(03-09-2018 05:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 04:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 03:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 03:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.rove.com/article/3-8-18-wsj

"...She was not alone. The New York Times’s Nate Cohn suggested that “surging Democratic tallies” in early voting may be “a sign that Texas may emerge as a fairly competitive state in the mid-term elections.” Vox’s Tara Golshan wrote that Democrats hope to “make Texas blue—or at the very least, purple” and that “a massive surge in voter enthusiasm is giving them hope.”
But with all the votes tallied, it turned out to be a case of “never mind,” as Gilda Radner, playing Emily Litella, used to say on “Saturday Night Live.”
Not only did more Texas Republicans (804,581) vote early than Democrats (565,355), but more Republicans than Democrats turned out Election Day. There were 1,543,674 total votes in the Republican primary—the GOP’s highest midterm total ever—compared with 1,037,779 in the Democratic primary. This gap of nearly 506,000 is less than the GOP’s margin in the 2014 and 2010 primaries (roughly 783,000 and 804,000, respectively), but still comparatively healthy.
Just as the media buildup about Democratic early voting fell short, so did the party’s highly touted U.S. Senate hopeful, Rep. Robert F. “Beto” O’Rourke. National Democrats have hyped the telegenic El Paso congressman as a strong bet to upset Ted Cruz, the state’s junior senator. Mr. O’Rourke spent $4.2 million to win his primary with 62%. But he lost 103 of the state’s 254 counties to Edward Kimbrough, a retired Postal Service employee, who spent $785 and received 15%, and Sema Hernandez, who spent nothing—zero, zip, nada—and still got 24%. ( Ms. Hernandez did have a Facebook page.) Mr. Cruz received twice as many votes in his primary as Mr. O’Rourke did in his.
Mr. O’Rourke routinely swears in campaign appearances. He might have done so even more vividly in private as returns trickled in...."

Here's Karl Rove on election night 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk

If you're going to immediately discount our analysis because we were incorrect as to who was going to win the EV in 2016, then why would you believe Karl Rove on election predictions?

Rove doesn't account for the following...

Republicans always outperform in the primaries vs the general. The question is this....how much of that 20 percent margin will erode in the general?

Typical.

When uncomfortable facts are presented, you attack the messenger, Karl Rove in this case.

You aren't accounting for the fact that the Republicans have essentially uncontested primaries. No Republican will beat Sessions or Culberson. Yet they still had more voters than the Democrats.

If you bring up Rove, and are upset with us pointing out his truly spectacular incorrect projections in 2012 then I don't want to hear another 'but you were wrong in the past'.

There was lots of action in the Harris County Republican party, even in CD7. In CD-7, there was a very hot primary in HD 134 between Sarah Davis and Susanna Dopukil. HD134 is mostly in CD7. I know plenty of Democrats who voted in the GOP primary so they could vote for Davis. You are correct that the impact of a contested Democratic race for the seat did increase Democratic voter participation somewhat, but again...if you think Culbertson is going to get the same percentage against a better funded and much stronger Democratic opponent than James Cargas in 2016, then you're welcome to believe that. By the way, Daily kos is reporting this morning that there was an 7 figure media reservation by just one Democratic leaning PAC yesterday. That would mean that someone is going to drop some serious cash on helping the Dems there. And I doubt they're the only group. I know that of at least two more Dem leaning PACS that will be spending millions each there. Culbertson has never been outspent. He will be this time.

You are also free to opine that Session is safe. I'd love for him to act like that and ignore the deep unpopularity of Donald Trump in his district. Sessions is an extreme right winger who is deeply out of touch with his district (much more so than even Culbertson). Sessions raises funds better than Culbertson, but he's going to have his hands full this year.

Basically, the argument for the GOP is retaining 32 and 7 is this. Basically, the Dems will not increase their primary voting percentage relative to the GOP in the general. Basically, if either Culbertson or Sessions lose 5%, they're toast. And historically the margin loss between the primary and the general....is roughly 50 points in both those districts. The Dems don't need to pull of miracles here. Yea, I think that at least for now, both of those districts are, at a minimum, lean Dem.

District 23....wow oh wow is Hurd in a really bad place there. Kind of a shame (a minor one), because Hurd is the only Republican representing Texas that isn't an extremist. But that district will probably send a Filipina American Lesbian to Congress. That would be something new, especially for a somewhat rural district in Texas of all places (and one that has no portion of Houston, Austin or the DFW metros in it)

I'm not pointing out Rove's predictions. I'm pointing out his facts. You're the one who is projecting facts into an entirely different result.