In recent days, we've seen the Texas AFL-CIO officially endorse the person who is NOT the best gubernatorial candidate in the Democratic primary. And no, state AFL-CIO, Loopy Lupe Valdez is NOT as labor-friendly as Tom Wakely. You're just doing a personality endorsement between her and Andrew White.

We've then seen IT bitch over the Emily's List endorsement in the Seventh Congressional District. More here.

And next, we have other people saying that Houston's official LGBTQ endorsers have backed less than the optimal state House candidate in one district, per Brains' Twitter.

Besides Hispanics not turning out to vote, is this possibly another issue in the larger picture of Texas Democrats not winning more often?

You bet your boots it is, IMO.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know it's problematic.

I do know that Emily's List has become more and more a Clintonista List on which, and which types, of candidates it endorses. I suspect that Houston LGBTQ folks have become the same way in some form or fashion.

The Texas AFL-CIO? Just a few months after the national org pledged to be more open in its candidate endorsements to the point of saying it wouldn't automatically wed itself to the Democratic Party, the state branch does this.

So, we have two cases of tribalism plus labor's intellectual laziness.

No way to run a political railroad.

RG Ratcliffe has some related thoughts on a lot of orgs, including the Houston folks above, also endorsing White for gov. (The Snooze doing that is no surprise, per my post of earlier this week.)