From the Houston Chronicle: Three articles on the state pof political parties in the state

- GOP fights to keep Texas red amid rifts.

Analysts say the Texas Republican Party is at a critical juncture heading into the 2020 presidential election, with the possibility that an increasingly diverse population will make Texas a swing state. So far the risk is remote, but the number of people of color in Texas is rising. According to the Texas Demographic Center, people of color accounted for 58 percent of the state's population, up from 47 percent in 2000.

November's dismal election results for Republicans were a wake-up call, party officials say. Cruz barely pulled off a victory over O'Rourke, and the party lost two state Senate seats and 12 state House seats to the Democrats.

"I'm warning people: If we don't do the hard work that we must, we will not, nor would we, deserve to retain control of Texas," said James Dickey, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. "We have to continue to earn the votes of rural Texas and increase the numbers in the major metro areas that are growing the fastest."

As Texas Republicans attempt to widen their reach, they're grappling with the party's standard-bearer, Trump, whose anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric has emboldened some of the more extreme members of the party.

- Democrats flex in Texas Legislature, with an eye on 2020.

After picking up 14 seats in the midterm elections, Democrats are using their increased numbers this session to derail key Republican priorities in a state where the left has long been out of power.

In flexing their political muscle, Democrats have blocked Gov. Greg Abbott’s embattled secretary of state nominee and helped stop a sales tax hike that GOP leaders had championed in order to cut property taxes.

"This session more than other sessions, the Democratic caucus has stuck together more. We’ve communicated a lot better,” said Senate Democratic Leader José Rodríguez of El Paso. "I think the midterm elections may have had something to do with the caucus being much more united."

- Texas House passes bill to allow more third-party candidates.

With the memory of a heated 2018 election cycle still fresh, Texas House Republicans and Democrats were divided this week over how to treat third-party candidates who have the potential to siphon votes from the major parties.

From 538: What Went Wrong For Gary Johnson

Winner-take-all elections are brutal for minor parties.

- Click here for the article.

Johnson’s decline isn’t shocking. Third-party candidates usually lose steamthe closer we get to the election. But Johnson is faltering even against that standard. Based on his polling in late August, FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus model, which accounts for the drop-off third-party candidates usually experience, projected Johnson to get around 7 percent of the vote. The same model has him down to just 5.6 percent now.

What went wrong? You could point to Johnson’s missing the debates. He has lost about 1.5 percentage points from his national poll numbers since late September (when the first debate took place). However, he may have already been on a downward trajectory before the debates took place; on Sept. 25, the day before the first debate, he had 7.3 percent, on average, in national polls, compared with 9 percent a month before. So, it’s quite possible Johnson’s numbers would have continued to dip even if he appeared on the debate stage. Johnson, of course, has committed some policy-related gaffes— not knowing basic facts about the Syrian War or being able to name a foreign leader he admires — that suggest perhaps the debates would have been rough on him.

Another plausible explanation is that Johnson was simply a “protest” choice. Perhaps many voters who said they were going to vote for him weren’t really interested in Johnson specifically but were merely voicing frustration with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton instead. There’s evidence for this. In August, when Johnson was flying high, a majority of voters had no opinion of him. In addition, many younger voters who as a group voted heavily for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary said they were going to vote for Johnson, even though Johnson and Sanders have very different ideologies. That seemed at least a little unsustainable. Indeed, as the campaign has taken shape and Sanders stumps for Clinton, Johnson’s numbers seem to be falling with young voters as Clinton’s rise.

From 538: The Ross Perot Myth

The conventional wisdom is that Ross Perot pulled enough votes From HW Bush in 1992 to tip the election to Bill Clinton.

Here's a counter argument.

- Click here for the video.

From Vox: We’ve been totally wrong about Hillary Clinton’s young voter problem - And a big new study proves it.

A great, critical look at what polls do and do not tell us.

It also allows a critical look at media coverage of the race - one of the big takeaways: the third party movements are overhyped.

- Click here for the article.

