Texas Dems elect ConservaDem Kendall Scudder as state party chairman

So, Texas Democrats have gone from finally getting Gilberto Hinojosa to walk the plank from the water-treading SS Texas Democrats Minnow to this, Scudder getting elected in a highly contested race? (Interesting the TDP uses instant-runoff voting; now, along with stopping your effort to keep Greens off the ballot, maybe support it in state races?)

ConservaDem Kendall Scudder is, and I first met him seven or eight years ago. Riding Beto Bob's coattails then promoting Matthew McConaughey to run for gov is proof of that. More proof? In 2022, Kendall, in the DMN interviewing him for his state senate primary, said both parties had moved too far from the center.

As for his plans?

He wants the party to pay attention to areas he says it has previously written off, like rural communities, and put a priority on Spanish-language communications.

Wrote off rural Democrats? Did you forget about Beto, or Beat-0, in Muleshoe, which also involved his being a general PanderBear?

The reality is that rural Democrats, as in county-level political organizations, have long written themselves off. Those that aren't totally moribund welcomed Beto in Muleshoe for a bit of recognition in turn for a bit of his low-level grifting. That's in counties that even have a county level organization. Many don't, and the state party admits this.

And, Scudder, you served on the state party executive committee. You know this.

One other thing on Scudder, per my ConservaDem link? He bragged on his podcast about having a concealed carry permit, even with living in the Metromess. And yes, I saw it as bragging.

That, in turn, ties back to my post Friday: "With Texas Democrats, who needs Texas Republicans," as one part of that was about a majority of Senate Dems voting to get even tougher on the death penalty. In the DMN interview, Scudder wasn't asked about the death penalty. However, one of the other four candidates in that same state Senate race, Charles Gearing, twice volunteered his opposition to the death penalty, under the same question, about criminal justice reform. Maybe the fact that one of Scudder's three (step)-parents worked for either a county jail or TDCJ, as a correctional officer, per his website campaigning to replace Hinojosa, indicates he might tilt toward frying people, even if that was the dad his mom divorced. This would probably tie to his concealed carry permit, too. As would his being a "volunteer in patrol" with the Dallas PD. A more righty junior Jim Schutze? Gack.

I've done plenty of teh Google and can't find his stance. In addition to all of the above, IMO, if he actually opposed the death penalty he would have volunteered that info somewhere. 

I also don't know his position on Zionism and Palestine.

One-third trollingly, two-thirds seriously, I rhetorically asked about this on Shitter Monday night. Non-rhetorically, I asked Texas Progressive Caucus on Hucksterman, and Texas Democrats on Shitter. The purpose there is to see if THEY know, more than to get the answers themselves, since I already indicated I think I know what they are.

And, 24 hours later, neither has answered me.

So, contra Michelle Davis at Lone Star Left, in my world, Kendall Scudder is NOT a "pergressuve." Well, he surely is on LGBTQAI (If we're doing alphabet soup, I'm adding "Incel") issues, but not likely other than that. 

But, Jim Hightower supported him, because he has know-how and can raise bucks. Careful, Jim, or you'll find yourself in the neighborhood of yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

I mean, sexual orientation issues and abortion are important. So is combating US imperialism (Russia-Ukraine and NATO) and Israeli imperialism. So is real action, not fake action, on climate change. (Remember, in 2022, Beto-Bob discovered the religion of "drill, baby, drill.")

Scudder DOES know about running for office. Huntsville city council, multiple times. State Senate. The new elected member slot on Dallas County Appraisal District. Now this, and I'm probably missing something. In short, he's a permacandidate. Will he use the party chairmanship to run for office again at some point?

The Libertarian Lady is not for turning

See multiple footnoted sidebars at bottom and note also that this original post has been expanded. Note also that primarily due to exchange of comments, I've got two sidebar blog posts that I'm spinning off this. They'll be linked when they go up.

And here you are on part 1 and part 2.

Libertarians nominated Jo Jorgensen for president, a long-ago VP candidate and NOT an ex-Republican, on the fourth ballot. Libertarians did a virtual convention for president and veep ONLY; the original plan for an all-virtual convention was derailed when some legalistic LPer cited bylaws, so they'll meet in person for other quadrennial business. (Does this surprise you?)

Just because she's their first woman nominee doesn't make her anything but the typical hardcore Libertarian, per a Reason interview. (Don't ever, EVER forget Maggie Thatcher, per the header.) *

(That said, the "not for turning" is sincere, especially with many Greens, including many older, by both age and GP years of involvement, individuals salivating over political opportunist Jesse Ventura. Now, back to the thread.)

She makes the No True Scotsman claim that healthcare needs free markets to actually work. Actually, a good socialist like me knows that insurers are but lightly regulated. Pretty free market. And abusive. But, doctors and hospitals, ordering unnecessary tests out of a mix of capitalist grifting and fear of L/libertarian type lawsuits, are also part of the problem.

(Big picture: "True Scotsman" true capitalism for many Libertarians, I think, is what was covered nearly 400 years ago by Thomas Hobbes.)

As ProPublica has written in detail? Capitalism in American health care is part of why poor black folks with diabetes gets amputations at a rate far higher than whites.

Beyond that, capital L's, many small-l libertarians back national health care. Like Hayek! Boom. (Though, unlike me, I am sure no libertarian of small or capital l's backs a National Health System here in America.) And, while some small l's support national health care, I have NEVER met a capital-L political candidate who does. This is surely another reason why Europeans who call themselves libertarians stare at American libertarians as though they were three-headed goats or something.

She blames governments for air pollution. (More below.) She kind of admits global warming is real while saying "I don't want to talk about how we got here." Why not, pray tell? Are you a secret defender of the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change and afraid to drive away some Libertarians? The reality is that, the reason why we got here is generally related to how bad you think it is, and then in turn to how serious of a response you deem to be needed.

