Early regional Texas primary predictions

I'm talking regional, above county level, Rethuglicans, and Democraps where available.

I think David Spiller holds on to HD-68. Kerri Kingsberry may win local Cooke County, but not the whole district.

Stacy Swann is running on the D side. 

Update: Spiller won going away.

==

I think SD-30 goes to a runoff, possibly both major parties. For Republicans? Brent Hagenbuch is in, as are one of the two of Carrie de Moor and Jace Yarbrough. I don't know which one. The fourth candidate, Cody Clark, is out. Besides, he's a secessionist, which led the Snooze to unendorse him. 

On the D side, my guess is that Dale Frey wins, no runoff, in a three-person race.

Would be nice if Greens had a candidate. Not holding my breath.

Update: Called this right on the R side in that Hagenbuch is in the runoff and Clark is out. Yarbrough is the other one who's in. De Moor performed poorly.

Got this wrong on the Doink side. Frey not only will not avoid a runoff, he's second to Michael Braxton as of 11 p.m. and yikes, Election Day Doink turnout is in the terlet.

==

CD-26?

Clearly a runoff in the GOP race. Can Brandon Gill make the runoff, with the Kiss of Trump offsetting the PAC blasting him for his financial services work in NYC for "woke" and Chinese-tied companies? Gill, for the unknowing, is also the son-in-law of Dinesh D'Souza. Guess that's why he got the Trump kiss without Trump research. I'm going to guess the less abrasive wingnut-squared John Hoffman is in. I won't venture to call Gill in or out. I'll also add that Scott Armey, while being old-schoolish of sorts, which might have some appeal in more urban parts of the district, won't make the cut, even with all the division otherwise. Robeson, the former state district judge, might be the old-school type to make the runoff instead of Armey.

Sidebar: With the PAC attack on him, and we all know what "Let's Go Brandon" means, are "Let's Go Brandon Gill" yard signs smart or dumb?

Ernest Lineberger is unopposed on the Doink side. Hope Greens run somebody, and somebody real. Hope Libertarians run a non-nutter, non-perennial candidate type, unlike two years ago.

Update: Gill appears to have won outright. The PAC, Conservatives for American Excellence, reportedly opposes wingnut candidates supported by the House Freedom Fries Caucus, worried that any more of them will make the Republican majority (if it holds on) even more fragile and combustible.

==

Outside my immediate area, I note that Loopy Lupe Valdez wants her old job back as Dallas County Sheriff. It's a five-person Dem primary. I expect it will go to a runoff, presumably between her and incumbent first-full-term Sheriff Marian Brown. That said, if Loopy Lupe performs as bad in this race as in her guv run in 2018, it either won't go to a runoff, or if it does, she won't be one of the two finalists.

Update: It is headed to a runoff with those two.

Didn't you used to be David Rieff?

David Rieff, the sole child of Susan Sontag, is definitely the type of person I'd call a public intellectual.

I became Twitter friends with him on a previous account, the one that Elmo's Jack-off's minions suspended for violating Twitter rules. I'd tagged him with the link to my review of his "The Reproach of Hunger," a great book on all the wrongs of the international development industry.

I refriended him on my new and current account, but he didn't reciprocate from his account this time.

That may be why he doesn't show up in my email feed from Elmo.

That said, since the spring of 2022? Seemingly a different person. Or maybe more has been brought out, about the person he's been for some time.

On Russia-Ukraine, he's basically one of the Nat-Sec Nutsacks™. While he is not a foreign policy guy, nonetheless, as a public intellectual conversant in multiple languages, he's informed enough. And, it's interesting, because, per a WSJ opinion piece, he said, circa 2005, that he used to be a liberal interventionist, but he dropped that. Isn't the Russia-Ukraine war liberal interventionism by proxy?

On Israel?

He seems to be trying to fly under the radar screen. Doesn't work, David.

That's especially when, via multiple retweets, you'll post only the worst about the Houthis. 

