From the Austin American-Statesman: Why only 1 Texas congressional race is competitive

Texas does gerrymandering right.

And despite all the talk of throwing the bums out - we keep them in. All the other guys are bum,s apparently, our's is perfectly fine.

- Click here for the article.

Texas has 36 congressional districts, second only to California, but only one seat appears to be competitive heading into early voting next week — District 23, a vast West Texas seat that has switched between Republican and Democratic hands in each of the last three elections.

Elsewhere, 23 Republicans and 10 Democrats are likely to win re-election, by dint of gerrymandering and the power of incumbency. Only two Texas districts are open seats — District 15, a predominantly Hispanic and Democratic-leaning district in South Texas, and District 19, a largely rural and heavily Republican district in parts of West Texas and the Panhandle where no Democrat is on the ballot.

In Central Texas, all six members of Congress who represent a slice of Austin are sitting on large war chests but running light campaigns. Each Austin incumbent had more than $200,000 on hand as of Sept. 30, with Democrat Lloyd Doggett topping the list with more than $3 million on hand. No challenger in those races has more than $30,000, and many have no money on hand.

“We know for a fact incumbency is powerful,” said Chad Long, an associate professor of political science at St. Edward’s University. “It’s the single most powerful predictor of congressional elections, even more than the money. If you have an incumbent in the election, you pretty much know who’s going to win.”

- Click here for the 2016 Texas Primary results.
- Click here for the general election races.

From Vice: How Republicans Could Prevent the Rise of Future Trumps

Trump's rise was made possible by internal rules the Republican Party established to select a nominee. Normally these rules allow for an establishment candidate - normally the person considered next in line - to become the party's nominee. Democrats did that this year.

The author suggest those rules might be tweaked this year to prevent a similar candidate in the future.

- Click here for the article.

"People look at Trump and say, 'Oh, that's who you are! That's who the Republican Party is!'" Mickey Edwards, a former Oklahoma congressman who is a prominent NeverTrump Republican, lamented to me.

In Edwards's estimation, a few problems converged to create the Trump phenomenon: a crowded primary field in which "everybody in our party knew that Hillary [Clinton] was extremely beatable, and that's why they ran"; the involvement of too many independent voters, "some of whom have never voted"; and a primary season that gave too much credence to the views of the fringe in vital early-voting states. "You can't just dismiss the idea of momentum," he explained.

Trump took advantage of all this by winning the early states of New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada (he placed second to Ted Cruz in Iowa), taking the majority of delegates despite never getting a majority of votes in those states. And throughout primary season Trump won primaries open to voters who weren't registered Republicans, suggesting that he was less popular among people who were really committed to the GOP.

"We've created a very bad system that allows—I don't know whether you would say it's too democratic—but it basically dilutes the power of the people who really are the party," Edwards said. A functioning candidate-selection process, he feels, would be "a matter of making sure that you nominate someone qualified for the job, even if their policies are controversial." So in short, he wants a process that would keep another Trump from being the nominee.

"Another Trump" could be any charismatic populist Republican the party elites don't actually want in power, not necessarily someone with Donald Trump's particular, um,attributes or campaigning style. The term "Trump" as we're using it here could include another run from Trump himself, or a candidate like Sarah Palin, or David Duke, or Michelle Bachman, or the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket.

Earlier this year, Republican leaders unhappy with Trump were looking to change the primary rules to close them to independents in the future (on the theory that those people would be the most likely to back another Trump), but that effort still failed at the Republican National Convention. Edwards feels that significant changes were shot down in an attempt to suppress any sense that the party was questioning Trump.

Edwards blames party leadership for this, Reince Priebus in particular. "He and [Paul] Ryan, with the weight of their titles and positions, were strengthening the narrative that Trump was putting out there, that we would steal it from him."

The article goes on to caution about over correcting. The rules changes following Romney's defeat in 2012 created Trump's opportunity.

- Click here for more on that.  

From 538: How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump - Trump’s nomination shows the need for a more rigorous approach.