As for nukes helping climate change? No, free markets won't help there; no power company wants to build a nuke plant without even more federal guarantees. Seriously, LPers in general are like Vermin Supreme's ponies in believing that a truly free market would solve all sorts of verschnizzle it wouldn't. More seriously, do any of you talk to the actual business world? Beyond that, there's some good scientific articles about how supply restrictions on various metals in reactor construction means that, while nukes could maybe replace what's left of the world's current coal-fired electricity, they realistically can't go beyond that.

(IMO, they're also in denial about the wind-up-the-world-like-a-clock Deist deity that lies behind Adam Smith's invisible hand and has been refuted by quantum mechanics. They're also in denial about how Enlightenment-era ideas of human rationality have been refuted by modern psychology, and scientifically refuted by behavioral psychology. [And no, an average of all wandering paths on this doesn't produce a species-wide averaged-out Homo economics rationalis, it just produces a species-wide naturally irrational critter.])**

Her platform also has an outright lie about most pollution being in developing countries. The US is the King of Trash. So, no, it's not governments, per above; no, it's not developing countries; it's the most rampant types of capitalism that are the problem. If she means air or water pollution? Well, it's the regulatory state that's addressed that, NOT unfettered capitalism. We all know that big business in the U.S. has fought any, every, and all regulatory measure to control air and water pollution over 50-plus years.

She has an outright lie of another sort on poverty. She notes that from 1959-69 the US cut poverty rates in half. THAT is true. This is not:

However, after the war on poverty was fully implemented in the early seventies, progress stopped.

Other than Nixon's Earned Income Tax Credit, most of the War on Poverty was stopped after LBJ left office. Some of it was slowed by LBJ even before leaving because of Vietnam. The ProPublica piece above details some of Nixon's budget cutting on health care. Whether the "War on Poverty" really could have been won or not, we'll never know, because it was never fully tried, never "fully implemented."

The truth is that economic inequality (which Libertarian ideas would increase) reduces national economic growth. I'll give a kudo to both capital and small l's for in some ways being more serious about racism than many Democrats, who often have a simplistic Joe Biden take. But they lose that kudo when they don't address classism nor acknowledge how class and race are intertwined. (Some leftists lose half a kudo when they try to always reduce race to class, at the same time.)

And a third lie. No, the Department of Education hasn't failed. What's failed is colleges making themselves into Big Biz and the government not actually funding more of the costs of a collegiate education. Add in "credentialism" and voila.

All of this is why, when Greens talk about making an "alliance" with Libertarians, I strictly insist that that would only be on a case-by-case basis, and would almost certainly just boil down to selected civil liberties areas. And, contra many Greens, re the horseshoe theory of politics on COVID et al, my "selective" would be more selective than theirs. (Note: I may officially declare myself an independent leftist later this year over a variety of issues. The SPUSA would be my next stop. Within the GP, I am definitely a "watermelon Green.")

Also, as for Greens hankering for such an alliance? Libertarians rarely play up this idea. Besides, who would want to ally with a party even more disorganized than Greens? (I refer to Libertarian delegates not being pledged. Contra this piece, since Green delegates ARE pledged, non-duopoly parties can do exactly that. And, no, this isn't a coronavirus issue; Libertarian delegates have been unpledged in the past.)

And, beyond that, the LP lived up to its old nutbar roots by nominating Vermin Supreme acolyte Spike Cohen as its Veep. NY Mag has more.

Let's add a "disorganized" note here. Jorgensen and Cohen are both from South Carolina. THAT's constitutional. BUT, should the LP slate win any states South Carolina, electors from that state can, per the Constitution, vote for only one or the other. (Corrected from the original; see comment by Winger and my response below.)

"Congrats" to Libertarian delegates, who like to shout "unconstitutional" all the time, for their constitutional ignorance. Per back-and-forth in comments, nobody raised this issue at the LP convention, while 2000 Republicans, and the person of Dick Cheney, had plenty of time to address it in advance.

This is expanded over my original post. It's been a while since I've gone in depth like this. Probably one-third of the reason I did so is suggested in the paragraphs about the thought processes of some Greens.

==

* Sidebar 1: Jorgensen was NOT the favorite of Libertarian delegates at the start, not even a plurality favorite, nor of voters in any states with Libertarian primaries, nor other states with Libertarian caucuses or conventions. (That said, using IRV-oriented polling, she was the favorite, it appears, after you get through IRV elimination rounds.)

But, because the LP not only has unpledged delegates, but does old-fashioned bottom-candidate elimination rather than some version of instant runoff voting, she got the "bump" when candidates below her fell by the wayside through the first three ballots. That, in turn, may be an additional factor in how well — or how poorly — she does this year, besides the pandemic issues. In essence, she seems to have gotten the nomination because she's "not Mr. X." Jacob Hornberger never seriously bumped above his first-round numbers.

Seriously, Libertarians? Why go through the motions of electing delegates even on a preference basis? Why not just have each state, as assessed by LP national, appoint a bunch of Rando Libertarians out of the air to meet its delegate total and go from there?

As far as the Veepness, as Richard and I go back and forth in comments, Jorgensen wanted to go a more serious direction, with fellow prez candidate John Monds, but Spike nosed him out. Had this happened, Root might have gone apoplectic if Monds' African-American ethnicity had been trumpeted by the LP. And, per my second response to Richard, the 2016 convention honored Gary Johnson's choice of Bill Weld. (That said, as Wiki summarizes, Jorgensen didn't officially endorse Monds, either.)

I still would disagree with Libertarians. But, riffing on Ed Kilgore, I wouldn't think them a joke if they hadn't chosen Cohen as Veep, and if, in the big picture, they didn't have unpledged delegates.

OTOH, maybe to some Libertarianians, maybe the lack of pledging of delegates is part of the party's performance art.

==

** Sidebar 2: Riffing on the last graf of my expanded original post, this is of course paralleled by a fair minority of Greens who think all you have to do is mention the word "nature" all the time, throw in some New Agey thoughts, and we'll all be good.

And, no, Anthony Dlugos, first commenter, I don't claim that governments are more rational, economically or otherwise, than individuals. That said, governments can provide a check on irrational individuals, and per Kahnemann and Tversky, members of a government, working together, can hit the "pause" button and engage in Stage 2 thinking more readily than CEOs, etc.