(Actually, I've since seen him retweet paid hasbara-ists, among others.)

You accept Israel's genocide if you don't call it out, even if you're not a Zionist. You accept Biden's war expansion here along with the proxy war in Ukraine.

You're well enough known, with enough gravitas. No, you wouldn't sway Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. But, maybe, Bernie Sanders?

I halfway agree with him, perhaps more, but don't want to commit to that, on the transgender world issue. Reminder: sex is not gender, ergo transsexual and transgender are two different things. On the "woke" world, I agree no more than 25 percent, while not saying I reject everything he has on Twitter.

The old "classical liberal" term arises, but he seems to be a more realistic, and certainly less wingnut, embodiment of it than Andrew Sullivan.

Presidential briefs, Feb. 29: Biden polling, de la Cruz bashing, Michigan

Happy Leap Day! Rock on!

Genocide Joe is probably rocking, if Quinnipiac was right a week ago in its poll stating he's up on Trump 49-45 percent. Not the first time recently QP has had him in the lead, and it has a history of GOP lean.

That said, contra Meidas Brothers, where I saw it, if we go beyond the duopoly, QP says the news is not so good:

When the hypothetical matchup is expanded to include independent and Green Party candidates, Biden receives 38 percent support, Trump receives 37 percent support, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. receives 15 percent support, independent candidate Cornel West receives 3 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein receives 3 percent support.

I find it hard to believe that Bob Jr. is polling 15 percent and know that won't last.

That ALSO said, Meidas won't tell you there's not so good news for #DementiaDon:

Voters 67 - 31 percent think that President Joe Biden is too old to effectively serve another 4-year term as president, compared to 68 - 28 percent in Quinnipiac University's September 2023 poll.

IF IF IF some of his shite is just "gaffes," his handlers will try to fix that by zipping him up, which means anything off script will look even more zaftig. And, I suppose Meidas et al can spin by saying fewer people in February thought he was dementiaed than did in last September.

Then there's this:

Physical fitness: Biden: 35 percent say yes, 62 percent say no; Trump: 60 percent say yes, 37 percent say no.

Really? The fat bastich from Queens is more fit than Biden?

==

If running as a third party candidate, independent candidate or whatever, shouldn't you at least pretend to be actually trying to win? On Twitter last week, there was news that Cornel West has spent almost zero on ballot access so far.

==

If running as a third party candidate for a party that doesn't have party line ballot access in most states, shouldn't you address questions about access in a particular state when asked? I emailed Claudia de la Cruz of the Party of Socialism and Liberation about whether or not she and it would be making an effort to get on the Texas ballot when that time comes. So far, I got a mass blast email that did mention the PSL trying to get onto a new high of 23 states' ballots. BUT? It didn't list what those states are; I'm not clicking on a volunteer button until I know that Texas is one of them. (I had said I would publicize Texas petition-signing activities when I contacted them.)

PSL is also supposed to have a Dallas regional contact. I emailed it and have yet to hear back.

That said, a volunteer responded on Twitter that because of Tex-ass onerous burden, they're not seeking by-name ballot access but do plan the much easier write-in status. I told them to tell me when they got that started.

That said, "Pat the Socialist" (the former "Pat the Berner," which Twitter account is not suspended, but rather, no longer exists) claims she "just sucks" on COVID. From what I've seen on Google, she's not totally enlightened, and likes to use the issue to bash capitalism, but I think "just sucks" is an overly harsh take, as I look through responses to him, and his own replies to those. (It should also be noted that I am not a "COVID Doomer." Like Jessica Lexicus, a Grade-A example. Or like Pat the Berner, on multiple)

Side note: Why did Pat delete his Berner account? I mean, those of us who know that was him knows he can't hide from that.

==

Re de la Cruz and chasing the write-in status, this does mean that I could, by my political lights, vote in the Texas primary now. Per the SOS, write-in candidates for president merely need statements from themselves AND their Veep (important; they can toss you if you don't have a ticket) and 40 pledged electors with statements of assent.