In 2305 today we looked at Nate Silver's bad call during the primary. Along with most other political observers, he discounted Trump's viability as a candidate for the Republican nomination. Here he tries to figure out what he got wrong and why. He calls himself a "data journalist" which suggests that his approach is rigorous and needs to be adjusted if proven faulty. Here's what he came up with.

- Click here for the article.

. . . I’m going to proceed in five sections:

1. Our early forecasts of Trump’s nomination chances weren’t based on a statistical model, which may have been most of the problem.

2. Trump’s nomination is just one event, and that makes it hard to judge the accuracy of a probabilistic forecast.

3. The historical evidence clearly suggested that Trump was an underdog, but the sample size probably wasn’t large enough to assign him quite so low a probability of winning.

4. Trump’s nomination is potentially a point in favor of “polls-only” as opposed to “fundamentals” models.

5. There’s a danger in hindsight bias, and in over correcting after an unexpected event such as Trump’s nomination.

1000 Word Critical Essay - Fall 2016 - GOVT 2305

I'm posting the assignment here for convenience. You can also find it on Blackboard.

Since this is a presidential election year, I’d like you to develop a topic related to it. The campaign for the general election is underway and it’s an interesting one. You will have little problem finding a worthwhile angle to pursue. Here are some possibilities:

- What impact is each candidate having on their respective parties? - What are the major issues each candidate is running on? Where do they agree and disagree? - What are the polls telling us about the competitiveness of each candidate? - What impact is each candidate having on other races on the ballot this November – think about the House of Representatives and the Senate. You might want to consider state races as well – state legislatures and governors. - How is each candidate conducting their campaigns? Think especially of Donald Trump’s unusual campaign so far.
- Where is the money coming from to fund these campaigns? What impact is that likely to have on how the winner of the race will behave once in office?

You can develop your own, but please stick to the 2016 race.

The basic requirements of the paper are:
- 1000 word minimum length - At least three references - Proper formatting – use what you are comfortable with, MLA is popular - General legibility

I've posted items related to the topic over the course of the year, and will continue to do so. You can access them by clicking on the following:

- 2016 campaign.
- 2016 election.
- 2016 primary election.

From Vox: Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigns as Democratic National Committee chair

For our look at the organization of political parties.

- Click here for the article.

On the eve of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz abruptly announced that she will resign her position after the convention as part of the fallout from emails leaked from the DNCon Friday night. Donna Brazile, the veteran Democratic operative and well-known television commentator, will serve as interim chair.

Wasserman Schultz says that she plans to "address our delegates about the stakes involved in this election not only for Democrats, but for all Americans," and then step aside. Just a few hours earlier the plan had been for Schultz, somewhat anomalously, to not speak at her own party’s convention. Now she is out from the DNC entirely, a key concession to Bernie Sanders and to his supporters and allies as Hillary Clinton tries to put a united Democratic Party behind her for the fall election.

Sanders called it the "right decision" in a statement.

As Vox’s Tim Lee noted, none of the emails contained a smoking gun demonstrating that the primary was rigged for Clinton — or even that DNC officials set in motion any of the plans to derail Sanders’s candidacy.

But the emails do strongly suggest that some DNC leaders personally regarded Sanders as an outside threat and that they wanted him to lose.

From Politico: 'Never (Again) Trump' sets sights on 2020 - Grass-roots conservatives and party leadership are finding a common cause: Limiting Republican primaries to registered Republican voters.

This seems to call for a change to Texas' open primary rules.

- Click here for the article.

Conservatives, still reeling over the looming nomination of Donald Trump, are pushing new Republican primary rules that might have prevented the mogul’s victory in the first place: shutting out independents and Democrats from helping to pick the GOP nominee.

Trump romped in “open primaries” where non-Republicans voted by the thousands and may have influenced the outcome — especially in early states that set the tone of the entire race. Trump’s most successful rival, Ted Cruz, thrived in states with closed primaries where only Republicans were permitted to participate.

