Deadline to register to vote in Texas primaries today

[RandomVariable]

Pretty much just a random event but some interesting stuff related to this primary, which is March 4th.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...g-on-hard-right-groups-in-texas-primaries.ece
By CHRISTY HOPPE
Austin Bureau
[email protected]
Published: 04 January 2014 11:22 PM
Updated: 05 January 2014 12:02 AM

...
The Texas Future Business Alliance — a mix of 10 major business groups, including the chemical industry, bankers, builders and contractors — is sending out mailers and providing other support on behalf of GOP candidates who have supported water infrastructure development, highway construction and education spending.

Many of the incumbents have been pilloried as big government spenders and liberals by fiscal hawk groups.

The movement mirrors the schism happening nationally between hard right and establishment Republicans. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently pledged $50 million to back pro-business Republicans in U.S. Senate primaries and fight tea party insurgents. Republican leaders, such as House Speaker John Boehner, have castigated hard right groups, accusing them of wanting contributions more than solutions.

“It’s part of the same trend you’re seeing nationally. A lot of the business community is tired of people who don’t want to govern,” said a person involved in the Texas Future Business Alliance, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The group isn’t talking about its efforts. Spokesman David Polyansky, who has worked on campaigns for Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee, said the business alliance aims to “recognize leaders dedicated to keeping Texas as the best state in the nation for business development and job growth.”

Insiders won’t say how much they are investing, but they describe it as the first major stirrings of business interests in GOP primaries. The first public report on its political spending won’t be available until mid-January.
...

Sullivan said he did not see the business interest as a battle against tea party groups. Instead, it’s about a divide that’s been in the Republican Party for a long time, he said.

True fiscal conservatives are battling those who want “to maintain the status quo so that the moneyed interests can continue to feed at the trough with very little accountability,” Sullivan said.

Others see a fight that developed over willingness to invest in economic development projects. In Texas, that means a disagreement over infrastructure.

During last year’s legislative sessions, lawmakers refused to tap the $8 billion in the state’s rainy day fund to help pay for water projects in the drought-plagued state or help relieve crumbling and traffic-clogged highways.

The Republican-dominated Legislature was largely swayed by anti-tax and fiscal hawk groups that opposed increasing the 22-year-old gas tax or fees or diverting some money from the rainy day fund to pay for highways and water projects.

Ultimately, lawmakers punted the decision to voters, who in November overwhelmingly voted to spend $2 billion from the rainy day fund for water projects. Next November, voters will decide whether to divert about $900 million a year to pay for highways. Transportation advocates still complain that billions more are needed.
...
Lawmakers who worked to pay for water, education and highways found themselves tarred by Sullivan and other fiscal hawks, said Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business.
...
“The majority of members of the Legislature are today solid conservatives. And the idea that their favoring investments in water and roads somehow makes them not conservative is ridiculous on its face,” he said.

Empower Texans and some tea party groups opposed the water funding proposal, but voters statewide backed it almost 3-1, Hammond noted.
...
The business community is concerned that the Legislature, pushed by tea party groups, “is swinging too far” against government and is unwilling to make even sensible, modest investments.

As for corporate contracts, Hammond said, the state has to pay someone to build highways.

“If you cannot advocate for more roads when they’re desperately needed without being accused of being in the pocket of road builders, then there’s no room for honest debate,” Hammond said.

Sullivan countered that fiscal hawks do not oppose investments. “That’s ridiculous,” he said. But they want the money spent carefully, and they are not convinced that is happening.

Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, is one of about two dozen Republicans the business alliance is backing so far.

He said its support is vital to balance groups “that set themselves up as judge, jury an executioner of all things conservative,” Keffer said.

“They just want to purify the party over and over again where they have only their people doing what they say all the time. That to me is just power, and it’s just dangerous for our future,” Keffer said.
...
“I’m very glad the business group is standing up,” Keffer said. “It’s about time.”

I'll add some more if I find anything interesting.

 

[House]

If you're of the belief that the only parties involved in elections are Democrat & Republican, do everyone a favor and don't bother registering.

 

[RandomVariable]

If you're of the belief that the only parties involved in elections are Democrat & Republican, do everyone a favor and don't bother registering.

I will keep an eye out for anything about third, or forth, party candidates. GOP seems to be the story of the day however.

 

[House]

If you're of the belief that the only parties involved in elections are Democrat & Republican, do everyone a favor and don't bother registering.

I will keep an eye out for anything about third, or forth, party candidates. GOP seems to be the story of the day however.

My post was using "you" as a general reference, not as a direct address.