As for candidates who might be trying the independent tack and would need signatures? Tex-ass will be less close than in 2020, so no stratchery reasons to sign Bob Jr.'s petition. And, the desire to sign Cornel West's petition diminishes in my rearview mirror as he becomes ever more of a goofball. I assume SPUSA's Bill Stodden will go the write-in route, as the late Mimi Soltysik did in 2016. But, it's still a matter of principal combined with a suck-ass ballot. No Dems running for state House. Nothing to really separate Dems running for state Senate. An unopposed Dem in CD-26 I personally think Roland Gutierrez would be better for Senate than Colin Allred. And that Carl Sherman would have been much better off running for Allred's House district.

==

The #AbandonBiden (for now, until they presumably sheepdog in November) movement in Michigan to vote "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary got more votes than Marianne Williamson was able to manifest for herself. (And yes, stanners, once again, she does believe in "manifesting" and related shit.) Nonetheless, the New Age quack — and pro-genocidalist by her silence on the issue — thinks she needs to "unsuspend" her campaign.

No, really. As I told her on Twitter:

.@marwilliamson Given that you're pro-genocidalist by a mix of your silence and your laughable claim a few years ago that Avatar could solve the Israel-Palestine issue, you're taking the wrong message from the #AbandonBiden "uncommitted" vote in Michigan. (That doesn't surprise.)

— TheRealSocraticGadfly 🥝☢️🌻🌲 (@real_gadfly) February 29, 2024

Speaking of, Mondoweiss has more. That said, as I've said repeatedly on Twitter about THIS, this portion of the #AbandonBiden movement, like the rest of it, means nothing if confined to a few Democratic primaries, and a few high-dollar Arab-American / Muslim-American donors. Call me in November. Rashida Tlaib is a sitting Democrat Congresscritter. She'll be backing #GenocideJoe. Michael Moore? Straight duopolist. Don't believe me? His name is NOT on Jill Stein 2016 endorsees.

==

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Trump underperformed. As he has in every contest so far. He'll blow it off if asked, but his handlers have to be concerned.

==

Update, via a Kuff gloat-post in his weekend links. Fuck Greg Sargent, in a piece showing TNR still has one foot in the #BlueAnon world. No Labels' main rationale has not gone away. Rightly or wrongly, many "independents" think Biden in particular and the Democratic Party in general are too far left. Second, Sargent himself, a #BlueAnon of long standing, notes No Labels' caveat not to run a "spoiler" ticket but decides to bash it anyway.

Texas Progressives talk genocide, Bushnell, Univ of Austin

THIS corner of the Texas Progressives Alliance stands in salute to the memory of the late Aaron Bushnell, acting in idealism like the Buddhist monks during the Vietnam War. We also remind #BlueAnon type Democrats that, rather than a vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West or Claudia de la Cruz "really" being a vote for Trump or Putin, that a vote for Biden is a vote for #GenocideJoe. Facts, not Zionist hasbara:

I can't believing I'm saying this, but Aaron Bushnell's last words were just read live on CNN. pic.twitter.com/wdbbBsTHgW

— Read Let This Radicalize You (@JoshuaPHilll) February 26, 2024

"Free Palestine."

==

Just what's behind that University of Austin? Maybe we should say "University" of Austin in scare quotes. Noah Rawlings goes undercover by getting enrolled. The real issue is WHO is behind it. We're not talking cancel culture queen Bari Weiss, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Peter Boghassian et al. They're just the fronts for the monocultural mindspace. Rather, it's the bucks. Harlan Crow. Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. Silicon Valley all-around nutter Marc Andreessen.

Texas wingnuts go conspiracy-theory ballistic over new statue that is in part a hat-tip to the "notorious RBG." We leftists laugh at both them and the establishment neoliberals who thought Ginsburg was all that.