Now, Cruz’s allies — hundreds of supportive convention delegates that he helped elect — hope to use the national convention in Cleveland to shove states toward closing their open primaries. And if they’re successful, it will not only go a long way toward warding off a Trump-like candidacy, it will tilt the primary toward conservative candidates in 2020 and beyond.

The advocates are finding a sympathetic ear at the very top of the party. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has long supported closed primaries, but has never had a constituency to back him on it. "I believe that only Republicans should vote in Republican primaries," he said Friday at a Politico Playbook breakfast event, though he added that he respects the right of states to set their own primary rules.

The Empire Strikes Back!

From The Week: Superdelegates, explained

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Democratic primary process was their use of party regulars in the presidential selection process.

- Click here for the article.

. . . superdelegates are not bound to follow the will of the voters, nor are they required to stay true to the candidate they've pledged to support. But they may well decide the Democratic race. It's certainly possible, and perhaps even likely, that neither Clinton nor Sanders will get to 2,383 without superdelegates.

So who are these superdelegates, and how does their power work? Here's what you need to know:

Who gets to be a superdelegate?
A superdelegate is typically an elite member of the Democratic Party falling into one of three categories:

1. A major elected official, including senators, members of the House, governors, and leaders from each state's Democratic Party. For example, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are superdelegates.

2. A notable party figure, such as former and current presidents and vice presidents. For example, former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden are superdelegates.

3. Select leaders of organizations affiliated with the Democratic National Committee. These select party elders get their superdelegate status automatically by virtue of the fact that they've been elected to public office. For example, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Louis Elrod of Young Democrats of America are superdelegates.

How many Democratic superdelegates are there?
712. They control about 15 percent of the nominating process. The remaining 85 percent is controlled by delegates apportioned by the results of primaries and caucuses.

How are superdelegates different from regular delegates?
Superdelegates are free to support whichever candidate they choose, even if that candidate is not the voters' pick. As for normal delegates: Each state has a different system for selecting who they'll send to the convention as a delegate. But unlike superdelegates, delegates are allotted to candidates in proportion to their share of the vote in the state's primary or caucus and are then pledged to vote for that candidate.

Why do we have superdelegates in the first place?
For most of the Democratic Party's history, party elders picked the nominee. It was only in recent decades that the Democratic Party began experimenting with the idea of opening up the nomination process to give voters more of a say in choosing the nominee.

From Politico: Walker: GOP delegates should ‘vote the way they see fit’

Strange things can happen at conventions - well usually they don't, but they can.

- Click here for the article

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Tuesday that delegates to next month's Republican National Convention in Cleveland should “vote the way they see fit,” which could mean not necessarily supporting presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Walker, a former Republican presidential candidate and delegate to the convention, said he would cast his ballot in the first round for Ted Cruz, as the Texas senator won the Wisconsin primary, according to a report from The Associated Press.

Referring to remarks from Paul Ryan on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which the speaker of the House remarked that he would not ask fellow party members to violate their conscience by supporting Trump, Walker said the Wisconsin Republican lawmaker's comments "are legitimate."

"I think historically, not just this year, delegates are and should be able to vote the way they see fit," Walker said, according to the AP. "We'll see how things go between now and the convention as to what the next steps are. I'm not going to speculate now only because you all know the situation may change by this afternoon, let alone between now and the convention."

Walker has said he would support Trump as the presumptive nominee, but has called for him to rescind and clarify his comments regarding the judge involved in the lawsuit over Trump University. Trump questioned Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s ability to preside over the case because of his Mexican heritage. Walker said he is still looking for clarity from Trump.

See also: Republican leaders consider rewriting convention rules.

How Clinton and Trump did it

For summer GOVT 2305 students. Some preliminary info that might help you with your essay. What are commentators telling us about how each won the nominations of their respective parties? Here are a few initial thoughts on the subject. I'll add more as I find them - but feel to look on your own.

- The Fiscal Times: The Strategy That Gave Hillary Clinton the Democratic Nomination.
- The Financial Times: How Trump Won the Nomination.
- Slate: The Process Worked - The Democratic primaries weren’t rigged. Despite their flaws, they produced a nominee with wide support across the party.
- The Atlantic: How the Party Decided on Trump.

