Simon Rosenberg and the NDN Team took some time out last week from packing their bags, perfecting their Twitter strategies and finishing up last-minutes additions to our jam-packed Denver schedule to talk to the press. We weighed in on topics ranging from what we can expect the differences to be between Denver and St. Paul to U.S. Barack Obama's selection of fellow U.S. Sen. Joe Biden as his Veep choice to Chairman Dean's 50-state strategy.
Check out what Simon and NDN have to say below, last week, and now, here in Denver:
Reuter's John Whitesides checked in with Simon about showtime, aka the national party conventions.
The Financial Times' Ed Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner pondered the likley differences between the conventions in Denver and St. Paul.
The San Francisco Chronicle's Matt Stannard talked to Simon about the Obama campaign's smart call on the 3 a.m. text.
Following the text received around the world, Simon told Reuter's Whitesides that Biden is a "fighter."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman weighed in on the conventions -- "...the Olympics of political messaging."
The Hill's Alex Bolton took a look at the immigration issue and how it might play out this November in the battleground states.
Congressional Quarterly's Marie Horrigan focused on Chairman Dean's 50-state strategy and wonders if it will pay off.
Here in Denver, we've seen reporter or two:
Salon.com quoted Simon today following our kick-off public event, Immigration and the Next Administration.
The DNC also live blogged the forum, moderated by NDN Vice President for Hispanic Programs, Andres Ramirez.
In today's New York Times Week in Review, Bill Keller has a thoughtful look at recent events in China and Russia, and what might be called the end of the end of history. I thought Fareed Zakaria captured this sentiment best in his recent book when he described this new era of geopolitics with a simple powerful phrase - Americans are witnessing what he calls "the rise of the rest."
Perhaps after eight years of talk of Basra, Kabul and tax cuts, we will look back at this month as the month that Rip Van Winkle-like Americans woke from their conservative-induced slumber and began to see the 21st century as it is, not as portrayed by the Rovian/Chenesian fantasy of the last eight years.
Perhaps in no area is this new pragmatism more important than on what it means for our people here at home. The next President faces one domestic challenge more important than all the others - how to get wages and incomes rising again.
For most of the Bush era, the American economy performed well by traditional metrics. GDP, productivity, corporate profits and the stock market were strong. But despite this period of growth and strong productivity gains, the typical American family saw its annual income drop by about a $1,000 a year and the rate at which new jobs were created has been slower than any other recovery since the Depression. According to the laws of economics, it was not supposed to be possible to see robust growth in GDP and productivity and see incomes drop. In fact. it has never happened before in the modern economic history of the United States.
Every day Americans figured all this out long before coastal elites did. Our 2007 analysis of public opinion and the 2006 exit polls shows that it was the economy that drove the GOP from office much more than the war. As has been reported in many places, the American people are more unhappy with the state of the nation than anytime since the 1930s. The American people have understood for years that the people running their government has not turned their attention to the most important challenge they face in their own lives - making ends meet in a much more competitive globalized world. And small-bore solutions to this enormous challenge - off shore drilling, children's health insurance, raising the minimum wage, middle class tax cuts - will be treated as they have been treated by the American people these last few years - "that's nice, but where is the long-term, sustained, comprehensive plan big enough to actually improve our lives and the lives of our families?"
Led by Dr. Rob Shapiro, figuring all this out has been the primary focus of NDN's Globalization Initiative these last four years. I won't repeat the major recommendations from our project now, but offer three general observations:
1) It is critical that our political leaders explain to the American people that if we want to maintain our place in the world, and our standard of living, that we will have to "try harder." The rest of the world is rising, catching up, learning our game - as was the goal of foreign policy these last 60 years - and no longer can be seen as characters from an Indiana Jones movie. To compete in this world, this emerging world of the 21st century, we will have do more; invest more; modernize our infrastructure; lessen our dependence on expensive and dirty energy sources; make pensions and health care more portable and accessible; do more to equip our workers and kids with the modern skills they need to compete; accelerate innovation and the formation of "new businesses;" make our global economic liberalization strategies smarter and more modern...this new era must be seen as one of "investment" in a better future, and calls for an anarchronistic politics of austerity must be rejected....
