we only lost one battle in the big war and I’m not finished till the job is done.

I’m a Democrat who’s committed to building a grass root movement, that will Reclaim our party, and start working for and winning the hearts and minds of our people.

Our journey to victory continues! 2018 is just around the corner and we have a lot of work to do…  Thank You and God Bless You!"

Can The New Government Work To Solve Our Problems ?

Staring next January, the United States will have a new government -- a divided government with a Democrat in the White House and both houses of Congress being controlled by Republicans. For the last four years, this nation has experienced gridlock in government -- as the Senate and House have been unable to agree on any major legislation (thanks to being controlled by different parties).

Instead of compromising for the good of the country, as has been done in the past, the 112th and 113th Congresses have just indulged in ideological games -- and the country has suffered, with high unemployment, a struggling economy, and a growing wealth and income gap (which is already wider than at any time since the Great Depression).

Has anything changed? Will the president and Congress be able to work together now? Can any major legislation be passed? The Rasmussen Poll asked 1,000 likely voters those questions on November 6th and 7th (and the survey had a 3 point margin of error). And the survey results were certainly not encouraging.

A substantial 73% of the general public (including 57% of Democrats and 80% of Independents and Republicans) believe the president and the GOP Congress will not be able to work together. And a tiny 25% of the general public (one out of four Americans) think any major legislation can be passed in the first 100 days of the new government. About 25% of Democrats, 15% of Independents, and 36% of Republicans agree.

The American people have very little faith in Washington. They do not believe they have solved the gridlock problem (and I would agree with them). What do you think? Can this new government work to solve our serious problems?

Democratic Candidates Should Support Democratic Policies

(This cartoon image of a "Blue Dog" is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.)

Some Democratic candidates think it is smart to run away from the president and principles of their own party -- claiming to be an "independent" who just happens to be running on the Democratic ticket. They all refused to let the president campaign for them (and one even refused to admit she voted for the president of her own party), and they all refused to publicly support the progressive principles of their own party.

Take it from this Texan (where we have a tradition of Democratic candidates running away from their party), that is not a winning strategy. And the Blue Dogs learned that in this election. Pryor (Arkansas), Begich (Alaska), Hagan (North Carolina), Grimes (Kentucky), and Nunn (Georgia) all were guilty of this -- and all of them lost their electoral bid. If you can't be a real Democrat, supporting your party's president and principles, you can't expect progressive Democrats to work their butts off for you -- and you can't expect Independents to run to the polls to vote for you. If you will abandon your own party, why wouldn't voters think you'd do the same to them when push comes to shove in Washington?

I think there is a good chance the Democrats can keep the White House in 2016 -- and garb control of the Senate and possibly even the House. But that won't happen if Democratic candidates are too timid to support Democratic principles. Here's how Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, co-founders of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, put it:

Democrats lost on Tuesday, as widely predicted. But for months, pundits got wrong what Democrats would need to win.  

There was rumor that youth turnout, Latino turnout, and cutting-edge Get Out The Vote practices would tip the balance in close races. But when "close" elections are decided by 7 to 12 points, something much bigger is happening.  

Pundits say President Obama was unpopular. Score one for the pundits. But the critical question is: Why was the president so unpopular?  

Did voters not show up because of Syria, Obamacare, or Ebola? No. 

Was President Obama proposing some big liberal idea, sparking backlash? No. It's hard to remember the last time the President offered a big idea.  

Jobs and economic security are consistently the top issues voters say they care about in red, purple, and blue states. But Democrats did not have a united economic agenda in this election.

Voters did not wake up on Election Day thinking that their ability to have a job, have affordable college education, or to retire with security was at stake. It was a Seinfeld-ian election about nothing. And nothing does not inspire potential voters to vote. In the absence of big ideas, Democrats lost.  

(Of note, some Democrats campaigned as Republicans. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) campaigned as the "most conservative Senate Democrat" -- but voters chose a real Republican over a fake one.)  