==

*** Sidebar 3: The Greens in 2016 and the SPUSA this year showed themselves to be "clowns" and ... "constitutionally ignorant or uncaring," in another sense. I'm talking about constitutionally unqualified Elijah Manley being on the 2016 GP and 2020 SPUSA ballots, at least in some states. He should have been tossed. For that matter, the Federal Election Commission should automatically toss applications like his while we're at it.

Early 2020 Democratic presidential oddsmaking, desirability

Yeah, yeah.

On one hand, it's way too early for this, amirite?

(Updated regularly, most recently, March 4. Updates include changes in "like factor" and more.)

I am right, per John Dickerson:

Presidential hopefuls used to declare their candidacy in a single speech; now the process is drawn out with peekaboo hints, social-media announcements that lead to explorations, and talk-show teases. It’s like an Advent calendar, but no one gets a square of chocolate.

On the other hand, when a bland neoliberal Hispanic former mayor and former Obama cabinet backbencher named Julian Castro actually thinks he has a shot, no, not too early.

So, three things.

First, I'll give you oddsmaking.

Second, I'll give you his or her likely target audience.

Third, as a Green-leaner, I'll give a letter grade based on my take on the acceptability of their political stances and related issues.

Note: Odds may go over 100 percent total because they would change in reality with candidates dropping out, etc.

Note 2: I have written in-depth takes on selected candidates and will do more in the future. Where available, they're linked.

Note 3: A candidate's name in red means they've officially entered the race. A strike-through means they're officially out.

Note 4: I will also do one or more pieces rating candidates' websites. The first, rating women in the race by how pandering to women's gender stereotypes the websites are, is here.

And, since he liked mine, Gaius at Down with Tyranny also has a ratings/oddsmaking.

(June 29, 2019: Here's my take on winners and losers from the first pair of Democratic debates.)

So, let's start, with ...

Julian Castro! [Officially declared candidates, and those with official exploratory committees are in red.] Odds: 0.1 percent. Target: People with the last name of Castro. Like factor: D. (Laughingly, Nate Silver calls Castro "a major candidate."

(Note: On people with perceived higher odds, I'll give more of a breakout. At least as much as for Julian in the paragraph above.) And so, in no particular further order ...

Joe Biden: Odds 10 percent. (Don't overestimate those early Iowa polls.) Biden has the pluses of being a better establishmentarian candidate than Hillary Clinton and ties to the Obama coattails, and may be seen as more progressive than is actually true. With both her and Bloomberg out, too, he's the only "establishmentarian" heavy hitter left. Minuses are being almost as old as Bernie Sanders, being gaffe-prone, being Sen-MBNA on bankruptcy tightening 15 years ago, and lots of #MeToo baggage beginning with but not limited to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Target: DNC establishment and DNC superdelegates if a brokered convention happens. Like factor: D-minus.

Side observation, now that JoePa is in. Who's hurt? Probably Booker and Harris, to the degree they're seen as more "establishmentarian" than Sanders and Warren. Also, the more conservative young guns trio of Robert Francis Beto! O'Rourke, Mayor Pete and Mayor Julian.

Howard Schultz is also hurt, at least as a Dem candidate. He'll have to go the indy route now if he wants in.

Kamala Harris: Odds 12 percent. Has the pluses of being a minority and a woman both, especially in the MeToo era. Has baggage of outright ConservaDem past on criminal justice issues as Cal AG and playing footsie with Mnuchin outlet on banksters and Great Recession. Has advantage of limited Senate legislation paper trail. Go here for a good roundup of everything about Kamala the Cop; take some of the non-Cop bullet points with a grain of salt. Target: Slightly more liberal Cory Booker voters. Or is it the other way around? Like factor: C-minus and falling, in part due to Donut Twitter rallying to her. Her hypocrisy on smoking pot while later busting kids for it, as well as the lie about smoking pot to Tupac 7 years before his first album came out open her to further hypocrisy charges as well as pandering ones.)

Cory Booker: Odds 7 percent. Has pluses of being a minority. Has baggage of footsie with Big Pharma, of many "poseur" stances (he's a weathervane in a field filled with them), and lack of a Senate legislation paper trail for his length of time in office. Target: Slightly more conservative Kamala Harris voters. Or is it the other way around? Is working on "what to run for" issue by getting New Jersey Legislature to consider an "LBJ bill" so he can also file for Senate re-election. Like factor: D-minus, but perhaps moved up to a straight D.

Robert Francis O'Rourke: Odds: 10 percent. (And dropping as of Feb. 15. While he has some national name recognition, he's not Bernie Sanders, so he can't play Hamlet much longer.) Pluses include recent Senate campaign, Beltway stenos and even more, Beltway neoliberal think tanks rallying to him and vague "winnability" issue. Minusus include issue-free Senate campaign being exposed along with ConservaDem House record. Target: White Obamiacs from 2008 and 2012. Like factor: D-minus. (Per Stephen Young, expect an announcement by the end of January. And, Stephen was wrong, in part because Beto actually was tracing ancestral roots and never went to Iowa. Stay tuned.)

There's a lot of people who are already drinking his Kool-Aid, which started two months ago. Many doing so without even knowing he's a ConservaDem. The Twitter memes about "tough choice between Beto and Bernie" are ridiculously clueless.

I partially blame political ladder-climber Sema Hernandez for endorsing him last August even though he never did unequivocally endorse single-payer and even though there were plenty of other reasons to still see him as a ConservaDem.

Kirsten Gillibrand: Odds: 12 percent. Pluses include MeToo actions to the degree they were genuine and some actual legislation history. Plus/minus is "bipartisanship." Minuses include seemingly unsavory nature of pushing Al Franken out the door and ConservaDem past, especially on guns. Target: Conservative wing of 2016 Sanders voters plus women in general. Like factor: D.