Barbers Hill (ironic name, eh) ISD's superintendent walks, talks and quacks like a racist on the CROWN Act as well as misinterpretation of Supreme Court rulings and more. Indeed, the bill's co-author noted that he wrote it because a previous problem at Barbers Hill.

The always-insightful Joe Costello talks about the possibility of an open Democratic convention, and talks even more about snarky alternatives.

Why does Ken Paxton hate Catholics? More from the Monthly.

"Back the blue?" When Fort Worth PD suck at detective work?

SocraticGadfly says Jeff Goodell's "Heat" book has several pulled punches on the future of climate change.

Dan Solomon calls the Tex-ass based moon lander Odysseus' touchdown a success. Rather, since it landed sideways, as I told him on Twitter, it's a monument to the arrogance of Texas exceptionalism. It's also a tribute to the arrogance of SpaceX's Elmo Musk.

Stace tells us about his voting experience, his thoughts on the student revolt at UH, and a COVID report. Another thought-provoking Thoughts on Viernes.

Off the Kuff analyzed a couple of polls of Harris County Democratic primary voters.

Kuff, in his Sunday links dump, also fellated Zionist Josh Marshall, who was hating on Ezra Klein for seriously talking about better Dem options to Genocide Joe. That said, of course, Klein is worried about the possibility of Dementia Joe and doesn't even discuss Genocide Joe.

This is all as the NYT put a freelancer, Anat Schwartz, in charge of its front-page hasbara and is now trying to cover its ass with an "investigation."

Newsmax is in trouble on the Dominion lawsuit.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project offered up a list of some pro-democracy candidates in the Harris County Democratic Primary. 

 The Eyewall analyzes what we know right now about the 2024 hurricane season.  

The Most Rev. Mark J. Seitz, bishop of the El Paso Catholic Diocese, vows that the Catholic Church will not be intimidated by Ken Paxton's threats to Annunciation House.  

Reform Austin introduces us to the guy who is now in jail for threatening House Speaker Dade Phelan's life. 

Paxton and Abbott anti-endorsements fray Texas GOP

That's even as they sometimes battle each other.

Per this piece, many of the wingnuts-squared who are running against wingnuts for state House seats, and with the endorsement of Abbott and/or Paxton, are deliberately stiffing media. My own House seat is interesting. Incumbent David Spiller, one of the House impeachment managers, nonetheless flip-flopped on vouchers in the last special session and has Abbott's endorsement. He's advertising in traditional media. His opponent, Kerri Kingsberry, a true whackadoodle wingnut squared, is not. It's also clear, per that piece, that many of these people actually believe the lies they tell. And, with her, not only is she not advertising in traditional media, I've not even seen any mailbox flyers. She's either really low on cash, or else it's a campaign of entirely visiting the new GOP's Kooky KonKlaves.

The Trib has another piece noting that the Paxton and/or Abbott endorsement vendetta is making tempers run raw among a number of rural House incumbents. Another is Travis Clardy, who's the flip of Spiller. He opposed impeachment, so has gotten Paxton's endorsement, but opposed vouchers all of the special sessions, so has earned Abbott's vindictiveness. As part of that, Abbott is getting called out, when he goes on the road, for having endorsed many of these incumbents now, and instead, running a single issue anti-endorsement. With Clardy, Paxton has been called out by a few wingnuts-squared for going soft.

The bottom line? Except in a few cases, like that of Rogers, most these anti-endorsements will fail. There will be more House-Senate divisiveness on vouchers, and after Paxton's trial, presuming he's convicted, more divisiveness there, as Dan Patrick will refuse to eat crow.

But, because billionaires flush with money (thanks Clinton and Obama for keeping Poppy Bush and Shrub Bush tax cuts in place) want to fuel these issues, and because Abbott's vindictiveness is well known, but only second to Patrick's, this won't stop.