2) This economic and public opinion dynamic developed before the recent slowdown, credit crunch, housing crisis and energy/commodity price surge, and thus will not be solved by focusing on these recent developments in the economy. Because incomes went down during a period of sustained growth, the solutions offered by our leaders in the next few years must recognize that the traditional way we help Americans get ahead - by creating macroeconomic growth - is no longer guarenteed to improve the lives of every day people BECAUSE IT DID NOT WORK SO FAR IN THIS DECADE.
3) Given the enormity of this challenge, we here at NDN hope that helping Americans get ahead in this much more competive world becomes the central focus of the elections this year. In several recent interviews, Senator Obama has said that his three priorities are Iraq, health care and climate change. Not so sure this is the best answer. He needs to be able say that he wants to be judged on whether he can raise Americans' standard of living, and then make doing so the central organizing principle of his campaign and Administration. I think a better response would be "I want to improve the lives of every day Americans who have worked so hard and gotten so little these last few years, and bring the troops home from Iraq." Or something like that.
A risky strategy some might say. For what happens if incomes don't rise? I think we already know the answer to that, as the GOP has shown us in recent years. If the standard of living of Americans don't improve in the next few years, the Democrats should expect to suffer the same fate as the GOP in this decade, and find themselves out of power. Unlike China and Russia, we still are a democracy, and as such, must make the fate of the people of the United States the central focus of our politics...
In the surprise of the 110th Congress, it turns out that the pro-drilling position taken by many Congressional Republicans and their presumptive nominee for President may actually have been – gasp – election year politics. The 'Gang of 10,' a group of five Democrat and five Republican Senators, has offered a compromise proposal that would contain both incentives for energy efficiency provisions and a limited expansion of offshore drilling. Barack Obama has said that he would support such an expansion as part of a broader energy bill, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she may allow a vote as long as a bill includes renewable energy and environmental safeguard provisions, but many Congressional Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are opposed to the bill.
Republicans have used the offshore-drilling issue to paint Democrats as out of touch with ordinary Americans and beholden to environmental groups that oppose any relaxation of the current drilling ban. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican's likely presidential nominee, has made Sen. Obama's opposition to offshore drilling a feature in recent ads critical of his Democratic rival.
But the drilling issue could lose its power as an electoral wedge if both parties agree to the concept put forward by a group of Republicans and Democrats. Their proposal would open additional acreage in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida's western coast to drilling, and also allow Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to "opt in" to drilling off their shores if their legislatures approve.
The plan would also raise billions of dollars for conservation and energy-efficiency programs partly by making oil companies no longer eligible for a manufacturing tax credit and repealing other tax breaks. Some estimates have put the potential savings from such a move at $13 billion over 10 years.
Some conservatives worry that a deal would remove party differences on what they otherwise see as one of the Republicans' best issues for winning over voters in the November election. Conservative radio-show host Rush Limbaugh has accused the Republicans who favor the compromise of giving a "gift" to Sen. Obama and other Democrats seeking election this fall.
Among many Republicans, "there's a desire to not solve this problem" of gridlock over energy policy, said one of the Republicans supporting the compromise, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. Sen. Corker added that "many people in the Republican Party are missing the point that this is a strong pro-[oil] production bill" and that Republican leaders "made a mistake" by not immediately endorsing it.
This proposal epitomizes the 'all of the above' solution that John McCain and his Republican allies in the Senate claim they support – expanding drilling and investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Sadly, only five have actually acted.
McConnell’s line about "objections to the proposal to eliminate the oil companies' eligibility for a tax credit" is part of his growing charade of election year intransigence. The oil industry receives tremendous direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government; meanwhile McConnell refuses to allow for a straight up or down vote for much smaller tax credits on renewables.
McCain, too, has said that he could not support the bill because it "would raise taxes;" he has since changed to a more 'wait and see' approach. For someone running for president on a supposed record of bucking his party on energy policy, this is certainly not the type of proactive leadership one would expect. (Thomas Freidman calls out McCain today for his lack of action on energy and quotes Suntech America President Roger Efird, one of NDN's panelists from our August 1 event on "Energy and the American Way of Life.")