Bernie Sanders: Odds: 16 percent. Pluses include previous campaign history, plus him moving slightly leftward again on foreign policy. (Wake me up a year from now re Israel and BDS issues, as well as the Venezuela coup.) Minuses include the downside of previous campaign history, plus no "Hillary voted for Iraq and spoke to Goldman Sachs" easy campaign targets. Minuses from a Green POV include that he's still way too much of a military Keynesian. Additional baggage of age. See my posts about him and F-35s. Additional baggage for some Dems of being a white male. Like factor: B-minus. (I'm not grading on a curve, but you can compare his grade with other Dems.) That said, he IS a Dem. See this new piece. Or click the Bernie tag below.

Sherrod Brown: Odds: 9 percent. Pluses include being from the Midwest, perception as a kinder, gentler Bernie Sanders and related matters. Minuses include no hot single issues from his Senate time, long enough for him to have developed one, and being more Fauxgressive than Progressive. Like factor: C-minus.

Michael Bloomberg: Odds: 1 percent. (This odds is as a Democrat only; I in no way rule out him making an independent run in the general election — even if he's chided Howard Schultz for thinking of that.) Political, if not real, pluses include perceived liberalism, especially on climate and environment through things such as the soda tax, claims to appeal to centrist independents in general election. Minuses include bankster background and everything related. Target: Democratic establishment, slightly more conservative Howard Schultz voters. Like factor? Hell,. F.

Howard Schultz: (In as independent, theoretically. Schwaffling after his annoucement.) Odds 1 percent. Pluses include perceived liberalism, history of Starbucks, connections with Starbucks patrons. Minuses include downside of Starbucks history, especially with black patrons. Target: Dem establishment, slightly more liberal Michael Bloomberg voters. Like factor: D and dropping like a fricking rock. (I had colored him red, but given the amount of nuancing he was doing 48 hours after his 60 Minutes, he's back in black.)

Elizabeth Warren: Odds 8 percent. Pluses? A woman in the MeToo era, perceived as liberal to left-liberal economically. Minuses include her Cherokee Nation baggage, that she's not as liberal on as many things as believed and that she's anti-BDS. Also, per her "I'm having a beer" NYE Instagram video, a too-transparent sense of earnestness, possibly coupled with a too-transparent sense of pandering to Millennials with that as an Instagram rather than Facebook video. Additional minus is that she reportedly has hired comms staff from Hillary 2016. Politically unastute plus they were hacks. Like factor? C-minus (and dropping with the Hillary news). Thanks to Daily Wire or whoever gave that graphic to somebody connected to Trump, who then Tweeted it.

Steve Bullock: Odds: 3 percent. Pluses include being a governor, and thus an executive and also thus, no Senate paper trail. Minuses start with being a moderate white male. Target: New Dems in general, and specifically, ones who want to target the heartland, and slightly more conservative John Hickenlooper candidates. Does have a potent issue on campaign finance, but in a year of "no PACs" candidates, could be drowned out. Like factor: C. Now in, and the late start means his odds are probably less than 3 percent.

John Hickenlooper: Odds: 4 percent. Pluses include being a governor of a larger, more purplish state than Montana, and thus an executive and also thus, no Senate paper trail. Minuses are more prominent than Bullock's and include his in-the-tank support for fracking, plus his 2008 DNC actions while Denver mayor for those with longer memories. Target: New Dems in general, and specifically, ones who want to target the heartland, and slightly more liberal Steve Bullock voters. Like factor: D-minus.

John Delaney: Odds: Less than Julian Castro. Pluses besides being first to file? None. Minusus? Bland older white guy from exurban Congressional district. Plus/minus: Looks like a bald, blander Will Ferrell. Target: Cabinet position in next Dem presidency and staying in longer than Julian Castro. Like factor: Not even registered. But, the fact that he's worth at least $92M is registered.

Jay Inslee: Odds: 9 percent. Pluses include being a governor and one with more liberal stances on climate issues than Bullock or Hickenlooper. Plugged in more than either of them as well. Minuses include relatively unknown level to many Democrats, being from a fairly "safe" state and not a huge record. Like factor: C.

Tim Ryan: Odds: 3 percent Less than Pete Buttigieg. Pluses include perception of willingness to take on House Dem establishment. Minuses will include his Blue Dog-ish record and trying to run from the House, as well as "Mayor Pete" beating him to the punch. Not to mention he's a New Ager lite. Like factor: D.

Tulsi Gabbard: Odds: 4 percent. Political pluses (note that caveat) include Sanders connections, especially if he does not run, a Kool-Aid stronger than Beto's, perhaps, and definite support from people like H.A. Goodman who haven't done the full Bernie-to-Trump but are definitely the conservative faction of BernieBros. General pluses are willingness to take on Dem establishment. Minuses are basically everything I've said above under political pluses plus the fact she still, Kool-Aid drinkers aside, appears to back Islamophobia, and that she's as much a political re-inventor as Trump. That's all true, and I've blogged about her Hindu nationalist fascist bromance three full years ago, and now, like Beto, about her Kool-Aid drinkers plus Kool-Aid brewer Michael Tracey. Targets: The conservative portion of the Sanders movement. Like factor: D-plus.

Jeff Merkley: Odds: 3 percent. Pluses include being a general progressive for a Democrat and good on climate change in particular. Minuses include being no more than a typical progressive Dem on foreign policy. Target: Sanders voters. Like factor: C-plus.

Hillary Clinton: Odds: 2 percent. (Yes, that high.) Pluses include support of think tanks, Donut Twitter, diehard PUMAs, etc. Minuses include being Hillary Clinton and her past campaign baggage, both 2008 primaries and 2016 general. Additional baggage of age. Target: 2016 Hillary Clinton voters plus a few more voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Like factor: F-minus.

Amy Klobuchar: Odds: 1 percent. Pluses? Lemme think. Minuses would be being behind two or three other women senators and being older than two of them, as well as being seen as less progressive than all three. Target: Hillary Clinton backers who wouldn't vote for one of those other women, along with masochistic lower-level white collar employees who love sadistic bosses. Like factor: D.

Terry McAuliffe: Odds: More than Julian Castro and John Delaney, less than anybody else. Pluses: Was a governor. Minuses: Way too much personal political baggage plus way too much Clintonista baggage. Target audience: Clintonistas.

