The Texas Blue: Articles

The Only Things You Need To Know About Sarah Palin's Kids

George Nassar — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:51:06 -0600

Alaska governor Sarah Palin has not gotten very good press for her first few days in her new role as the Republican vice presidential nominee. Some has revolved around the TrooperGate scandal she's at the epicenter of in her state. Some has revolved around her incredibly short time in public office and absolute lack of experience or qualification to be a heartbeat away from the role of President of the United States. And some, against the urging of Republicans and Democrats throughout America, has focused on Sarah Palin's children.

We are in agreement with Senator Obama that a candidate's family should be off limits to political attacks. But the way the McCain campaign has dealt with the issue are much more of a story than Palin's kids ever were. So to cover the subject and be done with it, here are the two things you should know about it, from the mainstream media themselves:

Roger Simon at Politico notes that the lambasting of the media from the McCain & Co. Campaign is based on a contradiction the campaign itself created:

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)
And Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo goes further, to point out that even the issue of Palin's daughter itself was one that was released by the McCain campaign, pushed into press attention by the McCain campaign, and used repeatedly by the McCain campaign to get that very same leverage against the "liberal media":

It was the McCain campaign that announced Palin's daughter's pregnancy. That alone might be understandable since it appears a supermarket tabloid was about to print the story. But it was the McCain campaign, entirely on its own, that dished up unsubstantiated claims about maternity tests and all sorts of other lurid nonsense that had never been seen in print anywhere. And now the McCain campaign has staged a ceremonial laying-on-of-hands on the tarmac in St. Paul in which Sen. McCain has given his official blessing to the young couple and embrace of Bristol's boyfriend Levi.

Eight States Where the African-American Vote Will Change the Race

J-Michael Cabosky — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:00:00 -0600

When party lines are drawn and an election looks close, the end result often hinges on turnout. Much has been made about the enthusiasm of Obama supporters compared to the collective apathy of McCain backers. Still, the polls say it's close. Having known this all along, the Obama campaign has something up their sleeve: organizing African-American turnout. Sure, this is no secret, but will all of this organizing make a difference or is it all a mirage? The answer is, it's real.

The Obama campaign is where it is today because of a smart move to compete in the otherwise forgotten-about caucus states. Its organization and registration push in these states made Obama the nominee. Because of that early organization, the Obama campaign is now on the ground in a number of states, registering hundreds of thousands of new African-American voters.

Why and where will it make a difference? The African-American vote is breaking 95+% for Obama. This means that almost every new African-American registered voter is a vote for Obama. With this in mind, there are eight states where the African-American vote has historically underperformed compared to the state's overall demographics. Because of that, when the Obama team gets their voters out on Election Day, they'll pick up some percentage points that may not be registering in the polls.

Here are the eight states:

FLORIDA: In 2004, the African-American vote in Florida made up 12% of the overall vote. Yet the African-American population makes up 15% of the state. So, keeping in mind that the Obama team's goal here is to match African-American voting with overall demographics, if they are successful, they'd have a net gain of 3%. In 2004, the state broke 52-47 for Bush. A three point gain gives Obama a 50-49 win, based on those numbers.

GEORGIA: Most don't actually believe that Georgia will go blue (for a long time, myself included), but Obama has a strong reason for making a play here. In 2004, the state went for Bush big, 58-41. But the Obama team says there are hundreds of thousands of unregistered African-American voters in this state alone. The numbers bear out the truth of that. In 2004, only 25% of voters here were African-American. The overall make-up of the state? 31%, a whopping six point difference. Using our model, the race in Georgia would become a 52-47 race, quite close for such a state. The X factor? Watch out for Bob Barr, who's been hovering between 3-6 points here.

INDIANA: The Hoosier state is tricky. It's the only Republican Great Lake state out there, and yet somehow Obama is making a play. Many polls show the race tied. Is it the 'Illinois effect?' Maybe. In 2004, the African-American vote was 7%, 3 points lower than the overall demographic. In a state that's tied, three points can go a long way.