The conventional wisdom about young voters in the 2016 presidential election goes something like this: White millennials are backing third-party candidates in unprecedented numbers, creating a major problem for Hillary Clinton.

It’s a theory that’s driven hundreds of news articles and think pieces. I myself have advanced it in stories here at Vox. Clinton’s campaign appears to be taking the threat seriously.

But Jon Rogowski, a political scientist at Harvard, makes a pretty convincing case that this idea is wrong — or at least vastly overstated. Earlier this week, he and the researchers at GenForward released the most thorough study I’ve seen to date of young voters and the 2016 presidential election.

Its findings suggest that the way we’ve been looking at “Clinton’s millennial problem” is upside down. Contrary to several other pollsters, the researchers found that far fewer young people will actually vote for the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson or the Green Party’s Jill Stein than has been widely reported. (This isn’t totally surprising, as third-party support historically falls off as we get closer to Election Day.)

Instead, Clinton’s millennial voter problem appears to come from a different source altogether: Young voters of color seem to be far less excited about her than they were about Barack Obama. That trend — rather than a largely imaginary groundswell of support for Johnson and Stein — poses the biggest obstacle to reassembling the Democratic Party’s youth voting bloc in 2016.

What impact will Gary Johnson have on the 2016 election?

Johnson is the Libertarian nominee and might have an impact on the election by pulling enough vote from either mayor party's candidate to tip the vote in competitive states one way or another. The question is whether Democratic or Republican voters are more likely to defect.

It's generally held that Libertarian candidates pull votes from Republicans while Green Party candidates pull them from Democrats, but the trendy prediction now is that Johnson might hurt Clinton more then Trump. Some also think his candidacy will deny Trump or Clinton a majority vote in the electoral college, which would thrown the election to the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824.

Some thoughts:

- The National Review: It will take some maneuvering, but Gary Johnson can make the difference.

Because the Libertarian platform is much closer to the Republican platform than to the Democratic, the conventional wisdom is that Johnson will pull many more votes from Trump than from Clinton. And that will probably prove to be the case. But if Trump’s campaign is willing to try something radical — and the evidence suggests it is — it can use Johnson to keep Hillary out of the White House. If Trump’s campaign is willing to try something radical — and the evidence suggests it is — it can use Johnson to keep Hillary out of the White House. 

At the moment, there is limited general-election polling that includes Johnson; a Trump–Clinton–Johnson race has been polled in only a handful of states. And, this long before the election, what polling there is is suspect. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that there are three solid Democratic states in which polling shows support for Johnson exceeding Clinton’s lead over Trump. Which means that if Trump’s supporters were to vote Johnson, Hillary could be denied those states’ reliably Democratic electoral votes.

- From Yahoo News: This time around, Gary Johnson’s third-party bid makes sense.

Johnson — who will be on the ballot in all 50 states — is approaching the national electorate this year more from the left than the right. He’s appealing to Bernie Sanders supporters on the basis of his pro-pot, pro-gay rights, anti-surveillance views.

“Of all the candidates left, running for president, I side most with Bernie Sanders,” Johnson told Politico’s Glenn Thrush this week.

Going after Sanders supporters makes sense. Many of them are loath to support Clinton, and even Trump made explicit overtures to them this week.

But the resistance to Trump among conservatives equals and probably dwarfs the distaste for Clinton among liberal progressives. Many on the right hate Clinton, are disgusted with the idea that they might have to vote for Trump to stop her, and are desperate for an alternative.

Yet the barriers for social conservatives to support Johnson are just as high as they are for liberal progressives, if not higher.

Johnson will have to convince progressives that cutting government spending by 23 percent, eliminating the personal and corporate income tax, payroll, Medicare and Medicaid taxes, and moving to a 28 percent consumption tax on goods and services — are good ideas.

But social conservatives are resolute on the issue of religious liberty, and Johnson has sided decisively with gay rights when discussing cases over the past few years in which bakers, photographers and others have declined to provide services for gay weddings.
Johnson is clear that social conservatism was one of the things that bothered him most as a Republican governor and presidential candidate.