 

[RandomVariable]

Conservatives feel brunt of well-funded intraparty attacks in primaries | The Journal Gazette
Washington Post
Last updated: February 2, 2014 3:12 a.m.

WASHINGTON –
...
The attacks are not the work of McConnell’s conservative primary challenger. Instead, they are coming from independent groups that want to unseat him and are benefitting from a new system of unlimited contributions ushered in by the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Conservatives cheered that decision, described at the time by McConnell as a “First Amendment triumph.” But, as McConnell’s experience now illustrates, the loosened rules are causing political headaches for the GOP – allowing tea party groups to bring more financial firepower to challenges against Republican incumbents. Now, party leaders struggling to unify the warring wings in time to retake the Senate this year and lay a foundation for the 2016 presidential race are instead contending with a well-financed insurgency.

Republicans are now far more likely than Democrats to field attacks by independent groups in their primaries. In 2012, super PACs and nonprofit groups reported spending nearly $36 million in GOP congressional primaries, compared with less than $10 million in congressional Democratic primaries, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign finance records.
...
“Right now, the Republicans all have their cannons aimed at each other,” said Katon Dawson, a former South Carolina GOP chairman who is heading a new group, the West Main Street Values PAC, to help Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., fend off challenges from four primary opponents, “and the Democrats are getting a free ride.”

The 2014 battle lines are being drawn by powerhouses such as the Club for Growth, which launched a “Primary My Congressman” effort last year to take on centrist Republicans. The organization is already backing challengers to eight-term Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and may engage in more primaries.
...
In Kentucky, the organization has already devoted nearly $1 million to help Matt Bevin, the conservative candidate challenging McConnell in the primary. More than half of that amount has gone to ads and mailers. A bruising TV spot it ran in the state in November charged that McConnell “helped Barack Obama and Harry Reid fund Obamacare.” The group has also given a large share of its funds directly to Bevin’s campaign.
...
In January, the Washington-based tea party organization FreedomWorks announced its endorsement of Bevin, saying it planned to spend at least $500,000 on get-out-the-vote efforts on his behalf. Matt Kibbe, the group’s president, said it will jump into more races in the coming weeks.

Conservative activists say they are making the party stronger, helping elect figures such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

“If you look at our track record, we’ve successfully repopulated the Republican Party with some pretty compelling young leaders,” Kibbe said.

The fierce infighting has not prompted a widespread reassessment among Republicans about the merits of loosening campaign finance rules.

Jesse Benton, McConnell’s campaign manager, said the senator is an “unapologetic champion of the First Amendment,” and “if that means that a byproduct is that he has to take a little extra heat, he’s going to do it.”
...
In several key races, the tea party groups have not yet wielded the resources of Republican incumbents and their backers. But the groups have succeeded in forcing incumbents to engage early. By the end of September, McConnell had already dumped nearly $4 million into what is expected to be one of the most expensive Senate races of the cycle. McConnell also faces a strong Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s secretary of state.
...
Centrist GOP groups and industry organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are firing back, laying plans to spend heavily to bolster McConnell and other establishment Republicans. They worry about the losses of tea party candidates in past cycles and the political damage experienced by the party during last year’s government shutdown.
...
Main Street Partnership, a group led by former congressman Steven LaTourette of Ohio, plans to raise $8 million through a super PAC and nonprofit organization to help centrist Republicans such as Simpson, the Idaho congressman.

Donors have been enthusiastic, said Sarah Chamberlain, the group’s chief operating officer. “For the first time, they’re starting to understand that they’re at war, and they have to step up,” she said.

The expanding role of independent groups in campaigns has accelerated the calls by McConnell and other GOP leaders to lift the limits that remain on contributions to the now-weakened national party committees. Individuals cannot give them more than $32,400 a year.

The Supreme Court is considering a case, McCutcheon v. FEC, that could begin to chip away at those caps.

“Because of fundraising restrictions on the political parties, their share of the independent expenditure pie has shrunk dramatically,” said Michael Toner, a Republican campaign finance lawyer. “Outside groups are playing more and more of a role, and that’s empowering the far right.”
...
Conservative groups were among those that embraced the new vehicles. Club for Growth, which spent $10.3 million in the 2008 cycle, poured $23.4 million into races in 2012 – including nearly $17 million through its super PAC Club for Growth Action.

More than $12 million of the money that Club for Growth Action raised in the last cycle came in the form of six- and seven-figure checks from donors such as tech investor Peter Thiel, private equity titan John Childs, New Jersey investor Virginia James and Texas home builder Bob Perry, who each gave at least $1 million, according to campaign finance records.

Perry, who died in April, also gave a $1 million donation last year to the super PAC arm of Senate Conservatives Fund, a sizable chunk of the $9 million the group said it raised in 2013.