LOUISIANA: While Louisiana is the only state on this list that isn't a battleground state, perhaps it should be. One could argue that LA is the most racially divided state in the nation, so Obama's chances are slight. But no state has a possibility of a bigger African-American voting surge than the home of the Bayou. Only 27% of the vote in 2004 was African-American, while the state's demographics show the overall population to be 34%. This seven percent variance is the most profound in the country. Maybe the Obama team should give the state another look, despite the polls.

MICHIGAN: No one has to argue that Michigan is a battleground. In 2004, the AA vote was 13%, two percent lower than the demo numbers. This changes the state from a 51-48 landscape to a 53-46 one, a much more comfortable margin for the Obama team.

MISSOURI: The Show-Me State offered one of the few surprises in the primary season. Obama actually over-performed here, and that may have come from a hidden African-American vote. AA turnout in '04 was a low 8%. The overall demo number is 12%. A four point swing here and the state goes from a 53-47 Obama defeat to a 50-49 Obama win. No wonder the Obama team has sent over 50 paid staffers to the state.

NEVADA: I know what you're saying — Nevada, really? The demographic numbers in Nevada are likely to surprise non-residents. The state demographics show Nevada with an African-American population of 9%, two points higher than the '04 turnout. And, for one of the closest races out there, Obama will take all the two points he can get.

OHIO: The nightmare of '04 has some promising potential for Obama. In 2004, only 10% of the vote was from African-Americans when their overall numbers were 13%. A narrow defeat suddenly becomes a 52-48 Obama advantage. And, of course, a win in Ohio and the election is likely over.

While some might doubt the Obama campaign's ability to succeed in their efforts, I think some of these models may even be conservative. Just look at what happened in states like South Carolina and Georgia, where Obama's organization proved the polls very wrong. Come election night, those nay-sayers may have to just bite their tongue.

Oil Crisis of Epic Proportion on Horizon

Josh Matlock — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:53:53 -0600

On December 26, 2004 the water off the coasts of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand began receding. Some people recognized the receding sea as a warning and headed toward higher ground. Many others oblivious to the imminent danger ventured out on to the coast to investigate the rare sight. What followed was a deadly tsunami that swept up and killed close to a quarter million people. The warning signs were there, but few too many people understood what was about to happen.

There are presently visible warning signs that an economic tsunami is on the horizon pending the peak and decline of global oil production. We experienced significant economic recessions in the 1970s resulting from disruptions in oil supplies. The difference now is that we are not facing the 1970s’ correctable man-made production disruptions, but rather disruptions of a natural sort that are not easily mitigated.

Global demand for oil is climbing at the same time production is peaking and verging on decline. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global production for the first five months of 2008 averaged 86.82 million barrels per day. IEA forecasts 2008 daily global oil demand at 86.85 mb/d. And of the 48 largest oil-producing countries, 33 are experiencing irreversible declines in production (Bentley, Mannan, & Wheeler, 2007). This means supply and demand is extremely tight with no evidence of loosening. We find ourselves ignoring a very serious matter for which few are knowledgeable enough to recognize or fully appreciate.

Any serious authority on this subject would agree that peak oil is real, and when it occurs will be economically catastrophic if nothing is in place to offset production declines. Yet few are willing to come to terms with the prospect of peak oil arriving anytime soon. It’s as if the water is receding but no one seems sufficiently concerned about the imminent danger.

Flat-Earthers v. Natural Scientists

The peak oil debate stems from confusion between and reliance on two different data sets that fuel two conflicting viewpoints. One viewpoint is characterized as the Economic or Flat-Earth approach while the other is referred to as the Geological or Natural Science approach (Aleklett & Campbell, 2003; Bentley, Mannan, & Wheeler, 2007).

The Flat-Earthers typically rely on proved reserves (1P) data published by organizations like the IEA to calculate remaining discovered oil (Bentley, Mannan, & Wheeler, 2007). However, there are serious problems with 1P data due to producers significantly not reporting, underreporting, and over-reporting their reserves (2007). Widespread reliance on 1P data is the primary reason debate over peak oil continues (2007).