And a handful more, it you care to check them out:

- CBS News: 2016 by the numbers: Will Gary Johnson disrupt Clinton vs. Trump race?
- The Fiscal Times: Could Libertarian Gary Johnson Play the Spoiler in November?
- USA Today: Gary Johnson could give us President Paul Ryan.

From Ballotpedia: Ballot access requirements for political parties in Texas

For more detail on how to create a party in Texas - the state recognizes only four.

- Click here for the post.

The Texas Secretary of State's office offers the following advice:

- Starting a Party and Nominating Candidates.

For their fuller look at ballot access for major and minor party candidates across the nation click here.

Here's a total list of minor parties and the number of ballots each is on across the nation - this includes DC - which is why it adds to 51.

America First Party	1
America's Party	1
American Constitutional Party	1
American Independent Party	1
American Party	1
Americans Elect Party	3
Conservative Party	1
Constitution Party	12
D.C. Statehood Green Party	1
Democratic Party	51
Ecology Party	1
Grassroots Party	1
Green Independent Party	1
Green Party	18
Independence Party	5
Independent American Party	3
Independent Party	5
Justice Party	2
Labor Party	1
Legal Marijuana Now Party	1
Libertarian Party	34
Liberty Union Party	1
Moderate Party	1
Mountain Party	1
Natural Law Party	2
Pacific Green Party	1
Party for Socialism and Liberation	1
Peace and Freedom Party	2
Progressive Party	2
Reform Party	3
Republican Party	51
Socialist Party	1
Socialist Workers Party	1
Tea Party	1
U.S. Taxpayers Party	1
United Citizens Party	1
United Independent Party	1
Veterans Party	1
Working Families Party	4
TOTAL	221

From the San Antonio Express-News: Libertarian and Green parties gather for state conventions

Several times in both 2305 and 2306 we've discussed that neither Texas not the U.S. is really a two party system - unless you are referring to competitive parties of course. The Texas Green and Libertarian Parties not only exist, but regularly have candidates for most races on the general election ballot. None has yet to win a seat in the legislature though - election rules do not make it easy for smaller parties to win. Neither does the sense - promoted by the major parties - that voting for either makes it more like the other guy wins.

Nevertheless - the faithful of each gathered in San Antonio for their conventions to select their candidates for the general election. The process is established in the Texas Code.

- Click here for the article.

The Texas chapters of the Libertarian and Green parties each held their state conventions in San Antonio this weekend to select candidates for the general election.

The Libertarian Party, which held its convention at the Norris Conference Center at the Park North Shopping Center, selected statewide candidates for the upcoming November ballot. They also picked party officers, proposed amendments to the party platform and rules and chose delegates to send to the party’s national convention in Orlando, Florida in late May.

Five of the Libertarian presidential candidates, including former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and antivirus software pioneer John McAfee, were in San Antonio Friday night for a debate that was live-streamed.

Libertarian Party state chair Kirk Hildebrand believes this contentious and polarizing presidential election, notable for the success of anti-establishment candidates like Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump, presents a huge opportunity for Libertarians to make inroads with voters frustrated with the two-party system, particularly millennials.

“We’re looking at 2016 to be a breakout year for the LP,” Hildebrand said.
For San Antonio resident and convention volunteer Cassie Villela, 28, the Libertarian Party has become the only realistic alternative to the “old parties” of Republicans and Democrats.

“I think they’re outdated, they don’t represent my viewpoints,” Villela said of the other parties. “There’s no way I could vote Republican, because I don’t hate gay people or Mexicans. I can’t vote for Democrats, because I also have my own business, and I see what the taxes and regulations are doing to business.”

She believes Libertarians are getting even more of a closer look now that the Republican and Democratic presidential front runners are Trump and Hillary Clinton, a former U.S. secretary of state and first lady.

“It’s starting to wake people up as far as how ridiculous things are getting,” Villela said.

Across town, the Green Party held its state convention at the Grey Forest Clubhouse. They also selected delegates to attend the party’s national convention in Houston in August.