However, someone did spark energy this election cycle. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attracted standing-room only crowds in red and purple states. Democrats who didn't want to be seen with the president were proud to be seen with Warren.  

And Warren was the most popular Democrat on the campaign trail for a reason: Her message of taking on Wall Street, reducing student debt, and expanding Social Security benefits is popular everywhere.  

While progressives such as Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-ore.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) won re-election -- and Representatives Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) and Mike Honda (D-calif.) won their close races -- they won because they have consistently been economic populists and local voters knew that. But for other Democrats across the nation, nothing substitutes for a clear, authentic, united Democratic message focused on big ideas. 

Moving forward, something needs to change for Democrats. We need a bigger politics. We won't win our own tidal wave elections unless we can build a movement around big ideas -- like free college education, full employment, Medicare for All, expanded Social Security, and real reform of Wall Street.  

We need to make these issues so central to the national debate that candidates actively campaign on these ideas. And we need to start now.  

Hillary Clinton may be coming around to this strategy. In the final few weeks of the campaign, she tried to sound more and more like Sen. Warren. (While not hitting the language precisely, the intent seemed admirable.)  

Progressives will be organizing in states like New Hampshire and Iowa to ensure that all Democrats running for president take a position on -- and campaign actively on -- Elizabeth Warren's bold populist agenda. This is the path to victory in the primary and general election. 

A national progressive movement stands ready to work with those leaders in Congress who choose to recognize this imperative and step up to champion big ideas.  

And if Obama makes Warren's agenda the centerpiece of his agenda in 2015, his popularity will rise and Americans will get the debate about big, bold ideas that we deserve.  

Focusing on big ideas is the path forward for progressives and Democrats. The Warren wing of American politics is ready to lead.  

Senator Warren's Response To The Election

I have read many responses to last Tuesday's election (which was a disaster for the Democratic Party), but none have been better than this one from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Here is the missive she sent to all of her supporters (and published as an op-ed in the Washington Post).

(NOTE -- The caricature at left is by DonkeyHotey.)

There have been terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Election Days for Democrats before -- and Republicans have had a few of those, too. Such days are always followed by plenty of pronouncements about what just changed and what’s going to be different going forward.

But for all the talk of change in Washington and in states where one party is taking over from another, one thing has not changed: The stock market and gross domestic product keep going up, while families are getting squeezed hard by an economy that isn’t working for them.

The solution to this isn’t a basket of quickly passed laws designed to prove Congress can do something -- anything. The solution isn’t for the president to cut deals -- any deals -- just to show he can do business. The solution requires an honest recognition of the kind of changes needed if families are going to get a shot at building a secure future.

It’s not about big government or small government. It’s not the size of government that worries people; rather it’s deep-down concern over who government works for. People are ready to work, ready to do their part, ready to fight for their futures and their kids’ futures, but they see a government that bows and scrapes for big corporations, big banks, big oil companies and big political donors -- and they know this government does not work for them.

The American people want a fighting chance to build better lives for their families. They want a government that will stand up to the big banks when they break the law. A government that helps out students who are getting crushed by debt. A government that will protect and expand Social Security for our seniors and raise the minimum wage.

Americans understand that building a prosperous future isn’t free. They want us to invest carefully and prudently, sharply aware that Congress spends the people’s money. They want us to make investments that will pay off in their lives, investments in the roads and power grids that make it easier for businesses to create good jobs here in America, investments in medical and scientific research that spur new discoveries and economic growth, and investments in educating our children so they can build a future for themselves and their children.

Before leaders in Congress and the president get caught up in proving they can pass some new laws, everyone should take a skeptical look at whom those new laws will serve. At this very minute, lobbyists and lawyers are lining up by the thousands to push for new laws -- laws that will help their rich and powerful clients get richer and more powerful. Hoping to catch a wave of dealmaking, these lobbyists and lawyers -- and their well-heeled clients -- are looking for the chance to rig the game just a little more.