In addition to using deficient 1P data, Flat-Earthers also believe irrespective of oil’s finiteness that technology, price, and investment drive supply (Bentley, Mannan, & Wheeler, 2007). The problem is the facts and fundamentals of oil production don’t neatly fit within this economic model. Nevertheless, for the past 20 years the economic viewpoint has been the dominant perspective on the subject among oil companies and throughout the world’s halls of power (2007). Soon we will find that with no evidence of future decline in demand, the primary driver of supply is simply availability.

The Natural Scientists understand the significant flaws inherent in 1P data and instead rely on proved plus probable (2P) data to make calculations for projecting future production capacities. 2P data is considered among experts to be a scientifically achieved best estimate of a given oilfield’s size. A key distinction of 2P data aside from 1P’s under, over, and non-reporting of reserves, is its reporting methods used for calculating discovery trends.

Over time it is inevitable that discovered reserves’ size are revised either up or down depending on the initial size estimate and its production capacity through the years. 2P data record reserve revisions by backdating them to the original wildcat who discovered the field so that a more accurate discovery trend may be plotted (Aleklett & Campbell, 2003). 1P data on the other hand, record reserve revisions by attributing the revision to the day they are announced. This practice gives the impression that a new discovery was made when in fact it was merely a revision of a past discovery estimate. As a result, 1P data would leave one to believe substantial amounts of oil continues being discovered when it’s clearly not the case. Presently, no significant discoveries have been made since the 1970s (Meng & Bentley, 2008).

According to 2P data based discovery trends, and past and present demand forecasts, global peak oil is anticipated to occur around 2010 (Meng & Bentley, 2008). The only people clinging to the unfounded belief peak oil either will not occur or will occur twenty or more years from now are those with a vested interest in the status quo . For example, OPEC goes so far as to deny the existence of peak oil even in theory. The problem for peak oil deniers, however, is that the science simply is not on their side. Some of the most notable in the geological field forecast peak oil to have already occurred, is occurring, or will occur by 2012.

Now What?

Now that we have a scientifically based understanding that global peak oil is occurring or will occur very soon, we must quickly devise ways to mitigate its economic impact. Some of the proposals involve producing unconventional oil, offshore drilling, renewable energy, and conservation.

Unconventional oil production includes use of special technologies for oil/tar sands, converting natural gas to liquid fuel, shale oil from oil shale, coal liquefaction, and heavy oil refinement (Duncan & Youngquist, 1999). Despite the tremendous quantities of available unconventional reserves, they will have little impact on peak oil due to the economic and environmental cost associated with their being mainstreamed. For example, processing oil/tar sands for use costs approximately $32 a barrel. The greatest cost however, is not tied to production but the environmental impact from production. When compared to conventional extraction, oil/tar sands processing emit up to triple the amount more carbon dioxide per barrel produced. Such economic and environmental costs are consistent with all the other unconventional oil production methods listed.

Offshore drilling continues to be bandied about by Republicans as the solution to reducing high oil prices. Yet anyone who truly knows anything about our current state of affairs, and is serious about crafting real solutions knows offshore drilling is not the answer, and to claim otherwise is bunk. People in the know claim oil from offshore drilling would not begin flowing onto the market for about a decade, and even after it does there will not be enough production to significantly lower oil prices. Offshore drilling is not the solution it’s touted to be. Instead, it’s little more then a Republican sideshow that will make some oil producers money.

The solution to an unhealthy oil addiction is not to sit around talking about producing more oil that’s not there to produce. We are not going to drill our way out of this seemingly bottomless pit we find ourselves. The way out is to get innovative about climbing our way to the top of producing renewable technologies, and increasing conservation through greater efficiency. This crisis offers us the opportunity to do what we do best, be innovative. We can’t afford to run toward the receding water.

References

Aleklett, K., & Campbell, C. J. (2003). The peak and decline of world oil and gas

production. Minerals & Energy. 18, 5-20.

Bentley, R. W., Mannan, S. A., & Wheeler, S. J. (2007). Assessing the date of the global
oil peak: The need to use 2P reserves. Energy Policy. 35, 6364-6382.

Duncan, R. C., & Youngquist, W. (1999). Encircling the peak of world oil production.
Natural Resource Research. 8, 219-232.