Here's an article from the Texas Tribune about their conventions in 2012:

- Libertarians and Greens Select Nominees This Weekend.

And there's more!

- Libertarian Party of Texas to Store Election Results On Three Blockchains.

In the news today ....

- Texas Speaker Joe Straus has two Tea Party affiliated challengers to his seat in the upcoming primary election. Straus represents the 121st district in the Texas House. Tea Party opponents , who think Straus is too liberal, have failed to defeat him in two previous primary challenges. They think he might be more vulnerable if he has to face two challengers since he might not win a majority and could defeated in a run-off with low turnout: See Straus faces two-candidate challenge from the far right in Republican primary.

- I still need to post items detailing the recent spending bill. It contains a variety of items (riders) related to non-spending issues including rules loosening campaign spending rules. Some allowing greater use of what is called dark money - dark because its source can;t be traced. This a road we've been heading down for decades: See: White House surrenders on 'dark money' regulation.

- Dark money is also becoming more influential in state races. States vary in their policies regarding transparency - Texas requires little. Most of the additional money spent on campaigns since the Citizens United decision removed many caps on expenditures has been through channels that do not require disclosure. Much of this spending on state races comes from groups located in other states, but the precise source is difficult to determine, and there are sufficient loopholes in place to continue to make them secret. See: 'Dark money' grows in politics even as states try to stop it.

- Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is continuing to shape the state panels by appointing people with more conservative bona-fides. This includes the Sunset Commission and the Legislative Budget Board. Among the recent appointees of the latter is area state senator Larry Taylor. See: Dan Patrick shows, through new panel picks, that he wants a more conservative Texas Senate.

- A common theme regarding the early race for the Republican nomination has been what impact Trump will have on the party and whether a division might emerge within it that leads to a third party run. Most previous analyses have looked at the possibility the Trump runs as a third party candidate is he looses the nomination. Here's a look at the possibility that a traditional Republican runs as a third party candidate if Trump wins the nomination. See: Will the GOP Mount a Third-Party Challenge to Trump?

- Is Trump's campaign organization playing with fire? Lot's of Trump's activities are being performed by people that work in many of his businesses, which creates problems since these are to be treated as campaign expenses, meaning that they are to be reported as such. Trump appears to be testing the limits of campaign funding law. See: Trump’s reliance on business questioned.

On This Day in History: Teddy Roosevelt nominated as Bull Moose candidate

Ironically - given the concerns about Trump's possible run as a third party candidates - on this day in history the most consequential third party candidate was nominated. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote - in an era when Republicans dominated - and the Democrat Woodrow Wilson won.

- Click here for the article.

Theodore Roosevelt, the former U.S. president, is nominated for the presidency by the Progressive Party, a group of Republicans dissatisfied with the renomination of President William Howard Taft. Also known as the Bull Moose Party, the Progressive platform called for the direct election of U.S. senators, woman suffrage, reduction of the tariff, and many social reforms. Roosevelt, who served as the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909, embarked on a vigorous campaign as the party’s presidential candidate. A key point of his platform was the “Square Deal”–Roosevelt’s concept of a society based on fair business competition and increased welfare for needy Americans.

On October 12, 1912, minutes before a campaign speech in Milwaukee, Roosevelt was shot at close range by anarchist William Schrenk. Schrenk, who was immediately detained, offered as his motive that any man looking for a third term ought to be shot. Roosevelt, who suffered only a flesh wound from the attack, went on to deliver his scheduled speech, declaring, “You see, it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose!” The former “Rough Rider” later collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. He recovered quickly but in November was defeated by Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson, who benefited from the divided Republican Party.

We cover this episode in the section on political parties - the party eras specifically - but this marks the time when the progressives begin to drift away from the Republican Party and towards the Democratic Party. The process would be complete by 1932, but their increased power in the party would lead the southern conservatives to begin to slowly distance themselves from the Democratic Party and align with the Republicans. This process has only recently been completed.

The wheels of political history keep spinning.