And, with Glenn Rogers, it doesn't help that he beat Farris Wilks' son-in-law to first get in the House. (Wilks, for the unfamiliar, and his brother Dan, are the less visible tagalongs to Christofascist Tim Dunn.)

That is part of Chris Hooks' take on this. That said, I doubt this will radicalize the House that much, for reasons I note above. Most of these anti-endorsements will fail. Yeah, the general pressure of Wilks and Dunn is unremitting. But, the pushback is still there.

Nor will Democrats make any pickups directly related to this in cases where it does work. That's because Democrats have no candidates in most these places. If Mike Olcutt beats Glen Rogers, he's in. If Kingberry beats Spiller, she's in.

Nancy Pelosi — the Goebbels of San Francisco

It's become a commonplace in the last week for people on Twitter to call Eylon Levy, one of the nation of Israel's (as in official government) top hasbara blatherers, the "Goebbels of Gaza."

In that case, Nancy Pelosi is the Goebbels of San Francisco.

Not content to call people like Code Pink, directly, and people like me, indirectly, agents of Putin for protesting the genocide in Gaza, she recently claimed that no U.S. weapons are being used in this genocide. Mondoweiss has the details.

What else can we say about this blatant of lying when she knows better?

Sidebar: Per Richard Medhurst, who is right at times and a flat crackpot at times (including fellating Bashar al-Assad), it's interesting to note that Levy is also another one of those hyphenated Israelis.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is in the running to be the Goebbels of Burlington:

after repeatedly denying Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, Bernie Sanders is asked if he supports sanctioning Israel. He says "I'm nervous about that for any country." That's a lie. He voted for sanctioning Venezuela, Russia, North Korea, and others. He's a Zionist liar pic.twitter.com/m413WFMXsG

— ☀️👀 (@zei_squirrel) February 19, 2024

If he keeps that shit up.

Or this shit:

Bernie Sanders gets asked THREE times if he thinks what Israel is doing in Gaza constitutes “genocide”

He can’t bring himself to say it. Not even one time. pic.twitter.com/eSlTzKGnqe

— HOT SPOT (@HotSpotHotSpot) February 19, 2024

Boy.

A week on from this original post, Bernie is somewhat increasing his criticism of Israel, but not a lot and is not at all increasing his criticism of Biden for kowtowing to Netanyahu. And, he still won't use the word "genocide."

And, for any Berner blank-checkers who say, "But Bernie's family," I respond: "But Norman Finkelstein's family."

Didn't you used to be John Scalzi?

John Scalzi fellates BlueSky, while ignoring that "blocking" there sounds no different than blocking on Twitter, and that BlueSky was a project of "Blue Balls Ice Bath" Jack Dorsey when he still ran Twitter, who looks good today only because of Elmo Musk replacing him. He also sounds semi-clueless about Mastodon. Here's the racist reality there.

It's clear from his "register to vote" sidebar, and main post on that, that he's a left hand of the duopoly guy, even if not a deep-fried duopolist. Beyond that? He's written nothing on his site about Israel-Gaza.

On Russia-Ukraine, he claims that we were in a post-Cold War era until the start of the war. Bullshit.

I know my friend, the late Leo Lincourt, seemed to love him some Scalzi. I believe it was for non-political reasons. I hope it was.

To me, what Scalzi sounds like is that long poem about not letting the world trouble you, whose name escapes me because I haven't read it for years. It sounds portentious, but is really pretentious; it sounds profound, but is really more platitudinous.

Alt-history — wrong Cromwell in the succession?

By succession, I'm talking succession to The Protectorate that eventually was established in 1650s England to replace the beheaded King Charles 1. And, that means the succession to Oliver Cromwell.

As with a similar piece a week ago, I'm here because of a new book in my reading.

The Blazing World: A New History of Revolutionary England, 1603-1689 by Jonathan Healey
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A little bit dense, but not unduly so, and informative throughout. For me, it was most so on the period from the Second Civil War of 1648 through the end of the Protectorate.