Meng, Q. Y., & Bentley, R. W. (2008). Global oil peaking: Responding to the case for
‘abundant supplies of oil’. Energy. 33, 1179-1184.

Races That Could Surprise You: TX U.S. District 10

J-Michael Cabosky — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:27:52 -0600

While the Texas state races are heating up, there's one national congressional seat that should be getting more attention. Democratic challenger Larry Joe Doherty looks to be making a strong contention for the seat held by incumbent congressman Michael McCaul (R) in Congressional District 10. The 10th district covers the southeast Austin and northwest Houston suburbs and everything in between.

Why is the district in play?

Rep. McCaul is a young incumbent, winning his seat in 2004 while facing no Democratic opponent. In 2006, McCaul won re-election with only 55% of the vote against a Democratic candidate that raised less than $50,000. Mr. Doherty is different: a real candidate with a real shot at pulling an upset. In the second quarter alone, the Doherty campaign brought in a quarter of a million dollars — serious money for such a race. And as a well connected Houston lawyer, he is likely to see his financial support only strengthen the closer the race appears.

Polls have also been troublesome for McCaul, who seems to have low name recognition within his own district.

Another great reason for the Doherty campaign to be optimistic is the new surge of Democratic voters in the 10th. In the smaller and normally more Republican counties of Austin, Bastrop, and Lee, primary voter turnout this year was incredibly high. In those counties alone, there were 2,500 more Democratic ballots cast in the primaries than compared to John Kerry's entire election totals four years ago. This is a sign not only that Democrats are moving into this District, but that existing Dem voters are organized and coming out to vote.

With this surge of voters, it seems possible that the 10th has become a 55(R)/45(D) base district, meaning that a candidate like Doherty, with money and organization, can really make this race a surprisingly close squeaker.

A New Energy Future

Luke Metzger — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:00:00 -0600

While the debate about our energy future rages among the Presidential candidates, a similar debate is quietly taking place here in Texas. A few weeks ago, the Governor's Competitiveness Council released a draft Texas Energy Plan to guide Texas' energy decisions in coming years.

With the rush to build new coal plants in recent years without proper consideration of impacts to local communities and the environment, it is very clear that Texas needs a plan to guide our energy future and to make sure our energy decisions properly consider the law, the impacts on public health, our environment, and water usage and public preferences.

Irresponsibly, the draft energy plan does not at all consider what new coal or nuclear plants will mean for compliance with federal air quality standards, for our water supplies or for our safety. And rather than develop a plan to reduce carbon emissions as scientists tell us we must do to avoid dangerous climate change, the Council proposes using taxpayer money to subsidize a lobbying campaign by Exxon and other polluters against global warming legislation. All in all, the recommendations are very much skewed in favor of maintaining our dependence on dirty fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Texas is one of the most technologically and economically advanced states in the nation, blessed with vast natural and intellectual resources. We have a track record of responding to major challenges and achieving unthinkable goals. If any state in the union is capable of creating an energy system that can fuel our economy while preserving our environment and our long-term security, it should be us.

But our energy situation today is less secure than it has been in recent memory. Our domestic production of oil peaked decades ago and our production of natural gas may be peaking now. As a result, we import more of our energy than ever before, leaving our energy supplies and national security vulnerable to political instability abroad. We have ample supplies of coal, but mining it causes severe environmental damage and burning it releases large amounts of global warming pollution. Nuclear power has been tried and found wanting for economic, environmental and public safety reasons. And virtually every year, Texans consume more energy in our cars, homes and businesses.

For Texas to retain our economic vigor, security and environmental health, we must build toward a New Energy Future — one based on homegrown, environmentally friendly energy sources and the sensible use of energy throughout the economy. We have the tools to achieve a better energy future — in the technological prowess of academia and industry, the cutting-edge public policies that were pioneered in Texas, and in our vast reserves of energy from the sun, wind and crops.

Despite the serious flaws of the draft Texas Energy Plan, it does include some important policies that would help support clean alternatives, including support for expanded energy efficiency programs and transmission investments to bring clean wind power to our cities.