But the lobbyists’ agenda is not America’s agenda. Americans are deeply suspicious of trade deals negotiated in secret, with chief executives invited into the room while the workers whose jobs are on the line are locked outside. They have been burned enough times on tax deals that carefully protect the tender fannies of billionaires and big oil and other big political donors, while working families just get hammered. They are appalled by Wall Street banks that got taxpayer bailouts and now whine that the laws are too tough, even as they rake in billions in profits. If cutting deals means helping big corporations, Wall Street banks and the already-powerful, that isn’t a victory for the American people -- it’s just another round of the same old rigged game.

Yes, we need action. But action must be focused in the right place: on ending tax laws riddled with loopholes that favor giant corporations, on breaking up the financial institutions that continue to threaten our economy, and on giving people struggling with high-interest student loans the same chance to refinance their debt that every Wall Street corporation enjoys. There’s no shortage of work that Congress can do, but the agenda shouldn’t be drawn up by a bunch of corporate lobbyists and lawyers.

Change is hard, especially when the playing field is already tilted so far in favor of those with money and influence. But this government belongs to the American people, and it’s time to work on America’s agenda. America is ready -- and Congress should be ready, too.

The Green Party Will Be On The 2016 Texas Ballot

Progressives have to look hard to see anything good about the election results in Texas. The 2014 election was a crushing defeat for progressives, and a huge win for the right-wing extremist teabaggers. That can't be denied. But there are a few bright spots, and one of them for me is that the Green Party scored enough votes to qualify them for the Texas ballot in 2016.

To qualify for the ballot in the next election, a party must have at least one candidate in a statewide race that garners at least 5% of the vote. The Green Party had three candidates (in statewide judicial races) that did that -- and Judith Sanders-Castro (running for Place 4 on the Court of Criminal Appeals) set a new record for statewide Green Party candidates by getting 10.45% of the vote (the first statewide Green candidate to get a double-digit percentage).

Some of the Greens running for a seat in the U.S. Congress did even better (taking advantage of races without a Democratic candidate). Her is a list of how the statewide and congressional Green Party candidates did in last Tuesday's election.

Statewide

US Senate - Emily "Spicy Brown" Sanchez - 1.17%

Governor - Brandon Parmer - .39%

Lieutenant Governor - Chandrakantha Courtney - .59%

Attorney General - Jamar Osborne - .63%

Comptroller of Public Accounts - Deb Shafto - .97%

Commissioner of Agriculture - Kenneth Kendrick - 1.68%

Railroad Commissioner - Martina Salinas - 2.04%

Commissioner of General Land Office - Valerie Alessi - 1.28%

Supreme Court Justice Place 7 - Charles E. Waterbury - .74%

Supreme Court Justice Place 8 - Jim Chisolm - 9.24%

Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 - Judith Sanders-Castro - 10.45%

Court of Criminal Appeals Place 9 - George Joseph Altgelt - 8.56%

Districts

US Representative District 2 - Mark Roberts - .87%

US Representative District 3 - Paul Blair - 18%

US Representative District 13 - Don Cook - .70%

US Representative District 18 - Remington Alessi - 1.22%

US Representative District 21 - Antonio Diaz - 14.71%

US Representative District 28 - Michael D. Cary - 4.56%

US Representative District 35 - kat swift - 1.34%

US Representative District 36 - Hal J. Ridley, Jr - .51%

State Senate District 10 - John Tunmire - .60%

State Senate District 17 - David Courtney - .72%

State Representative District 42 - Nicholas Serna III - 11.55%

State Representative District 64 - Braeden Wright - 2.83%

State Representative District 80 - Marco Buentello - 10.4%

State Representative District 123 - Paul Ingmundson - 13.72%

State Representative District 130 - Art Browning - 9.23%

State Representative District 146 - Morgan Bradford - 8.12%

Two Out Of Three In Texas Didn't Bother To Vote

Texas has over 14 million registered voters, but only a tiny fraction (about 33%) of them voted on election day. That means 2 out of every 3 registered voters in the state didn't bother to vote -- a shameful statistic unmatched by any other state.