There is only one conclusion to draw: McCain and Republican opposition to this proposal – which should serve as an important bipartisan step toward some sort of action on energy policy – is nothing more than an attempt to maintain a loosening grasp on drilling as a wedge issue in an election year. By refusing to lend his support to this compromise, McCain and his Republican Party owe America an explanation of what energy reform they are actually for, because behind the pretty windmills in McCain’s ads, there’s no substance.
I have to admit I'm a little deflated. Travis beat me to the post when it comes to rotating in on U.S. Sen. John McCain's attack on U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's remark that folks can take every-day measures to help save energy like making sure their tires are properly inflated to improve safety and fuel economy.
Under pressure, McCain and his newly energized Rovian flying monkeys pounced on Obama's remark like gleeful kids on Christmas morning. They couldn't believe the gift they'd just been handed. They started throwing around tricked out tire gauges on the McCain plane and even offered to send donors a gauge if they sent the McCain campaign $25. (Just buy one. It's cheaper).
Well, it looks like McCain's attack on tire inflation may have been way out of alignment. In fact, the roster of pro-inflation allies is very well-balanced: NASCAR, the U.S. Department of Energy (headed by President George W. Bush), Uniroyal and the Rubber Manufacturers Association, Michelin and even the U.S. Government Accountabilty Office, which issued a report last year that found:
Moreover, tires that are not inflated to the appropriate pressure result in a slight decline in fuel economy. The Department of Energy's designated economist on this issue indicated that, of the 130 billion gallons of fuel that the Transportation Research Board (TRB)[Footnote 2] estimated were used in passenger cars and light trucks in 2005, about 1.2 billion gallons were wasted as a result of driving on underinflated tires.
I will spare no one, not even Republicans, not even politicians rumored to be under consideration as a possible vice president to McCain, when it comes to making sure evrything is in balance. Yes, it's true. Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist spoke of the importance of tire inflation back in June at a conference in Florida on climate change. According to a June 26 article in the Los Angeles Times, "Both governors appealed to those with the real power to make change -- average citizens -- to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption."
Incidentally, the Terminator took a hard shot at McCain earlier in his speech, saying that anyone suggesting offshore oil drilling could bring down gas prices was "blowing smoke," according to the report.
Well, looks like McCain just didn't accurately gauge the groundswell of support from the pro-inflationers out there. His own attack has fallen somewhat flat -- he was forced to admit at a town hall meeting yesterday that even Triple AAA supports firm tires. Did I hear a hiss in the crowd, or was that the sound of McCain's message being deflated?
McCain's three-pointer turned out to be a rim shot.
On July 25, I wrote about U.S. Sen. John McCain's newfound ability to raise massive amounts of money from some folks who hadn't been giving him the time of day -- or much money, for that matter -- before he found religion and reversed his long-held position against offshore drilling.
And BOOM! McCain hit a gusher, which I touched on here.
According to a report from The Washington Post:
Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.
McCain and his Republican buddies haven't let up since. They believe they've found their holy grail in convincing the American people -- frustrated and burdened by $4 a gallon gas prices -- that offshore drilling will immediately lower those skyhigh prices. There's just one little problem: it's just not true. McCain has admitted it. Even the American Petroleum Institute has admitted it. So why does McCain keep talking about offshore drilling as the solution to all of our nation's problems?
A few more follow-the-money details have emerged:
In a witty (but all-too-familiar) article in today's Los Angeles Times, reporter Dan Morain writes:
DEPARTMENT OF COINCIDENCES
Oilman greases skids for McCain campaign
Among the donors from John B. Hess' company are an office manager and her husband, who pony up $57,000.
August 5, 2008
On June 10, John B. Hess, a top executive at the oil company with his family name, summoned friends to the 21 Club, a former speakeasy in Manhattan, and delivered $285,000 to John McCain and the Republican National Committee.
A week later, McCain traveled to Texas and announced his support for offshore oil drilling.
Hess Corp. is an East Coast gasoline retailer with major refining and exploration operations, some of which happen to be offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
Hess was one of half a dozen hosts who tapped friends for the maximum $28,500 donation to the GOP. Others included investor Henry Kravis and hedge fund mogul Paul E. Singer.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said there was no link between the money and McCain's stand. "Mr. Hess was fundraising before Sen. McCain made the announcement," he said.