It also includes some incentives for solar power, for which Texas has tremendous potential. According to the State Energy Office, the sunshine falling on just one acre of land in west Texas is the energy equivalent of 800 barrels of oil a year. If we put solar panels on an area thirty miles by thirty miles in west Texas, we could generate enough electricity for the entire state.

Unfortunately, as the rest of the global solar industry is growing at an astounding rate, Texas is starting to fall behind. Other states like California and New Jersey and the nations of Germany, Spain and Japan are far ahead in creating solar programs, attracting a growing number of investments, jobs and manufacturing plants. The Energy Plan's proposals to eliminate the sales tax on solar equipment and installation and allow consumers to get a fair price for extra solar they produce are a good first step, but by themselves are probably not big enough to really get things rolling.

In April, Governor Perry announced a $1 million state grant to support construction of a solar manufacturing facility in Austin. I hope he will continue this kind of strategic investment and lay out an ambitious solar agenda.

Texas should follow the lead of the cities of Austin, San Antonio and Bryan by offering rebates to help consumers install solar. We should also create a solar program, modeled on the successful renewable portfolio standard first established by the Legislature in 1999, which sets enforceable goals for utilities to generate solar power.

Texas has the potential to be a world solar leader. A small investment now could bring billions of dollars in investment to the state over the next decade and help bring clear, blue skies back to Texas.

Luke Metzger is the Director of Environment Texas, a statewide citizens advocacy group working for clean air, clean water and open spaces.

Change Is Good

George Nassar — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:40:30 -0600

When Josh, Curtis, Karl and I founded the Blue about a year and a half ago, we never would have imagined that we would have risen so quickly in the Texas blog community. We've got all of you to thank for the success we've seen and hope to continue to see long into the future.

We've gotten a lot of positive comments on the changes we've been making to the Blue since its inception. We've made a clearer distinction between our news blogging and our long-form articles and research, and thanks to that have been able to bring you the best in progressive local, state and federal political news quickly and succinctly. We've gotten our Who's Blue? interview podcast up on iTunes for you iPod and Internet audio junkies out there. And our feature articles have been cited everywhere from local papers to the Washington Post and the Nation, and in numerous other media in between.

But we're not about to rest on our laurels. We're soon going to be launching our newly redesigned site, which will make all our breaking news and analysis even easier for you to access. We're going to be bringing you more audio, getting more in-depth into salient political issues across the state. And, of course, there will be some other major new additions as we get further into the year that we're keeping up our sleeves for now.

We've also made some administrative changes. I'm the Editor in Chief of the Texas Blue; Josh has stepped down and will stay with us as Senior Editor, and of course Patrick McLeod will continue as our Contributing Editor. Our phone number has also changed, which will likely make the folks who no longer have to call us long-distance from Austin very happy. You can check our masthead for the details.

Thanks, everyone, for sticking with us over our time here at the Blue. We'll bring you much more as time goes on, and hope to be your leading source for progressive Texas and national news and opinion for a long time to come.

Thanks for reading.

George Nassar
Editor in Chief

A Strategic Retreat Into Scholarship

Josh Berthume — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:14:14 -0600

There are some big changes coming both for the Texas Blue and for yours truly.

When the Texas Blue launched in January of 2007, I had just finished my first semester of graduate school at the University of North Texas. In the time since then I have been almost entirely consumed with those two things - the Texas Blue and my research. I have watched with intense pride as the Texas Blue has grown and as we developed what I consider to be a formidable body of work. With pretty much every other available moment, I was working hard on my education, studying the very interesting (and often depressing) subject of transnational terrorism.

Now, a year and a half later, I am deep into my thesis and other research that I'm very excited about. I view my scholarly work and the career I'm hoping to apply it to as a way of serving my country, and I could not be more excited about the opportunities I've been presented with to do that very thing.

I've also come to a point where my role at the Texas Blue must change, as I am ready to take off in search of new challenges and pursuits.

The Texas Blue has been many things to me. It has been a formative experience for me as a writer. It has been an incredible opportunity to meet extraordinary person after extraordinary person. And it has provided me with the opportunity to cover and comment on some of the most historic political events I am likely to see in my lifetime. I feel as if my work here has allowed me to be a part of history, and I am enormously grateful for it.