Marianne Williamson: Odds: Not a ghost of a chance or even a New Agey ghost of a chance. (I'd forgotten that there had been noises about her until she was mentioned on someone else's blog. But she even has an exploratory committee and website.) Pluses: Not a politician. She has, though, made extensive donations, mainly to progressive Dems but also to ConservaDems like Jon Ossoff and Doug Jones. "Peace" imagery. Minuses: All her baggage as a New Age nutter. Target audience: People who think "A Course in Miracles" is real. Like factor: Probably on the non-New Agey angle, a B-minus; including it, a D-minus. Her campaign contributions do NOT include the Green Party, but do include the Natural Law Party. Nuff ced.

Yes, this is longer than for most candidates, but because, like Gabbard, she flies under the radar, and some of her positions are good. My full take is now up.

VANITY CANDIDATES I DIDN'T ORIGINALLY LIST

(That's not to say there aren't vanity candidates on the list already.)

Mayor Ballgag or Pete the Budgie, I mean South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg aka The Maltese Cross to Bear: Odds: The same exact percentage of Julian Castro's odds as South Bend's population is of San Antonio's. Target audience: The future Dem president who gives him a Cabinet seat/Indiana Dem Senate voters. Like factor: D-minus; worked for management vulture McKinsey for three years, for doorknob's sake. Has zero real accomplishments at South Bend and embroiled city in racial issues. No, seriously. Wikipedia. Here's more reasons, with a blog post written just to "out" Beto-Lite, why you shouldn't vote for him.

Eric Swalwell: Yes, a favorite of the collusion-heavy wing of Donut Twitter is hoping he runs. And he reportedly is giving it a thought or four. He's now in, and running on gunz control, realizing post-Mueller Report that collusion goes nowhere. He's Donut Twitter and a bigger vanity candidate than Pete Ballgag with even less to be vain about.

==

Further vanity candidates entering after May 15, and not among early speculation, are listed below, simply by name, with no assessment, because they ain't got shit on chances:
Bill de Blasio
???

Among actual or potential candidates with more of a chance, how do they affect each other? Brown is possibly the main beneficiary of Sanders not running, if Brown does. Gabbard is second (for now) and Warren a distant third. Bullock and Hickenlooper obviously affect each other; both affect and are affected by Inslee to a lesser extent. Booker and Harris, with both being minority candidates, and in somewhat similar political silos, affect each other. Gillibrand interplays with Warren and Harris, and Klobuchar if she runs, and possibly also with Sanders.

Booker and Harris are both in, of course. Speculation in my corner of Twitter thinks Booker drops back out first.

If O'Rourke runs, he probably benefits most from Booker, the only other younger charismatic male in the race, dropping out. Not sure who benefits most if Robert Francis runs then drops out.

The winnowing of these candidates will start with the first official debate in June, which will have a 20-candidate cutoff, should we get that many by then.

==

As of right now, I don't expect Sen. Amy Klobuchar to run. I don't expect any Democratic governors or ex-governors besides those mentioned above, from a thin Dem ranks in statehouses, to enter the race. I think Tom Steyer is less likely than Schultz or Bloomberg. (Update: Steyer has officially said he'd prefer to blow billions, if necessary, on trying to impeach Trump instead of potentially blowing billions on a prez campaign. And Klobuchar, for whatever reason, has decided to jump in, despite a thin and "bipartisan" Senate record and a kind of despicable personal one.)

I think other businesscritters are less likely yet.

And, that includes Mark Zuckerberg, who has too much Facebook mess to clean up in the next 12 months to have a chance. (Notice how buzz about his possible candidacy has died off in recent months?)

==

It's also "amazing" (not really) how narrowly the New York Times defined "diversity" in talking about possible candidates trying to get an early start. Sanders is a secularist of some sort, but there's no real atheists. Harris, despite her part-Indian ancestry, is Christian. Tulsi Gabbard is Hindu, of course. As noted above, none are "diverse" in terms of thinking outside the bipartisan foreign policy establishment. None, despite Bernie's mild democratic socialism and falsely calling himself a socialist in 2016, is there any "diversity" outside of broad tenets of modern neoliberal-influenced capitalism.

There's certainly no huge diversity in governance issues. None of the Democratic candidates has talked about amending the Constitution to abolish the electoral college, despite two presidential split decisions this century. Certainly, none has promoted ideas such as any form of instant-runoff voting or proportional representation among their state's U.S. House or state legislature delegations.

Gallup has polled recent Democratic attitudes. Support for some sort of action on climate change is growing within all divisions. More and more whites identify as liberal than moderate and conservative combined. "Liberal" is also growing among blacks and Hispanics but at slower rates.

==

Finally, with Dem changes on superdelegates, is there some chance of a brokered convention? Yes, but not much Put it at 5 percent; note how wide open the GOP race was in 2016 but how much it converged well before the last round of primaries.

==

No, more finally. What about the Republicans?

Well, Bill Weld has now formed an exploratory committee. If he jumps full in, and if that temps John Kasich to jump full in, then you'll get something.

Update, April 15: He's officially entered.

All candidates for all parties, or independent filings, can be found at the FEC website. (It just takes a one-page form, that's it, so it attracts vanity candidates like bullshit draws flies.)

Alternative voting systems and cultism

The title is deliberately chosen, and deliberately chosen because it's provocative.

If you don't like it, especially because you're one of those devotees of approval voting whom I, in my second blog post, and first with some depth, about alternative voting around a decade ago, thought were semi-cultic in their attachment, then that's your problem. (I also indicated that worry to some degree in my third post about it.) And your fault. Comments on and about my recent post about ranked choice, the Green Party, and Maine 2018 have only increased that stance.

Also, yes, IRV had a "Condorcet stumble" in Maine; other systems will too, if they're used as often or more. Period.

Per the above, I'm not a pilgrim to the discussion of alternatives to first past the post plurality voting in single-member electoral districts. I'm also not, despite what some may think, a cultist for instant-runoff voting. Or necessarily attached to IRV. See point three immediately below for that.