Conservative activists said that while they get big checks, one of the most important roles they play is in bundling small donations that go directly to the campaigns of the candidates they are backing.

“The average amount that our donors give to our candidates is just $37,” said Hoskins, of the Senate Conservatives Fund. “Super PACs can certainly raise large amounts from a few donors, but nothing is more powerful than having 10,000 people invest in a candidate.”

 

[RandomVariable]

If you're of the belief that the only parties involved in elections are Democrat & Republican, do everyone a favor and don't bother registering.

I will keep an eye out for anything about third, or forth, party candidates. GOP seems to be the story of the day however.

My post was using "you" as a general reference, not as a direct address.

Oh I know. You bring up a good point. So far I have not seen a single word about third party candidates. The numbers in post I just made might explain some of that.

 

[RandomVariable]

I will keep an eye out for anything about third, or forth, party candidates. GOP seems to be the story of the day however.

My post was using "you" as a general reference, not as a direct address.

Oh I know. You bring up a good point. So far I have not seen a single word about third party candidates. The numbers in post I just made might explain some of that.

Here you go House, this one is for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/opinion/perverse-primaries.html?_r=0

OBSERVERS of our polarized democracy often blame party primaries for producing some of our most extreme politicians. It’s well known that the most vociferous and partisan activists have a disproportionate influence in primaries.

Less well known is this: 44 states have “sore loser” laws of one form or another. These laws effectively block a candidate who fails to win a party primary from appearing on the general election ballot, as either an independent or as the nominee of another party.

These laws deprive voters of a full array of choices. They are arguably even more insidious than partisan redistricting, which affects House races but not Senate ones.

Here’s an example. In the 2012 Republican Senate primary in Texas, David Dewhurst, the relatively moderate lieutenant governor, won 46 percent of the vote, while the Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, running an aggressively conservative campaign, won only 33 percent. In the primary runoff, Mr. Cruz beat Mr. Dewhurst — but with just 630,000 Republican votes, in a state of 26 million people.

Why didn’t the popular Mr. Dewhurst, a proven vote-getter, simply challenge Mr. Cruz in the general election, when all Texans could vote? Under Texas’ sore loser law, once Mr. Dewhurst lost the primary, he was no longer eligible to have his name on the ballot in November. Given that Texas is virtually a one-party state, Mr. Cruz’s relatively small vote total, combined with the sore-loser law, was all he needed to go to Washington and then orchestrate a shutdown of the federal government.

And Mr. Cruz’s victory was a model of pure democracy compared to what happened in Utah two years earlier.

There, Republicans begin the nominating process with a convention of party activists. In the first round of voting for a Senate nominee, in 2010, the incumbent, Robert Bennett, finished third, about a hundred votes behind a conservative activist, Mike Lee. The top three finishers then went to a second round; again, Mr. Bennett came in third, this time trailing Mr. Lee by 320 votes. Mr. Bennett was eliminated and was not eligible to participate in the subsequent runoff primary, which Mr. Lee won.

There were a mere 3,500 people at this convention. Mr. Bennett would almost certainly have won a vote in which all Utah voters had been able to participate: the state’s sore-loser law meant that 320 party activists effectively made a decision on behalf of the three million people of Utah.

Of course, sometimes victory by extremists backfires in the general election, particularly in states that are not dominated by one party (as Texas and Utah are). In 2010, Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, a respected moderate, lost a low-turnout Republican primary to Christine O’Donnell, who in turn went down in defeat in the general election over questions about her educational credentials, her ignorance of the Constitution and her fondness for witchcraft.

There is a better way. In 2006, liberal Democrats were determined to end the career of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (their party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2000) over his support for the Iraq war. He lost to Ned Lamont in a primary. But Connecticut is one of three states that have partisan primaries or caucuses, but no sore-loser law (Iowa and New York are the others). Mr. Lieberman was thus able to run — and win — in the general election, as an independent.

And in California, Louisiana and Washington, the primary election is open to candidates of any party, and the top two finishers advance to the general election, so parties cannot use election law to winnow the field.

Advocates of open primaries argue that letting all voters choose among all the candidates, regardless of party, forces candidates to make a broader appeal, resulting in more moderate or centrist candidates. The political scientists Barry C. Burden, Bradley Jones and Michael S. Kang found that in states with sore-loser laws, congressional candidates were more ideologically distant from one another — that is, more polarized — than in states without them.