I suppose in a way I also view the act of writing about politics as a patriotic pursuit. A free and independent press, freedom of speech, and the potential for government to do good works are things I believe in viscerally. To participate in the conversation about those vital issues (as well as electoral politics in general, policy, and - if we're being at all honest here - the regular and dependable wisecracks) has been a wonderful experience, as it always has been for me as long as I've written about politics. To do so in an editorial role while working among so many richly talented people has been an honor.

I plan to continue writing about politics and contributing to the Texas Blue, but my role will change significantly from what it has been in the past, to that of Senior Editor. Executive Editor George Nassar will be taking over as Editor-in-Chief. His work and his insight have been just as much of a foundation for the Texas Blue as anything I've done, and I have every confidence that I am leaving you in good, capable hands.

So, in closing: thanks for reading. I encourage you to stick around, and to tell your friends about what we're doing here. Did I mention that we're taking part in historic politics every day of this election?

A long time ago, while preparing some materials for podcast sound tests, I wrote that 'the chronicling is important.' On the other end of this, I still believe that. I hope you do, too.

Denton, Texas
July 2008

The Experiment Continues to Illuminate

Joe Jaworski — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:00:00 -0600

Today, we mark 232 years since our nation declared its independence and launched the greatest experiment in democracy the world has ever known.

That experiment continues to illuminate. The Founders were revolutionaries – and we should always think of them so – who designed our government to be an institution answerable to the American people. Our government works because regular men and women stand for election among their peers who, by their vote, grant the ultimate consent to be governed. No matter the great change that has taken place since 1776, our government was designed to survive “politics” because American citizens are able to control their own course.

The mood is revolutionary again because - for the first time in over fifty years - whoever is elected President will be “new” to the White House. Not since Eisenhower’s 1952 election over Stevenson have we witnessed a campaign without the President or his Vice President seeking the office. And since no incumbent is defending the past four years, the 2008 election cycle is about demanding an honest assessment of our condition and finding a new way forward. We’ll find that way forward by voting our conscience.

I take my kids to vote with me because the citizen’s act of voting is the trademark American experience. I’m asking you today to take stock of your vital role as a Texan and an American, and reflect on your commitment to making our democracy work. We’ll have an opportunity to vote in November 2008 in a life changing election for several offices, and each of us has a duty to cast an informed vote. We’ll be voting for office holders who decide matters vital to our family’s well being. While the politicians and special interests hope for minimal scrutiny from the public, and they expect most people to be “tuned out” until just before the November 4, cycle, it’s July 4 and we have four months until election-day. We have the opportunity to learn who the candidates are, study their issues and ask questions. We can afford to be casually indifferent about a few things in life, but casting an educated vote is a vital civic challenge we ought to accept given what’s at stake: the robustness of our economy, the quality of our foreign relations, and – clearly the most important issue - our domestic investment in our next generation’s health, education and welfare. Today’s vote determines our future. We love our children and grandchildren; let’s remember that when we vote.

Amid the many family picnics, fireworks displays, and community parades, let’s take a moment to reflect on the enormity of our American experience and consider the heroes and generations whose shoulders we stand upon. Our commitment this Independence Day is to participate and defend the democratic ideal committed to us by the Founders and the Americans who followed.

Joe Jaworski served as Galveston Mayor Pro-tem and is currently running for the Texas Senate in District 11.

(Voluntarily) Moving Texas Forward

Josh Berthume — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:21:55 -0600

The 2008 TDP State Convention was not what I expected. The possibility existed for a massive Jets vs. Sharks standoff, a large rumble between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters that could go on for days in contentious protracted parliamentary procedure.

I halfway expected this kind of battle despite knowing what my own eyes have seen throughout the primary process here in Texas, that even though people are passionate about which candidate they would prefer to have as the next leader of the free world, Democrats generally pack it in and get along with other Democrats when the rubber meets the road.