I am attached to an honest consideration of the benefits and faults of ALL alternatives to FPTP, and "consideration" means more than lip service.

First, per Wikipedia, in its article on ranked voting systems, cardinal voting systems, and tactical voting, a few stipulations.
1. All FPTP alternatives are subject to tactical voting.
2. No alternative to FPTP (other than some unwieldy ones, not suitable for elections otherwise, that Wiki did not list in its statement about this) can guarantee a majoritarian winner. (Just recently, Eric Maskin and Amartya Sen at the NY Review of Books weigh in on this.)
3. "There is no consensus among academics or public servants as to the best electoral system." (From the ranked voting piece.)
4. On cardinal systems, they may not be subject to Arrow's theorem, but that's not necessarily a good point.

Point 1 is the second-biggest issue. On tactical voting concerns, Wiki notes they can vary, in severity and specific effects, from system to system. They can also vary by how much voters know alternatives, and how much information they have about other voters.

In local and regional elections, especially in non-presidential years, major parties could work on informing better-knowledged voters how to vote most strategically. Per Wiki's link, range voting, which some approval voting touters like even more but think it would be too complicated, is according to some research, the system most vulnerable to tactical voting, for example.

Since we're not likely to often hit areas of Point One concern, and also, for this blog post, Point 3, with Points 1 and 4 in support, is the biggie. See below for more.

A few other deck-clearing points.

1. If you're going to point out that, yes, there are systems that will guarantee majoritarian winners, before noting that, yes, they're otherwise unusable, and not note that Wiki was specifically talking about the commonly discussed ones — and apparently didn't check that — you're straining at a bit of gnats.

2. If you're going to offer up a utilitarian defense of approval voting, or even of range voting, note that what utilitarian benefits are best, or most desirable, are in the eye of the beholder. This beholder's eye has already said he doesn't like approval voting precisely because it tends to elect more moderate candidates. In my recent post about IRV, Maine 2018 and the Green Party, I noted that I liked ConservaGreens (or AccommoGreens, if you want another mash-up word) no more than ConservaDems.

Neither Clay on that post, nor Aaron in a Facebook group about such issues, refuted that fact of approval voting.

Beyond that, no alternative to FPTP seems to have an advantage over others on third-party visibility. ANY alternative will increase the possibility of third-party wins, and thus increase third party enthusiasm as well as viability, thus addressing the visibility issue.

3. Bayesian probabilities, and related Bayesian ideas, are a real deal. But, as I've noted repeatedly with Bayesian probabilities as used by leading Jesus mythicist Mark Carrier, most notably at this blog post, followed by this one where Carrier admits to Bayesian book-cooking, and as noted in comments on my previous blog post about IRV about Bayesian regret, Bayesianism in general can be used pretty subjectively. That's not necessarily the case, using "necessarily" both empirically and logically, but it is indeed the case at times.

Indeed:

"When I hear the word 'Bayesian,' I loosen the safety catch on my Browning." — Hanns Johst, falsely attributed to Hermann Göring.

So, yeah, if you're going to make Bayesian regret a prime argument for approval voting, and try to claim its either logically or empirically rigorous, I'm going to pretty much kick you in the nads. Again, deal with it.

My final worry is that cultists or semi-cultists, for 2020 or possibly already for 2018, will work to get the national Green Party to take an official stance supporting approval voting out of the various FPTP systems. That's despite what I said, quoting Wiki, re Point 3 near the top. IF something like that happened, it would probably be yet more reason for me to, in line with the thought of a Mark Lause, look for alternative parties of the left.

Indeed, I suspect people like this are behind the idea that the GP needed to stand against IRV that sprang up immediately after election day this year.

Ranked Choice Voting — should Greens embrace it or be concerned?

Ranked Choice Voting, also known by many as Instant Runoff Voting (please don't claim there's technical differences; I know that IRV is one of several ranked voting systems) will be how Maine conducts its state elections in 2018.  (Unfortunately, though I know of no U.S. Constitution bar to the idea, per that second link, it does NOT cover the presidential election. And, that's not because this is a trial for 2018 only; the ballot measure stipulates elections after Jan. 1, 2018, and not JUST in 2018.)

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and the party both touted Maine voters approving this on Nov. 8. But, some Greens think it will actually hurt them. The fear is that this will co-opt Green voters into becoming accommodationist to Democrats. Given that the issue of how much Stein and others in one wing of Green leadership, like David Cobb, already may be doing this, this is a legitimate concern — if it's legitimately grounded. 

But, is it? 

I do appreciate the concern, but think it's overblown. 

First, a foot in the door is a foot in the door. Unless it's an openly accommodationist foot, it's a foot that shouldn't be looked in the mouth, to mix metaphors. 

And, I don't think it's an openly accommodationist foot, and I certainly don't think that's its primary intent. 

Second, it IS a foot in the door. Some people, especially in narrow races, who see “lesser evilism” and “greater evilism” in the two major parties, as in this presidential election, may be afraid of rewarding “greater evilism” in our current voting system. I voted Green; I didn't vote for Donald Trump by doing so. Nonetheless, I understand the concern, even the fear, and think it's a greater concern than some Greens have about RCV being accommodationist. 

Third, if that IS a concern, the accommodationist issue, there's a way to avoid that. 

RCV, of course, has voters rank candidates.  

A typical election with the four largest parties having candidates on the ballot might see a Green, or Green leaner, do:  

1 = Green 

2 = Democrat 

3 = Republican 

4 = Libertarian. 

Well, who says you have to do that?  

You can not only not give a 3 to the Republican or a 4 to the Libertarian, you can also choose not to give a 2 to the Democrat, at least hypothetically. (Note: I do not know if Maine's law requires a voter to rank every candidate. However, per the Ballotpedia link, the second from top above, this does not appear to be the case. Feedback is appreciated.) 

In that case, as soon as the Green candidate misses the cut, so does your vote. 

And?  

That's no different than the current system. 

