The Houston Chronicle editorial endorsing Beto O'Rourke for US Senate in his race against incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz is here. Money paragraph:
With eyes clear but certainly not starry, we enthusiastically endorse Beto O'Rourke for U.S. Senate. The West Texas congressman's command of issues that matter to this state, his unaffected eloquence and his eagerness to reach out to all Texans make him one of the most impressive candidates this editorial board has encountered in many years. Despite the long odds he faces--pollster nonpareil Nate Silver gives O'Rourke a 20 percent chance of winning--a "Beto" victory would be good for Texas, not only because of his skills, both personal and political, but also because of the manifest inadequacies of the man he would replace.
The Chronicle does not qualify as a liberal rag; it never passed up a chance to endorse a Bush for president, and six years ago, notwithstanding "inadequacies" already "manifest" to the part of the population with a detectable EEK, it endorsed Cruz for Senate. I give the editorialists credit, however, for reprising one of the all-time great quotes relating to the wretchedness of Ted Cruz:
"Lucifer in the flesh," is how Republican former House Speaker John Boehner described Cruz, adding: "I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life."
I can picture Boehner pushing aside his whiskey glass and tapping the ash off his cigarette before making this heartfelt pronouncement. I miss him. His replacement doesn't smoke, lies about how fast he ran a marathon, probably doesn't drink, except perhaps the occasional Mich Ultra to be sociable, and might be as despicable as Cruz, though Speaker Ryan arguably lacks the degree of smarmy self-regard that seems to have aroused Boehner's muse.
Regarding O'Rourke, I tend to be skeptical of the newest fashions, but it's not only the editors of the Houston Chronicle who love him and some say there is wisdom in crowds. Here he is with Bill Maher. With Colbert. (He's a youtube favorite.) I sort of like that once when he was young he drove after having too much to drink. Ted Cruz, calculating the possible consequences for his future political career, would have called a cab, or just stayed home.
Speaking of pollster nonpareil Nate Silver, his 538 site has a feature that allows you to plug in any race for House or Senate to get his diagnostics, including the chance, to the tenth of a percent (which seems ridiculous), that this or that candidate wins. A time ago, I set out eight races, the outcomes of which I thought would determine whether the Rs or the Ds attained a Senate majority. Here they are again, listed with the name of the Democratic candidate and Silver's current estimation of her (or his) chances for victory.
Florida--Bill Nelson (63.6%)
Tennessee--Phil Bredeson (24.4%)
Indiana--Joe Donnelly (84.8%)
Texas--O'Rourke (21.5%)
Missouri--Claire McCaskill (58.9%)
North Dakota--Heidi Heitkamp (34.4%)
Arizona--Kyrsten Sinema (62.7%)
Nevada--Jacky Rosen (44.4%)
I thought that to win the majority Dems likely needed to prevail in six of these eight races, which was always going to be hard. Look at the terrain. Trump carried all but Nevada, which he lost very narrowly, and he won Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota by gaping margins. This actually isn't looking too bad for the blue side--a year ago, it would have been more than any Democrat dared hope for. On the House side, Silver is currently projecting a mean gain of 39 seats for the Dems, 16 more than needed for a majority.
Someone, I don't remember who, has said that as Election Day approaches Democrats tend to be bedwetters. We're like the football player who imagines the guy he's supposed to block must be 400 pounds of twisted steel, with the footwork of Sugar Ray Robinson. Actually, though, it's just Trump and his hang-dog gang of grifters and dolts. Stay calm and vote.
Comments