I had not realized how, in 1648, much of Parliament was still willing to treat with Charles and on lenient terms.

On the Protectorate, I knew the basics: Rump Parliament, Charles' execution, Cromwell off to Ireland to become a four-letter word, Cromwell scuffing with various Parliaments, then son Richard unable to hold power. But the details of the different Parliamentary arrangements at different times in the Protectorate? How Cromwell was often more Independent, less Puritan, on the degree of religious tolerance he was ready to show? That and more was new.

So were some of the fine details of William vis a vis James II/VII. And, that should be enough without spoiling anything.

View all my reviews

First, a couple of more detailed notes that I learned about the Protectorate years in the book.

The biggest is that he was himself offered the crown. 

In early 1657, a backbencher in Parliament, Sir Christopher Parke, offered up a new constitution. Yes, on paper. For Anglophiles in America who don't know their British history enough, during both the Commonwealth after Charles' execution and the Protectorate, England (and Scotland and Ireland to the degree covered by the Protectorate) had a written constitution. Although the Heads of Proposals had not been formally adopted, as I see it, it was a de facto constitution before the Instrument of Government, though it was never actually adopted by a Parliament. But, I digress.

Parke's proposal had two main constitutional items. One was that it would bring back a House of Lords. (The Protectorate had a unicameral, Commons-only Parliament.) The second is that Cromwell would get the crown.

But, it actually limited Cromwell's powers more than the Protectorate, in part by increasing parliamentary power separate from a Protector-King, and by scaling back the size of the army, the New Model Army that had put him in power, that chased most MPs out of what became the rump, and that insured the Barebones parliament wouldn't sit long. It also, outside of constitutional structure, scaled back the religious tolerance of the Protectorate. In addition, even though hereditary, such a crown would be based on the will of the people as expressed in Parliament. To extend this fully, it extended the logic of the deposition, if not the execution, of Charles.

So, the "grandees" of the army hotly opposed it.

And, Cromwell was irate, blaming them for all the problems of the Protectorate. He also claimed that he had been offered the crown already with the never-adopted Instrument. (As to that matter, looking at the actual text of the Instrument, to riff on C.S. Lewis about Jesus but with better grounds, Cromwell was either loony or a liar, and I'm pretty damned sure which of the two it was. Why he made this claim, I have no idea and Healey doesn't venture one.)

He eventually refused, but more because of religious Independents like Baptists and Quakers than the army. Shades of Caesar, but with shades of sincerity, Parliament offered it again, more than once. Finally, the offer was withdrawn. The rest of what became known as the Humble Petition, though, and thus as England's, and by extension, the forerunner of the United Kingdom's, last written constitution was accepted, including the "Other House," which was not going to be called a House of Lords.

Digression done. Fast forward 18 months.

Cromwell, in his upper 50s, had already been ailing at the time of offer of the kingship. Some speculate that, in addition to not wanting the restriction on powers, and in addition to seeing the idea of kingship judged by god in 1649, he didn't like the hereditary thing.

If so, then why didn't he seek out another successor than son Richard? As Healey states, Richard wasn't a soldier and so didn't have an army base of support. Add in that Oliver had plumped for the army as his support in 1657. He had, it seems, two better and more logical choices. One was younger son Henry, though it appears he had no desire for the position. Another, whom Healey says would have been a better Oliver Cromwell had he been in that position then, was John Lambert. Unfortunately, over the 1657 crown proffer, and Lambert's vociferous opposition to the crown from the start, an already decaying relationship between the two totally imploded.

Others? Charles Fleetwood appeared to have his chance, but demurred even more than Cromwell's son Henry. Desborough couldn't get the army behind him when, even more than Fleetwood, he led it to desert Richard, and wasn't of a governing sort anyway.

Both of them were related by marriage to Cromwell. Lambert had that lack of relation as an additional handicap.

But, the ultimate fault lay with Oliver himself, with his ongoing triangulations seeming to shift base from year to year.