So, RCV may not be perfect. And, it may not even be the best ranked voting system, though it's very arguably the easiest to understand.

And, it's better than the current, IMO. 

That said, I do agree with the Green Party Power statement that RCV, or any ranked voting or plural voting system, is not in and of itself a cure-all, or close to it. (And, in case it's not clear, that this needs to be across the country, not just Maine.)

And, having been in extended discussion in a Facebook group about Greens and RCV in Oregon (group is "open" so not violating confidences), while I'm not wedded to any one alternative system of voting, I am most certainly wedded to opposition of people who seem to think that their particular ranked choice system is the best even when they claim it's not. And, to the degree that approval voting does tend to elect more moderate candidates, I am wedded in opposition to it. Approval Voting on Wiki.

I need ConservaGreens no more than I need ConservaDems. 

That said, I did freely admit that it would surely be easier to recalibrate voting machines for approval voting than RCV. But, the idea that RCV is a possible dead end, possibly harmful to the whole idea of alternative voting or that only RCV is vulnerable to what happened in Burlington, Vermont (Bernie-ville!), rather than noting that NO alternative voting system to our current voting plurality system can guarantee a majority winner? I am wedded in opposition to that, too.  I stand by my observation, otherwise, in discussion here.

Update, Dec. 25. Range Voting, with its problems as well as goods, at Wiki.

Ranked choice voting and the 2016 presidential election (updated)

Various types of alternative voting, other than "first past the post" or "first past the post plus a runoff if no majority" (ignoring the Electoral College in presidential elections) get regularly touted by third-party backers, sometimes to the point of heated argument about which is best. (Common Cause compares a few.

Ranked choice, also known as instant runoff voting, is already used in a few places in the U.S. Approval voting, the normal second-most-common touted option, isn't used anywhere.

That said, in the world of the actual, these event aren't the only ways of voting.

For Congressional, state legislative and local races, FairVote looks at three multi-seat options.

+++

But, back to this year's presidential race.

Let's say we had no Electoral College, that we insisted the winner have a majority, not just plurality, of popular vote, and that we didn't want a messy, time-consuming physical runoff.

I think ranked choice/IRV (some particular Jesuitical types may still claim they're different things) is the best option.

With a mix of actual and idealized options, voting here in Tejas, here you go on my rankings.
1. The Science and Reason Party. This is an idealized desire.

2. Green Party, candidate and party faults and all. (For now)

3. Some Socialist Party. Problems: there's none on the ballot in Texas, and those that exist elsewhere are highly factionalized against each other. That said, I'd gladly not vote in the 2018 Texas Dem primary, should I still be in this state, to sign a Socialist ballot access petition.

Update: The Socialist Party USA candidate is trying to get write-in standing in Texas. If he and his Veep do, you'll get a blog post with analysis of their individual and party positions. If they pass the smell test ...

Update 2: Nope, nope nope. S-USA's party platform looks like Occupy Wall Street on Quaaludes, or flower children embedded in amber. Among the nuttier "wants"? Unilateral disarmament, and NOT just nukes — all weapons. Public referendums on every declaration of war. Soldiers' unions.

SIX weeks paid vacation, which goes beyond even the nice five weeks of Western Europe. Social Security at 55 with $25K/year minimum.

Others I disagree with? Repeal the Hatch Act? Wrong; I do NOT want federal employees having partisan involvement. Yes, this hurts the "little guy" federal employee, but, unless one would say "Hatch Act doesn't apply below GS-7," a unilateral repeal is stupid.

Given that other socialist parties are even more minimalist than S-USA, which has only four statewide affiliates in the nation, and most assuredly does not have more local elected officials than Greens, since the party's website doesn't even list local officials it's gotten elected, that's minuscule indeed. That means smaller Socialist parties aren't at all in play.

Oh, and, as busted on Reddit, it's anti-GMO, as much as Greens, and has a presidential candidate who may be almost as pandering as Stein on the issue. That's in the platform. Also in the platform is opposition to radiation of food.

4. Justice Party. Problems? Besides not being on the Texas ballot, I don't think it's as far left as Greens, and it was created in party from Naderite spite at the Greens.
5. Not voting. I've long said this is an honorable choice if done with due consideration.
6. Libertarian or Democrat. Yes, this is a coin toss. Gary Johnson's not as nutbar as some LP candidates, but the party is still "way out there" on many economic, and even more so, on many economic justice issues. BUT .... Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.

Merika: Cradle of (cluelessness about) democracy, including by #Sandernistas

After Bernie Sanders pretty much got his clock cleaned in the latest round of Democratic primaries, we now have some Sandernistas crying out:
A. For him to run as an independent, and
B. That closed primaries are undemocratic.

I've already addressed A more than once, kiddos. He's way too "good" of a Democrat to do that, as noted here. The fact that he can't mention the Hillary Clinton-supported coup in Honduras, not even once? I wouldn't want him to run independent anyway. He'd detract from a true left-liberal voting opportunity. Per friend Brains, that comes with Plan B, voting for Jill Stein or whomever the Green Party nominates.

And, beyond that, as that should indicate, I vote for ideals first, individuals second. That's why the #ImWithHer on Twitter, with all the tribalism it portents, makes me want to throw up. (And, no, neither explicitly nor implictly, did Obama make the same type of appeals in 2008, for all of his own other neoliberal issues.)

Now, to point B, which I want to tackle in more detail.

Disenfranchising voters through overly rigid ID requirements? That's antidemocratic. Slashing day-of-voting poll locations by 2/3, even if your state budget is struggling? That's antidemocratic.

Closed primaries? Nothing of the sort.

Regular readers of this blog know that I support moving the U.S. more in the direction of parliamentary government. Well, in a parliamentary system, the whole schmeer is pretty much like a caucus here in the U.S. for states that use a caucus system.

And, you know what? Caucuses are closed. And, party establishments are key there.

(But, you have more than two viable parties to back. Usually more than three, even.)

Now, the real thing that's antidemocratic?

Is the presidential-focused two-party system, combined with non-majoritarian, first-past-the-post voting for House and Senate members.