It's Hillary

Little surprise. Click below for info:

NYT: 2016 Delegate Count and Primary Results.

From Slate: The Primaries Aren’t Democratic? They’re Not Supposed to Be Democratic. The parties are doing what parties are built to do: pick the candidates who best represent them.

A useful reminder of what parties are and what they do. Not that this matters.

- Click here for the article.

. . . Trump wants Republicans and independents, “not the party bosses,” to choose the nominee. Lewandowski complains that in some states, delegates are chosen based on “whether they run for statewide office and how much volunteering they have done,” while other applicants are slighted “because they haven't been involved the last 25 years. That’s everything that’s wrong with the party system.”

Everything that’s wrong with the party system? Dude, that is the party system. A party is an organization. It has every right to award clout based on how much work you’ve put in over the years. Why should drive-by independents get more say than party bosses? I should know: I was one of those independents. In 2000, the Maryland Republican Party allowed people like me to vote in its presidential primary. I voted for John McCain over George W. Bush. McCain was a better fit for people like me. But was he a better fit for the party? And isn’t that the point of a Republican primary—to choose a candidate who will represent the GOP?

From the NYT: 2016 Delegate Count and Primary Results

let's spend a little time in class catching up with this.

- Click here for it.

Random items on the - mostly Republican - delegate selection process

We will review some of these in class.

- Everything you need to know about delegate math in the presidential primary.
- 2016 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State.
- These 54 People Could Determine the Republican Nomination.
- Trump blasts 'rigged' rules on picking Republican delegates.
- A State-By-State Roadmap For The Rest Of The Republican Primary.

These focus mostly on the Republican battle in order to determine whether Trump can still win the nomination. I'll have more on the Democratic fight later.

From the Texas Tribune: PAC Mobilizes to Defend Vaccine Exemptions in Texas

For our look at interest groups in Texas and how they use primary elections to target opponents.

And an indication of what might be on the agenda of the next session oft he legislature.

- Click here for the article.

On a Friday night little over a year ago, a Texas mother of three was attending a school dance when she got a text message that stopped her cold.

A state lawmaker from Dallas had filed legislation taking aim at a provision in state law that allows parents to opt their children out of school immunization requirements.

“I looked at that text and I just kind of was like, ‘Oh no he didn’t,’” said Jackie Schlegel-Polvado, who lives near Bastrop. “This is Texas. We believe in parental rights in Texas. Like, that is just a fundamental belief that most Texans have that parents make decisions for their children, not the state.”

It was an issue that directly affected Schlegel-Polvado and her family. Since 2007, she has been one of a small but growing number of parents in Texas who obtain “conscientious exemptions” from state vaccine requirements.

What was several worried parents exchanging text messages over the next few days turned into a Facebook group that within two weeks had more than 1,300 members, and then, ultimately, a political action committee.

Texans For Vaccine Choice’s mission, according to Schlegel-Polvado, is to guard parents’ rights to opt out of vaccine requirements — whether that means targeting legislators who seek to close non-medical exemptions or pushing for policies that otherwise protect parents who choose not to vaccinate, like preventing physicians from excluding them from their practices.

In this year's primary elections, that meant going after state Rep. Jason Villalba, the Dallas Republican who filed the bill.

From CityLab: Big Problems With Arizona's Primary Were Avoidable, Yet Inevitable Arizona's chaotic primary election demonstrates what’s bound to happen in light of the now-gutted federal Voting Rights Act.

A weakened VRA seems to be having an impact on voters.

- Click here for the article.

Arizona’s primary election on Tuesday was disastrous, especially for manyblack, Latino, and Native American voters. In Phoenix, people waited hours in line—some past midnight— to vote because the state closed 140 polling places that were open for the 2012 elections. Why would local election supervisors commit to so many closures during one of the most electrifying presidential elections in decades?

Helen Purcell, Maricopa County’s director of the Office of Records, who made that decision, said she was trying to save money, and also that she didn’t expect that many voters would turn out. This miscalculation has triggered an investigation into her office by Arizona Secretary of the State Michele Reagan, who said the long waiting lines were “completely unacceptable.”