Sure, there were some challenges to the state delegation. There were some county caucuses that ran late and had problems. The gigantic influx of new people was never going to be a totally smooth transition. However, if there were significantly weak points in the infrastructure of the Texas Democratic Party, this is where it all would have buckled. Instead, the infrastructure survived and was reinforced by all the new blood. The infrastructure and the staff of the TDP ably managed a presidential debate and a primary and caucus in short order, so although I expected there might be some struggles between the two presidential preference camps during the state convention, I expected the organization to be completely equipped to handle a huge legion of delegates. I knew we were in for something extraordinary when I asked the volunteers working the convention center about crowd size, and I was told that 15,000 chairs were out and they were almost positive that wouldn't be enough.

My initial thoughts on how the convention would go were no doubt the result of too much cable news. In some cases, the media coverage of the 2008 Democratic primary process in Texas would have you believe that the infrastructural success was secondary to anecdotal, incidental frustration. Further, the coverage of the primary at large did many Clinton supporters the disservice of characterizing them as generally intractable zealots who, when faced with the prospect of an Obama candidacy, would burn the earth and either stay home or vote for John McCain. By and large this is not true. The convention showed the capacity of grassroots Democrats to move into the 2008 election cycle as a united front.

The national media coverage of the presidential primary was myopically focused on the potential divisiveness between the two opposing camps that they imagined had emerged from within the Democratic Party, leaving little room for anyone to posit that maybe - just maybe - the Democratic Party could survive a primary process which brought to it millions of new voters and astronomical fundraising totals while the Republican Party struggled to get off the ropes, losing three special elections for House seats in Republican districts along the way. The prevailing reportage has circulated doubt that the Democratic Party could survive the rigors of its own ascendancy, and I've never been quite sure why.

This is not to say that Austin was all campfires and sing-alongs. I saw the occasional shirt that promised a feisty battle, saying "ONLY Hillary Gets My Vote." A ruckus was raised to get Clinton's speech piped to the floor. The occasional temper flared on both sides for various reasons. For the most part, however, people engaged in the weekend's process and no major confrontations occurred.

Politics is notorious for requiring on-the-job training. The learning curve for any job or grassroots gig in politics has two distinct characteristics. It is A) almost vertical, and B) very short. You won't have a mastery of Making the Big Money Ask or Robert's Rules of Order immediately, but it does mean that the bare basics of almost everything - even convention politics - can be understood by most eager participants after a single iteration.

So when TDP Chairman Boyd Richie asked the first-time delegates to stand and be recognized, that most of the crowd stood up and got rowdy should have been a plain indicator that the convention's official business would take a while. Also adding to the time factor was the high level of interest in further commitment: most of the delegates to the state convention were people new to the process, and many of them wanted to be delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The selection of national delegates is always a hotly contested, drawn-out process, so when you expand the population the only reasonable expectation is that everything will take more time.

Many of the long Senate District meetings had to reconvene after the speeches by senatorial candidate Rick Noriega, Chelsea Clinton, and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. One would think that this much parliamentary procedure would have turned many new people off to convention politics forever, and perhaps even driven them away from the Cities of Man entirely. This was not the case. Perhaps they'd been seasoned by their caucus experience, and perhaps their own personal cost-benefit analyses placed a high premium on participation. Most of them returned for the second sessions and some, like in Senate District 14, even stuck around until 4:00 AM to finish electing national delegates.

The most telling moment of the convention came during Clinton's concession speech. Throughout the convention, competing chants of "O-ba-ma" and "Hil-la-ry" would occasionally flare up but there wasn't really a nasty spirit behind them. People were excited about the candidate they'd chosen and were voicing it, rather than trying to minimize those that supported someone else. Soon after Clinton officially conceded and implored her supporters to work hard for Obama, a few chants rose up, but they were immediately replaced by a louder chant: "United We Stand." The entire hall got to its feet and it was arguably the loudest thing they did the entire convention. I thought it might be a fluke, but it lasted several minutes, with smiles and a few tears and clapping along.

As a delegate, I was overwhelmed to see it. As a progressive journalist, it confirmed something: as the Texas Democratic Party prepares for November, being a collective part of history and sharing Democratic ideals may be all the glue its members - new and old alike - need to stick together.