That may well be a sufficient reason for reformers to seek the repeal of sore-loser laws, but in my view, it’s not the most important reason. For one thing, the political “center” is not always the right place to be (it certainly wasn’t in the pursuit of civil rights and women’s rights, or on issues like slavery and child labor). Compassion toward candidates who find their political prospects cut short is also of little interest to me.

What matters is the restoration of American democracy: giving voters the fullest range of choices when it comes to selecting their leaders. Under sore-loser laws, the real loser is the voters.

"Mickey Edwards, a vice president at the Aspen Institute and a Republican representative from Oklahoma from 1977 to 1993, is the author of “The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans.”"

 

[RandomVariable]

Ohio's major parties fend off 2014 primaries - MariettaTimes.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Ohio, Community Information - The Marietta Times

Ohio's Republican and Democratic gubernatorial front-runners are headed toward a primary-free showdown, ending a shakeout marked by complaints that both major parties got too aggressive in pushing out challengers.

The Democrats had a primary looming until last Friday, when Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune (pohr-TOON') quietly withdrew his late bid against Cuyahoga (ky-uh-HOH'-guh) County Executive Ed FitzGerald.

The Republican primary field was cleared for GOP Gov. John Kasich (KAY'-sik) earlier in January. That's when tea party favorite Ted Stevenot (STEE'-veh-noh) left the race less than a week after joining it. Tea party activists who don't consider Kasich conservative enough talked about other possible candidates, but none moved forward.

Portune and Stevenot said they would have liked to take their campaigns farther, but party pressure got in the way.

 

[RandomVariable]

The Day - Let unaffiliated voters take part in primaries | News from southeastern Connecticut

Lowell Weicker, at 82, is an elder statesman without a party who nevertheless believes Connecticut is floundering under one party rule and would like to see the two-party system revitalized and restored in the state.

He thinks the Republican Party could enjoy a comeback if it allowed unaffiliated voters like him and about 872,000 others to vote in primary elections. We agree and not just for the Republican Party.

Now, many Republicans are loath to take advice from Mr. Weicker, who left the party to run as a third-party candidate for governor in 1990 and defeated the Republican and Democratic candidates in that election. But he had a long and distinguished career in a once successful Connecticut Republican Party as a member of the House and three-term U.S. senator. He is, in fact, the only Connecticut Republican elected to the U.S. Senate in the past 50 years.

The numbers tell the story: 430,584 registered Republicans, 768,176 registered Democrats and the previously noted 872,839 citizens who prefer not to ally themselves with either party, a fact that should worry both parties.

There hasn't been a Republican elected to a statewide office since 2006. Both U.S. senators are Democrats, as are the five House members. The governor is a Democrat, the holders of all the constitutional offices in state government, like treasurer, secretary of the state and attorney general, are Democrats and Democrats hold a majority in both houses of the legislature.

In the 2012 presidential election, the wealthiest suburban communities and the smallest rural towns in Connecticut voted Republican. Mitt Romney won only one county, the largely small town, affluent Litchfield County; the other five were carried by President Obama by wide margins.

Mr. Weicker would say being exclusionary has been the biggest mistake and opening party deliberations to the unaffiliated would also mean welcoming "minorities, gays, women, unions and urban poor." He also believes that allowing a voter to help select a candidate, also encourages him or her to vote for that candidate in the general election.

As this newspaper pointed out in endorsing open primaries, "the logic behind the closed primary process is flawed." The flaw is in the view that letting in unaffiliated voters would provide them with one less incentive to join the already weakened parties.

Both of them have been weakened by being controlled by their most fervent followers, whether from the left for the Democrats or the right for Republicans.

This orthodoxy can result in the nomination of extremists, more so in the Republican Party where the emergence of the tea party has discouraged those with more moderate - and electable - views than in the broader-based Democratic Party. The open primary would enlarge both party bases.

If one party changes its rules to allow unaffiliated voters to take part in primaries, the other would certainly be forced to follow suit and there's a considerable advantage to the party that does it first.

But it won't be easy. The party's state central committee must first give its approval and then the state party's endorsement must be upheld by delegates to the nominating conventions. This means opening party primaries is in the hands of party insiders and true believers.

There is, however, one encouraging sign. When Mr. Weicker brought up the open primary in an interview with the Hearst newspapers in January, Republican State Chairman Jerry Labriola said, "Lowell is right that our candidates must appeal not only to our base but to unaffiliated voters and disaffected Democrats." Mr. Labriola admitted he has occasionally sought Mr. Weicker's advice and said an open primary "has merit."

What's encouraging is not just Mr. Labriola willingness to consider the open primary but also the admission by a Connecticut Republican state chairman that he occasionally seeks the counsel of Mr. Weicker.

OK, OK, House, you've made your point. Make it stop.