Former Maricopa County Attorney Barnett Lotstein, 74, called what happened straight-up “voter suppression” after he and his wife were denied opportunities to vote because they couldn’t stand for hours in line. Some voters had been waiting in line so long that they started ordering pizzas.

From the Texas Tribune: Congressmen Want Investigation of Houston Poll Miscues

For our look at how counties manage - or perhaps mismanage - elections. The article also touches on a controversial topic: Does Texas really want higher voter participation?

- Click here for the article.

Two Houston congressmen are asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether unequal distribution of voting machines and polling locations in Harris County disenfranchised minority voters during the March 1 primary election.In a letter dated March 15, U.S. Reps. Al Green and Gene Green, both Houston Democrats, blamed insufficient voting machines and polling locations for “excessively long lines” in predominantly Hispanic and black precincts in Harris County. Citing local news reports, the congressmen indicated that long lines “deterred” minority voters from “exercising their right to vote that day.”

“The failure to distribute sufficient voting machines in predominantly Hispanic and African-American precincts in Harris County, in comparison to the resources made available in more affluent, predominantly Anglo precincts in the county, had a discriminatory impact on our constituents’ ability to participate in the political process,” the congressmen wrote.

Though Texas ranks among the bottom for voter turnout rates in the country, voter turnout surged in Texas for the March 1 election with more than 4.2 million ballots cast in the primary election — up from about 2 million in 2012.

In Harris County, the state’s largest county, the number of voters casting ballots increased from 240,466 in the 2012 primary to 557,048 this year.

The increased turnout — fueled by a heated Republican presidential race — left election officials scrambling to deliver additional voting machines to polling locations with long lines on election day. Still, some voters in Houston did not cast their votes until after 9:30 p.m. — hours after polls closed. Others reportedly abandoned their place in line without voting after waiting for hours.

The distribution of polling locations in primary elections is a responsibility of each county’s political party, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, which oversees elections and voting. Using a formula based on previous voter turnout, county parties are charged with estimating voter turnout and determining the number of voting machines and polling locations needed.

In case you are curious, here is the formula:

The formula for estimating turnout for the primary elections is:

A x (B + C) = D

Where:

A = the percentage of voter turnout for the office that received the most votes in the most recent comparable party primary election (percentage is the sum of all votes cast for the office that received the most votes in the most recent comparable party primary election divided by the number of registered voters).
B = the number of registered voters as of October preceding the primary.
C = 25% of the number resulting when you multiply A x B.
D = Preliminary Estimated Turnout.

They backed the wrong horse

You take a risk if you endorse a challenger to a sittign member of the legislature - if you are also a legislator. They might win.

- Analysis: Endorsements, Loyalties — and Getting Things Done.

Endorsements seem harmless enough, but several state senators will have to eat some crow to get their legislation passed next year.

They committed the insiders’ sin of endorsing challengers to sitting members of the Legislature. Worse, their candidates lost, and now they will have to deal with the people they opposed when it comes time to govern.

From outside, where most sane people live, it makes perfect sense to throw your political weight and reputation against candidates with whom you disagree and in favor of the ones you like.

Republicans oppose Democrats, Democrats oppose Republicans. What’s new?

The same tensions exist in party primaries: Endorsers go with the people they think would do the best job, or who they think will be most helpful to them. In the divided Republican Party in particular, the leaders of one faction oppose the candidates from another.

But there are some invisible lines, and Republican state Sens. Paul Bettencourtof Houston, Konni Burton of Colleyville, Bob Hall of Edgewood and Don Huffines of Dallas danced across them this year. Each plunged — or at least dipped their toes — into efforts to unseat Republican House incumbents.

One of those lines is, or was, Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” That’s more of a historical marker than a real rule— it has more or less gone by the wayside as internal fights in the GOP have intensified.

Legislative tradition is another line: Legislators are in some ways more loyal to their chambers than to their parties. Senators stay out of House business. House members stay out of Senate business.