So less than 20% of registered voters elected a Republican governor and a full slate of statewide Republican candidates. I don't blame these voters for electing the Republicans. While I disagree with the choice they made, they did their civic duty by voting -- and I commend them for that (just as I commend the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and Independents who voted).

I blame the 66% who did not vote for electing a very flawed slate of candidates to statewide political office in Texas:
a proven corrupt politician to be Governor
an insane politician to be Lt. Governor
an admitted criminal to be Attorney General
an incompetent politician to be Comptroller
an extremist teabagger to be Agriculture Commissioner.

What the hell is wrong with you non-voters? Do you not love your state? Do you not care what happens to your fellow citizens in the next two years? Don't you understand that these politicians will affect nearly every aspect of your lives?

I honestly don't understand why a citizen living in a representative democracy would fail to vote in any election. It is not only your right -- it is your duty as a citizen.

The figures in the chart above are from the Texas Secretary of State.

The Stealth Oligarchy

On his own blog, Texas progressive Jim Hightower has written one of the best commentaries on the 2014 election that I have read. I bring you his commentary because I think it should be read by as many people as possible (so we can hopefully make the changes necessary to save our representative democracy). He says:

A stunning surprise coming out of this year’s elections is that the most dominant contenders were not glad-handing braggarts, but the least likely of participants: Shy people. 

That’s strange, since running for office these days is assumed to be an ego game, attracting the loudest of self-promoters. But the big winners on Tuesday were a group that actually campaigned anonymously, not even whispering their names to the voters.

Indeed, these were not the candidates listed on your ballot, but shadow candidates that are not even people. They are corporations that have been empowered by the Frankenstein-majority on our Supreme Court to exercise the political rights of us real human-type persons. Only they’ve been endowed with far more political power than you and me, for the Court decreed that these corporate “persons” can spend unlimited amounts of their shareholders’ money on TV ads and other campaign tools to elect or defeat whomever they choose – without disclosing their names to voters.

What we have here is the rise of a stealth oligarchy in America. These politically shy corporations are pumping untold millions of dollars out of their practically bottomless corporate treasuries to elect Congress-critters, governors, and ultimately presidents who will serve their narrow special interests at the expense of the public interest. You would know these cagey corporate campaigners, for they are major brand names from Big Oil, Big Food, Big Pharma, etc. Normally, they’re not at all timid about promoting themselves, but – shhhh – they don’t want us to have any inkling that they’re running surreptitious, multimillion-dollar campaigns that have become a deciding factor in who holds public office in America.

One reason they hide their names is that they run overwhelmingly negative campaigns, degrading our so-called political discourse with the most disgusting, mendacious, and vitriolic smears against the opponents of the corporate-friendly candidates they hope to elect. They would never want such slime attached to their corporate brands, for it would anger and repel their customers, employees, and shareholders. That's why their lawyers pushed the Supreme Court so hard to let them do their repugnant politicking, yet not have to be accountable for it.

Another reason that corporations want to "vote" in our elections without showing their identities is that honest disclosure would tarnish their favored candidates as shameless corporate toadies. If ExxonMobil had to reveal that it put up $50,000 or $100,000 or more to elect Bob Bogus from Bogullusa to Congress, voters would surely suspect that Bob was going to back Exxon's plan to frack their community. With the legalization of secrete campaigns, however, Exxon can hitch Bob to its wagon without voters even knowing.

We're about to see this formula of secret money = election = bad policy in action. Just in terms of campaign donations it disclosed, Wall Street put more money than ever into this year's elections, and a bigger portion of that than ever went to Republicans. We don't know how much dark money the banksters donated to the GOP because, obviously, the donors can keep that their little secret. But we do know that the new Republican Congress has gleefully declared Wall Street deform one of its top priorities.