For more:

- Progressive Party.
- 1912 Republican National Convention.
- United States Presidential Election, 1912.

What happens if Trump runs as an independent?

It's tough to predict the future, but it's very likely that he would split the Republican vote and make it easier for a Democrat to win in 2016.

Its a story we tell in 2305 when we discuss the consequences of the use of winner take all elections in the US and their tendency to lead to the formation of two large political parties. Efforts to support third party - or independent candidates can tip the scales in unusual ways. It's an odd consequence of a party getting a bit too big and when the factions within the party become hostile to one another.

Support can be thrown to someone running outside the party, or a party member may choose to run independently. It happens from time to time. The is is covered in class notes, but examples include:

Ralph Nader in 2000
Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996
John Anderson in 1980
George Wallace in 1968

And on through history. The problem with this can be that supporters of the outsider might end up with their least preferred option in office. Nader voters helped elect W. Bush. Perot voters helped elect Clinton.

Might we see a repeat in 2016 if Trump runs as an independent?

Some thoughts from the smart set:

- Politico: Defiant Donald Trump refuses to rule out third-party run.
- Business Insider: 5 things to consider as Donald Trump dangles a third-party run for president.
- RCP: Why Republicans Shouldn't Fear a Third-Party Trump.

From the National Journal: The Whigs Are Partying Like It's 1856

A blast from the past:

The Whigs are making a comeback.

Well, sort of. On Tuesday, 36 Philadelphia voters elected Whig candidate Robert Bucholz as the judge of election for the Fifth Division of the 56th Ward. He beat Democratic opponent Loretta Probasco, who secured 24 votes.

The Whigs haven't been a major political party in the United States since the mid-1800s. The Whigs produced four U.S. presidents in their brief history—William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore—and had several national leaders among its members, including Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.

The party, however, dissolved following the failed presidency of Fillmore that ended in 1853. It also showed deep divides in the party on the issue of slavery.

But in 2007, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans wanted to change that and started the Modern Whig Party.

Its symbol an owl, the party is based in Washington and claims it has 30,000 members across the country. While many of the issues for the party have changed in the last 150 years or so, party members claim its basic political philosophy is the same: moderation and compromise.

. . . A closer comparison of the platforms of the party from 150 years ago to today shows many similarities:

1852:
- Emphasize states rights on most issues.
- Limit foreign entanglements.
- Modernize the economic system through the markets and industrialization.
- Promote higher tariffs on trade, not higher taxes.
- Support a national bank.
- Use government-funded programs to expand the road and canal systems throughout Middle America.
- Create public schools and promote private institutions, like colleges and charities.

2013:

- Give states the power to handles budget issues.
- Develop alternative energy resources and reduce dependency on foreign oil.
- Reform education and add an emphasis on space, oceans, medicine, and nanotechnologies in the public and private sectors.
- Be progressive on social issues, advocating the government stay out of "legislating morality."
- Give veterans proper benefits.

Will the Tea Party become its own party?

Normally the winner take all rules embedded in the American electoral system prevents this, but this author suggests that Tea Party Republicans - since they already hold office and have established funding sources - might be able to pull it off:

Advocates of a big shake-up in the partisan landscape, whether in the centre or on the right or left, tend to talk about building new political parties from the ground up by fielding candidates in elections. This is vanishingly unlikely to work in the first-past-the-post American system; third-party candidates almost always lack the resources and the name recognition to compete. Voters tend to stick with one of the two major parties in order to avoid the risk of wasting their vote. So upstart parties like the Greens on the left, the Libertarians on the right, or Ross Perot's United We Stand America in the centre face tremendous hurdles, and in practice none have been successful.

A factional split in an existing party reduces that wasted-vote risk. When a faction cleaves from an existing party, it comes with ready-made political power in Congress, and can even play the role of kingmaker. A party that already has members in Congress is a more serious contender in subsequent elections. A strong regional base would probably be needed to stay in contention in any first-past-the-post system; a splinter party that draws 10% of the vote nationwide probably won't win many seats, but a splinter party that draws 10% of the vote concentrated in 25% of the country could.