Most Hess donors were company attorneys, vice presidents or, like John Hess, board members. But one, Alice Rocchio, listed her job as office manager, and she gave $28,500, as did her husband, Amtrak foreman Pasquale Rocchio.
The information emerged in a Campaign Money Watch report last week, followed by an item Monday on Talking Points Memo, which wondered how they could afford to give $57,000 to a political campaign. Alice Rocchio told TPM that McCain was her favorite candidate and the money was the Rocchios' to give.
The Rocchios also gave $4,600 in February, when Hess employees -- one of whom listed his occupation as "driver" -- delivered $23,000 to McCain. The couple have not given to any other federal campaign for at least the last decade, according to Federal Election Commission records.
But records suggest that the Rocchios are not without resources. The couple listed an address in Flushing, N.Y., and also have an Arizona home.
And this from the Houston Chronicle:
August 05, 2008
McCain's contributions from energy interests spike
John McCain received prolonged applause from the oil executives who gathered June 17 in Houston to hear the Republican presidential candidate's speech on energy policy.
Now it appears that McCain received something else: Lots of campaign contributions.
John McCain's contributions from energy industry interests happened to spike right around his Houston speech (and a fundraising tour of Texas).
Is it a coincidence, the result of aggressive Texas outreach -- or is it a show of gratitude? Let us know what you think.
Chronicle photo
John McCain greets well-wishers after his June 17 energy speech in Houston.
Here's the list:
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENERGY INTERESTS
DATE.....................AMOUNT
April......................$40,000
May.......................$96,950
June 1-15.............$219,550
June 16-17...........$303,400
June 18-30...........$313,950
For the complete text of McCain's Houston speech, click here.
To read the Houston Chronicle's story on McCain's June 17 speech, click here.
Oh, and there may be just a few more reasons why McCain supports offshore drilling. Maybe it has something to do with all the people who work on or advise his campaign and also lobby for the oil industry? Watch this new ad here:
As readers of this blog are aware, we've been disapointed by John McCain's serial lies and misstatements about the two candidates respective energy policies. These lies popped up in his recent TV ads, which were replaced by a "troop" ad the McCain campaign pulled down after admitting it was untrue.
As Jake points out, the new McCain ad lies again - this time making the case that Barack Obama has called for directly taxing electricity. I'm going to leave it Michael and Jake to tackle in greater detail why this claim is - we have to say it again - just not true and politically irresponsible. Paul Krugman does a good job today in the New York Timesexplaining just how irresponsible the new McCain position on our energy future is.
The McCain campaign has become an incredible and wild disapointment. At one point in time, McCain was the great maverick, challenging the worst politics and policies of this disasterous Bush era. But on issue after issue - immigration, a national economic strategy, torture, climate change, being a straight talker - McCain has gone from responsible challenger of a failed Republican path to an irresponsible and craven champion of a Republican politics that has done so much harm to the national interests of the United States. Inrcreasingly, it will be McCain's embrace of the politics of the Bush and Rove era that will become a central focus of the national campaign.
NDN believes that there are few greater challenges to our national interest than the challenge of high energy prices and climate change. Which is why we've been so aggressive these last few months in this "green" space, and why we are hosting a very important event on Energy and the American Way of Life with U.S. Assistant Senate Majority Leader DickDurbin and other thought leaders later this morning here in DC (for info on how to watch live or attend click here). And look for a paper later this morning from NDN Green Project Director Michael Moynihan on the tremendous promise of solar.
I remain confused about why John McCain would surround himself with Bush people who would always have divided loyalities, torn between buffing up the "legacy" of our current President versus offering a new and better path. Inrcreasingly it will be McCain's embrace of the politics of the Bush and Rove era that will become one of the defining issues of this national campaign.