No surprise here. From the Texas Tribune: Texas Near Bottom Among States in Primary Turnout This Year

It's standard fare. We beat Louisiana!

- Click here for the article.

Texas saw record turnout numbersin last week’s presidential primaries, but it still had one of the lowest voting-age participation rates of the states that have held primaries so far.

More than 4.2 million Texans voted in the presidential primary race, the most in state history, according to the Secretary of State. However, among the 12 states that already have held primaries, Texas ranked second to last in voter turnout of residents 18 and older, at 21.5 percent.

The Lone Star State came ahead of only Louisiana, where 17.3 percent of residents of voting age participated in elections there Saturday. Louisiana, unlike Texas, uses a closed system for presidential primaries, meaning a person must be registered as a Democrat or Republican before the election to be able to vote in one of the party's primaries.

Rice University political science professor Mark Jones said low Democratic turnout and Texas’ diverse population accounts for the state's low percentage.

Pew Research Center: Super Tuesday showcases electorate’s growing racial, ethnic diversity

This might be what sets off the authoritarian minded part of the electorate.

- Click here for the article.

The U.S. electorate this year will be the country’s most diverse ever, and that is evident in several Super Tuesday states holding primaries or caucuses on March 1 in which blacks could have a significant impact.

In five of 12 Super Tuesday states, blacks account for at least 15% of the electorate, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of 2014 census data. Black eligible voters have the largest footprint in Georgia (31%) and Alabama (26%), while Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas also have sizable black electorates.

In a reversal of historical migration trends, Southern states have seen their black populations increase more than twice as fast as non-Southern states since 1990. From 1910 to 1970, 6 million blacks left the South, with many pursuing industrial jobs in Northern cities in what is called the Great Migration. But since then, blacks haveincreasingly chosen to live in the South.

. . . Hispanics have a large presence in the Super Tuesday states of Texas and Colorado. In Texas, Hispanics make up 28% of the electorate and outnumber blacks 4.8 million to 2.2 million. In Colorado, Hispanics make up a rising share of eligible voters, standing at nearly 15% in 2014, up from nearly 13% in 2008. Overall, Hispanics favor the Democratic Party, but to a lesser degree than blacks. Exit polls in 2014 in some states showed significant shares of Hispanic voters supporting Republican candidates in races for governor and U.S. Senate.

Several other Super Tuesday states have largely white electorates. For example, whites make up 95% of eligible voters in Vermont and 88% of eligible voters in Minnesota.

From the NYT: Ted Cruz Keeps Up Pressure on Donald Trump; Bernie Sanders Takes 2 on ‘Super Saturday’

Trump is a quarter of the way there - Clinton is almost halfway there.

- Click here for the article.

Senator Ted Cruz scored decisive wins in the Kansas and Maine caucuses on Saturday, demonstrating his enduring appeal among conservatives as he tried to reel in Donald J. Trump’s significant lead in the Republican presidential race.

Mr. Trump contained Mr. Cruz’s advances by winning in Louisiana and Kentucky. But the Texas senator’s wins were sure to energize the anti-Trump forces who are desperately trying to stop Mr. Trump’s march to the nomination, and they left little doubt that Mr. Cruz, who has now captured six states, is their best hope.

In Democratic contests, Hillary Clinton scored a commanding victory in Louisiana, the state with the most delegates in play on Saturday, while Senator Bernie Sanders won the Nebraska and Kansas caucuses, according to The Associated Press. The results did not alter the contours of a race in which Mrs. Clinton maintains a significant delegate lead.

The biggest stakes were on the Republican side, and the voters sensed it; turnout in Kansas, for example, was more than double that of 2012. Mr. Cruz won 48 percent of the vote there, while Mr. Trump received 23 percent, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida won 17 percent and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio won 11 percent. The results were tighter in Maine, but Mr. Cruz still easily defeated Mr. Trump there by 13 percentage points. With Mr. Trump’s victories coming by smaller margins, Mr. Cruz had the biggest delegate haul of the day, appearing to net at least 15 more than the front-runner.