(Originally published by Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report. Reproduced with permission.)

Wendy Davis Gets Good News in SD 10

George Nassar — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:29:42 -0600

We've been tracking the campaign of Wendy Davis for state senator in District 10 pretty closely here at the Blue. Some recent polling data — some reliable, some not so much, but all of it good news — has come out that should have incumbent Senator Kim Brimer sweating over his seat.

We'll start with the polling numbers released by the Davis campaign just yesterday. They ran a poll through the national firm BPN that had Brimer at 39% to Davis' 35% with a 4.9% margin of error. The Brimer campaign can't be happy that an incumbent Senator is already polling at a statistical tie with his opponent nearly half a year prior to the election — particularly when his numbers have nowhere to go but down the more that word gets out about his "rent-to-own" scheme (PDF). Further, 59% of Brimer's voting constituents hadn't heard of him, and only 25% thought he deserved to be reelected.

The release numbers echo the polling done by the Lone Star Project late last year that had his re-elect numbers at 27.4% and his name ID at 50.3% — and that was after being identified in that poll as "state Senator Kim Brimer."

The other set of good news unfortunately takes a little more digging. That's because it's from a poll by Texas Poll Watch (subscription required), a very new Texas-based polling outfit that's been taking some licks for below-par polling. The poll they released yesterday was, sadly, no different.

The poll had a sample size of 466, for a margin of error of 4.54%, and showed Kim Brimer at 44.27% and Wendy Davis at 35.35% — barely within the margin of error. Unfortunately, the crosstabs show some serious sampling error in the raw data. In a district that is nearly one quarter Hispanic, the calling pool was just over 9% Hispanic, and the sample itself was barely over 5% Hispanic — that's 24 Hispanics in a sample of 466 respondents. Female respondents also outnumbered male respondents by a factor of nearly 2 to 1.

Texas Poll Watch tried to compensate for this by weighing the responses back so they'd be more representative of their original, more balanced proportions in their calling pool (52.8% female to 47.2% male, 9.15% Hispanic). And that's where they hit their statistical snag.

Because male Hispanics were the least represented, they got by far the highest scaling factor at nearly 300% — each of their responses effectively counted for three. And 50% more Hispanic males surveyed voted for Brimer than for Davis — because Brimer got three votes, and Davis two. The total size of the male Hispanic sample was 7. You can imagine the sky-high margin of error on a 7-person sample. And the huge scaling factor multiplies that error dramatically going into their final tally. Non-Hispanic males, which also broke in favor of Brimer, got the second biggest bump at about 30%. Hispanic females (sample size of 17 here) got a 27% bump, and non-Hispanic females got docked about 25%. As you can imagine, the latter favored Davis.

A much more accurate result would have come from combining the Hispanic and non-Hispanic polling numbers and scaling only based on that criterion, cutting the margin of error we got with the male Hispanics by over half while making the scaling factor smaller. Unsurprisingly, when that is done the numbers change dramatically — and interestingly, they mirror the campaign's numbers much more closely, with Brimer at 42.7% and Davis at 37.7%.* This is also nearly identical to the result Texas Poll Watch would've gotten if they didn't scale the numbers at all — the poll without "massaged" numbers resulted in Brimer getting 43.1% to Davis' 37.1%. Both sets of numbers, of course, are well within the margin of error and point to a very competitive race in the district.

So it takes a little digging to get an accurate read from Texas Poll Watch's numbers — but when you do, it is clear from both their polling and the campaign's that Kim Brimer is an incumbent basically unknown by his constituents and unpopular with the ones that do know him, polling at a statistical dead heat with his challenger. Add to that a scandal that may well chase him all the way down to the general election, and you have a recipe for a Democratic flip brewing in SD 10.

* It should be noted that while combining the Hispanic polling numbers, as I did above, does drop the margin of error dramatically — but at 24 people within a sample size of 466, it remains quite high. That may be the "best attempt" at correcting for the huge sampling error, but there is only so much that can be done with so small a sampling of Hispanics. There is no substitute for an appropriately large sample set, and it is legitimate to argue that the corrected numbers may well be less accurate than the raw polling. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.