Municipalities, in local elections, and school boards, likewise, require absolute majorities, not just pluralities, for elections. So why not the U.S. Congress and state legislatures? Especially when wedded to something like Instant Runoff Voting, this would actually start making America more democratic.

This is not meant to sound (too much) like a lecture, especially younger participants in the "system." It IS meant to be a wakeup call.

So, "Sandernistas"? There are many more, and more serious things, that America is undemocratic about than are in your philosophy.

Hat tip, Shakespeare.

As for Sanders himself? I'm glad that he's shaken up the Democratic establishment, but the fact that a relatively mild non-socialist is doing that speaks volumes about the party.

A few thoughts on the UK election blowout

With the Tories, per exit polls which appear to be accurate, gaining seats and apparently an outright majority, Labour becoming non-existent in Scotland, Liberal Democrats almost nonexistent everywhere, and the UK Independence Party underperforming, here's a few hot take initial thoughts by me.

Which now include, per results in one seat, my riff on an old British riddler poem, at left.

1. Even if it turns out that Nick Clegg has won re-election for his seat, he has to resign as LDP leader immediately, doesn't he? Even more so if David Cameron has gained enough seats to coalition with Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionists. And, he has, both held on to his seat and resigned his leadership.

2. And, what about Ed Miliband? If Labour turns out to finish as badly as projected, doesn't he have to resign as party leader? Losing every seat in Scotland, losing seats overall, and, if the prime ministership were a direct vote, being var less popular than Cameron, to me makes me think he has to go. Here's three people who have gotten talk as possible replacements before. And, some Labour muckety-mucks are already whispering. Ed has gone, too.

More seriously, does the party shift back to a New Labour focus of Milliband is turfed, or does it chalk up the loss to Milliband personally more than his ideas?

3. Cameron's 2017 EU referendum will go forward. Exactly what it will be about will probably not be discussed in detail for 3-6 months, but will get a crafting after that. The UKIP will get a respectful listening, then ignored.

4. Was the SNP's results a one-off, a result of the failed independence vote, or is this more permanent?

5. Even with the LDP's decline, and with the Tories largely quashing the UKIP, is Britain, even without Clegg getting instant runoff voting in 2011, headed toward a continental-style true multiparty system?

I think not. Eventually the SNP will fall back somewhat at it realizes that any way it comes to power is only in conjunction with Labour. The LDPs have seemingly crested and will look for new direction with Clegg out. UKIP will remain quashed.

And, if the SNP thinks another independence referendum is "inevitable," I'd invite it to think again. A Conservative government will never allow it. A would-be Labour government would never allow it as the price of coalition, certainly not for at least a generation.

6. That said, the Tories — and their American cousins — will use this as a rallying point for budget austerity.

Additional reasons to support the popular election of US presidents

Nearly 14 years ago, bush v. Gore reminded us that the popular vote in presidential elections doesn't always square up with electoral votes. Even without the loser in the popular vote winning the electoral vote, in a very tight election with third-party candidates, the winner may have only a plurality, not a majority.

But that's not the only reason to support direct popular vote of presidential elections.

Here are some related reasons.

First, we technically have no official national vote for president. That's because of the electoral college system, compounded with the fact that each state's voters, in what is now essentially a formality, vote separately. The electoral college is the only official vote there is. Usually, as it has been for years of presidential elections, the Associated Press's tally of state-by-state popular voting is summed up and made into a quasi-official figure. But that's not the same.

But that's just a minor point, albeit the introduction to the main one.

If we have direct popular voting for the presidency, that would be a national vote, across state lines. And, it would therefore require federal government oversight of presidential elections. I don't know if, in addition to fear of "the masses," this was another reason the Founding Fathers rejected direct election. I've never seen it mentioned in serious constitutional histories. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Obviously, even more than the tatters of the Voting Rights Act that still remain, this would arguably allow for direct federal polling observation, etc., in places of concern. As far as disenfranchising voter ID bills, it would arguably prevent states from applying such a standard to presidential elections unless red-staters could force through a federal voter ID bill of similar stringency, or unless they decided they wanted to go to all of the expense of officially conducting all other elections separately from a presidential vote.

Obviously, this would mean that we would need a Federal Election Commission with actual legal teeth.

And, in the case of those pluralities, if we rightly insisted on an absolute majority to win? The FEC, rather than going through an expensive runoff process, could institute instant runoff voting or something.

Mickey Edwards, meet Teapot Tommy Friedman

On the Atlantic website, the former Oklahoma GOP congressman posts a meaningless paean to centrism in politics that needs a thorough deconstruction.

Much of it is focused on the evils of the modern political primary system causing candidates who are more partisan.

As opposed to this list of pre-primary era presidents:
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Zachary Taylor
3. Franklin Pierce
4. James Buchanan
5. Ulysses S. Grant
6. Benjamin Harrison
7. Warren G. Harding.

Of course, all of the "war hero" candidates above might have been nominated in a primary system anyway. But, it points out that, at least in presidential candidates, the "golden days" weren't.

Beyond that, in a four webpage essay, you'll not find ONE WORD about third parties. Because of that, you'll not find one word about instant runoff voting or similar ways to bolster third-party power. You also won't find one word about money in politics, public financing of congressional issues, or other actual changes we need.

And, when a former capitalsit insider like Jeffrey Sachs starts talking about the need for a third party, the Mickey Edwards of the world should listen. Here's Sachs:

Who runs America today? The rich and the multinational corporations. Who runs the White House? David Plouffe, whose job it is to make sure that ever word, every action of the president is calculated for electoral gain rather than the country's needs. Who runs the Congress, on both sides of the aisle? The lobbyists, who win in every negotiation. And who loses? The American people, who have said repeatedly that they want a budget that sharply cuts the military, ends the wars, raises taxes on the rich, protects the poor and the middle class, and invests in America's future not just in Obama's speeches but in fact.

America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites. Until that happens, the political class and the media conglomerates will continue to spew lies, American militarism will continue to destabilize a growing swath of the world, and the country will continue its economic decline.

A secular amen in spades.