The biggest weakness in a top-down effort to form a third party via congressional revolt, rather than a bottom-up party-building effort, would be a lack of ideological coherence or connection with voters. A collection of members of Congress disaffected with their leadership will probably not have a strong organic link to any common voter base. But if those members of Congress already come from a common movement with shared organisations and voter bases that had helped elect them, they might take that organisation with them when they split off. Or national political organisations and movements that wanted to form a third party might themselves be the ones pressuring sitting members of Congress to form a breakaway faction.

He doesn't think this is very likely right now, but events might make this more likely to occur:

Of course, there's not much incentive for tea-party Republicans to leave the party right now, since they've succeeded in bending it to their will. But if moderate Republicans finally revolt and dump their agenda, I think tea-party Republicans would have a better shot at launching a sustainable third party than we've seen in America in a long time. Not that it would be a particularly good shot; the segregationist Dixiecrats had a similar combination of congressional power, loyal voter blocs and a unifying ideology when they tried to set up the States' Rights Democratic Party in 1948, and it didn't last past that one election. Still, for anyone who does want to see American politics shaken up through the entrance of a third party, it's worth thinking about the congressional-revolt strategy in combination with the bottom-up one.

From the Gallup POll: Support for Third U.S. Party Dips, but Is Still Majority View

Despite what we've discovered in class, thee is still strong support for third parties in the U.S:

Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job of representing the people that a third party is needed. Forty percent believe they do an adequate job. The percentage calling for a third party is down from August, when it tied its high of 58%.
Interestingly, this number includes a majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters. Is an independent Tea Party bid out of the question?

Third Parties Don't Work

A relevant story - for this week's 2301 16 week students - from Jonathan Bernstein about the impact of third parties on elections.

Will There be a Third Party Candidate in 2012 and Will it Matter?

Andrew Sullivan summarizes and comments.

A Discussion About Outsider Politics

From the NYT.

Some smart folks discuss whether the current crop of outsider candidate is unusual historically. Most suggest no, but add that the internet allows greater opportunity for outsider groups to form. Whether they have staying power is a different matter.

Third Party Watch

Tea Party Schmea Party.

Is it Realistic that a Viable Third Party Candidate Will Run, and Possibly Win, in 2012?

Friedman's Sunday article (post below) led to a rash of commentary wondering whether a third party could in fact run competitively in 2012, or govern in the off chance that they win. Nate Silver adds his two cents.

Can the Two Party System Govern?

Thomas Friedman has his doubts and is calling for a strong third party movement in 2012. He begins by reminding us -- as the founders would -- of the factors which led to the demise of the Roman Republic:

A friend in the U.S. military sent me an e-mail last week with a quote from the historian Lewis Mumford’s book, “The Condition of Man,” about the development of civilization. Mumford was describing Rome’s decline: “Everyone aimed at security: no one accepted responsibility. What was plainly lacking, long before the barbarian invasions had done their work, long before economic dislocations became serious, was an inner go. Rome’s life was now an imitation of life: a mere holding on. Security was the watchword — as if life knew any other stability than through constant change, or any form of security except through a constant willingness to take risks.”

He argues that our two major parties are concerned with their own security (not the nation.s) and refusing to accept responsibility for their failures (since to do so might jeopardize their electoral competitiveness).

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.
...


We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”
His chief complaint echoes some of the warnings Washington made regarding the development of parties in the early years of the republic: It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.

My 2301s will wrestle with this soon enough, but let's keep in mind that when it comes to arguments about government and politics, there is little new under the sun. Washington would understand and sympathize with Friedman's complaint. The problem, as we will discover, is that electoral rules favor the development and continuation of a two party system, so this might be an unrealistic goal.

Do Minor Parties Really Impact Major Parties?

Charles Kuffner looks at recent Texas races and sees little evidence that they have -- though Greens are more likely to affect Dems than Libertarians are to affect Reps. Given current volatility, this year might be different.