Following the greed-fueled financial meltdown of 2008, reformers passed the Dodd-Frank bill, imposing modest restrictions on Wall Street's reckless speculation and setting up a new consumer watchdog to protect people from predatory financial greed. Even though both reforms have proven beneficial, and even no GOP candidate dared to promise voters that "I'll kill those protections and unleash the arrogant greedmeisters on your again" – that's exactly what the Republican majority will now vote to do.

The message of this election is that money matters – it matters more than what We The People want lawmakers to do, or not do. At the very least, shouldn't we be told the truth about who's buying what with their massive, self-serving political spending?

How ironic that cynical lawmakers demand that us commoners show our picture on an official "voter ID" card in order to be allowed to cast a ballot, yet they allow enormously rich corporations to buy our elections (and, therefore, our public policies) without showing a "Donor ID" card. If you're wondering who's in charge, there it is.

To battle oligarchic rule-by-money, connect with Public Citizen: www.citizen.org.

Eating Crow

(This image is from the website TV By The Numbers.)

My lunch today was crow, and I eat it without the benefit of salt or pepper (or salsa)!

I was wrong about how I thought the election would turn out -- very wrong!

I thought the Democrats would make inroads in the House of Representatives, and maybe even flip the House. I was wrong.

I thought the Democrats would retain control of the Senate. I was wrong.

I thought the Democrats and Independents had learned their lesson from the 2010 election, and they would show up at the polls to prevent teabagger majorities. I was wrong.

I thought the general public understood that the recent (and ongoing) economic disaster was primarily due to the "trickle-down" economic policies imposed by the Republicans. I was wrong.

I thought the American people understood that the Republicans were responsible for the corporate exporting of American jobs by giving corporations a tax break to send jobs overseas. I was wrong.

I thought the people understood it was the Republicans that were blocking a minimum wage raise. I was wrong.

I thought the public understood this was a very important election, and would vote in large numbers. I was wrong.

DAMN! Crow tastes nasty!

It's Going To Be A Tough Couple Of Years

Election night was an unmitigated disaster for Democrats (and other democracy-loving people). Wall Street and the giant corporations opened their pocketbooks and bought themselves both Houses of Congress -- moving us extremely close to being an out and out oligarchy.

The Republicans now control both the Senate and the House, and while that's wonderful for the rich and the corporations, it's not going to be so good for any other Americans. In fact, I think most Americans will have a tough couple of years. Here's some thing we can expect from the Republican Congress:

* They will try again to abolish Medicare, and put America's seniors at the mercy of the private insurance companies (who have shown repeatedly they have no mercy).

* They will try again to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and take health insurance coverage away from millions of Americans.

* They will try to cut benefits for the millions of Americans subsisting on Social Security (even though the average benefit is already below $1100 a month) -- and may even try again to privatize it. I expect they will also try to raise the retirement age to 70.

* They will try to defund the EPA, letting corporations pollute our soil, water, and air as much as they want.

* They will try to cut food stamps and other social help programs, even though inflation is causing the working poor to fall further into poverty with each passing month.

* They will not pass any bill to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, or any other kind of job creation program.

* They will try to cut the taxes of the rich and the corporations -- and call it job creation (even though numerous studies have shown the level of taxation has no effect on job creation).

* They will try to further diminish the right of women to control over their own bodies (and their access to contraceptives).

* They will try to further restrict voting rights (especially for minorities and young people).

* They will try to cut education funding for public schools (and will probably try to pass a voucher program so private religious schools can get much of the funding left).

* They will protect the subsidies and loopholes that allow many profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes (including the tax break given to corporations that outsource American jobs).

There is no doubt in my mind that they will attempt to do all of those things, and if you doubt that then you are living in a dream world. They have made no secret of those intentions.

There are two things that give me a bit of hope -- that President Obama is still in the White House and has the power of veto, and that there are enough Democrats left in the Senate to misuse the filibuster rule like the Republicans have done the last few years. Will the president and the Senate Democrats have the political will and courage to use their power? I honestly don't know, but I hope so. If they don't, the next couple of years won't just be tough -- they'll be a nightmare!

(From the Facebook page of Boing Boing.)