This past Sunday, Assistant Secretary for Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE), Julie Myers, announced a new pilot program called "Operation Scheduled Departure" on Univision's political show, Al Punto. The idea is to "invite" all the undocumented immigrants who have already undergone immigration proceedings and have been issued a removal order (called non-criminal fugitives by ICE) to approach their local ICE office to begin their deportation. Why didn't we think of that before?! ICE reports that there are 400,000 people who currently fit that description. People who are not eligible for the program are all the undocumented immigrants who have not yet undergone removal proceedings (i.e., have not been caught), and any with a criminal conviction. However, when Ms. Myers "invited" all the viewers of the channel with the largest Hispanic audience in the country to participate, she omitted this detail, making it sound like anyone who is currently undocumented can participate. Not to mention, the policy is contradictory - during this same interview, Ms. Myers herself stated, "When I speak to people in the [ICE] detention centers and I ask if they plan on coming back [to the U.S.], they say ‘of course I'm coming back - that person always gives me a job.'"
During a conference call today with Congressional staffers, ICE officials had a hard time selling the program. Before promoting this program among people in their districts, staffers understandably pressed for answers: "What would be the benefit of participating?" DHS says: Well, they'd avoid risking being caught in a raid (another one, I guess, because they've already been caught, right?) and this way they'd have time to make "all necessary arrangements". Brilliant! It sounds like a concierge service. "Would turning oneself in count towards a legal status?" No. "Would participating in the program grant reprieve from the statutory bars that prohibit re-entry into the U.S.?" No. "Could people just leave of their own accord, without reporting to ICE, and then report their departure to a consulate abroad?" Sure, that's still their choice. Hmmmm...I could almost hear everyone on the phone scratching their head. "What about countries that refuse to issue travel documents, or won't accept their nationals back?" Yeah, then those folks would remain in the U.S. under ICE supervision indefinitely. Sounds like they've really thought this through. ICE could not provide me with the cost of the pilot program, and they couldn't tell us what results they expect to have. So I still don't understand the point of this program - a program that will only be in five cities (Santa Ana, CA, San Diego, CA, Chicago, IL, Pheonix, AZ, and Charlotte, NC), to - ideally - schedule the deportation of 400,000 people during a three-week window (August 5-27). I agree with Doug Rivlin, from National Immigration Forum, "It's pure fantasy." Even Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the largest anti-immigrant lobby group, agreed, "The government would have to offer some kind of incentive to entice immigrants to sign up."
Yet another example of the short-sighted, uninformed, and inadequate policies of this Administration. To us at NDN, this is not a solution to the problem. Instead of laughable policies like this, DHS should channel its resources towards dealing with its own backlog, which is keeping many from obtaining legal status, and it should help Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform to address the flaws in immigration law, provide a pathway to citizenship for those who fulfill certain requirements, and deal with the issue of future flow of immigrants.
Bush Administration officials headed to Geneva last week for a final Hail Mary pass to complete the Doha Round before January, when the whole White House team heads to the lockers. But it wasn't to be. Yesterday, the latest round of trade talks collapsed due to a dispute over an agriculture safeguard that would protect developing countries from surging imports. Per the Wall Street Journal, USTR Susan Schwab blamed China and India for the breakdown:
"In the face of the global food crisis, it's unconscionable that this came down to how much countries could raise their barriers to imports of food," U.S. trade representative Susan Schwab said in an interview, referring to positions taken by China and India.
Ms. Schwab said President George W. Bush had called her on Monday night to say "we should do everything possible" to secure a deal. "To see this fail is heart-breaking.
Is Doha dead? Not necessarily, but this is indeed a setback. EU trade chief Peter Mandelsohn said talks are dead in the water "for the foreseeable future."
The downing of Doha is a real shame, reflecting the Bush Administration's lack of political will and capital to work with Congress to reduce U.S. agriculture subsidies and other protections --- see the 2002 and 2008 farm bills. Furthermore, the rise of India, China, and Brazil since 2001, when Doha kicked off, has been remarkable. They weren't about to be bullied by the United States and EU, and had their own interests to protect. Doha offered the Bush Administration an opportunity to be a leader, not just on trade, but in grasping the significance of the new geo-economics. But this was too much to ask. Instead, the Bush Adminstration's disdain for forging a national consensus on multilateral trade diverted the U.S. trade community's attention towards lobbying on small bilateral agreements. Even the most important of these, the Colombia FTA, remains stuck in Congress.
The collapse of Doha adds another to mark to Bush's "lose" column, along with the our record deficits and debt, a "drunken" Wall St., house foreclosures and depressed housing prices, an oil-thirsty energy regime, a stay-the-course strategy in Iraq, a politicized Justice Department, and so on. Sigh.
NDN has been arguing that the GOP would have difficulty courting Hispanic voters this cycle because they damaged their brand with their anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic rhetoric. We are glad that the GOP has finally begun to accept this reality. In today's Politico, David Paul Kuhn, reports that US Senator John McCain is struggling to gain Hispanics because of this issue.
GOP strategist Bill McInturff has long emphasized that earning 40 percent of the Hispanic vote is critical for Republicans to win. Today, McInturff is John McCain's pollster, and by his metric McCain has a serious Latino problem.
While he earned the support of about seven in ten Hispanics in his last Arizona Senate race, a Pew Hispanic Center poll released Thursday shows that just 23 percent of Latinos intend to vote for McCain in the presidential contest, barely half of the four in ten Latino voters who exit polls showed voted for President Bush in 2004.
"You have to understand in a way that the Republican party is damaged among Hispanics," conceded Hessy Fernandez, McCain's spokesperson for Hispanic media.
During the Presidential Primaries this year, I commented on the possibility that U.S. Senator John McCain may not be performing as strong in Arizona as most people would assume, and that there was a possibility that Arizona could be in play in November. As someone who follows demographic and political trends, I noticed that there were several factors that make Arizona competitive. I was delighted to read recently in the NY Times that they have also noticed this opportunity, and a recent Zogby Poll showed McCain losing his home state by 3 points.
The 2006 elections in Arizona provided a lot of reasons to notice that Democrats were performing better in this state, and that the state Republican Party was suffering. However, it was the Super Tuesday Primaries that confirmed to me that McCain was extremely vulnerable in his home state. McCain assumed frontrunner status in the Republican Presidential contests after winning the state of Florida shortly before the Super Tuesday Primaries on February 5th when Arizona held its' contest. The Primary season showed that the all the major candidates performed well in their home states except for John McCain. Former Governor Mike Huckabee received 61% of the vote in Arkansas and former Governor Mitt Romney received 51% in Massachusetts after having withdrawn from the Presidential race. Both of these contests took place on February 14th after John McCain swept the Super Tuesday Primaries. However, McCain only garnered 47% of the vote in Arizona. Less than half of Arizona Republican Primary voters supported John McCain.
So why is it that McCain performed so badly in his home state? Well I think that there are several factors for that. Arizona is one of those southwestern states that are experiencing rapid growth. There are literally thousands of new residents and voters that have never seen McCain's name on a ballot or know what his positions are on relevant issues. Also, McCain has not had a serious challenger for the US Senate since being elected 1986. That is more than two decades of minimal campaigning in his home state, during which Arizona almost doubled its population. Since the 2004 General Election alone there are more than 100,000 new voters in Arizona. You combine that with the fact that the Arizona Democratic Party has been more organized and energized than in previous cycles, and have an incredibly popular leader in Governor Napolitano, and you begin to get a scenario that could prove problematic for McCain.
Finally, you add the Immigration factor and Hispanics. The conventional wisdom during the primaries was that McCain would have an easy task courting Hispanic voters given his previous performance with this constituency. However, this has not been the case. My post a few days ago notes that McCain has been struggling with to reach Hispanics for most of the election cycle.
So you have at least three major factors that are impacting the stability of Arizona as a safe state for McCain: 1) the changing demographics; 2) an improved State Democratic Party; and 3) Hispanic dissatisfaction with McCain. We will save discussion about the Libertarian/Barr factor, the Independent Voters factor, the terrible policies of McCain and his poorly managed campaign for a later post. Although there is still time for McCain to reclaim his home state advantage, the fact that he will have to spend resources doing so means that he won't be able to invest those resources into states like New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. This is not a good position for McCain to be in this late in the summer. His troubles will only be more complicated once his campaign and the rest to country also realize that this same scenario is playing out in Texas. Stay tuned for more information on the changing dynamics of the Lone Star State.
