Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Texas Primaries
Author Message
Fort Bend Owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,510
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 207
I Root For: An easy win
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #41
RE: Texas Primaries
Two more takeaways. Dan Patrick is vulnerable but again the democrats need a strong candidate in that race. And locally I was hoping the Democratic frontrunner in my local house seat - kulkarni- would fare better but I missed the fact that he admitted to getting busted for taking cocaine at age 18, a story which broke in the paper 2 weeks ago.
03-08-2018 07:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bubbapt Offline
Uh, what?
*

Posts: 12,066
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 415
I Root For: Memphis
Location: St. Louis

Donators
Post: #42
RE: Texas Primaries
Dems take Texas? More endless fake news.
03-08-2018 07:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-08-2018 12:20 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 11:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 12:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The key is the direction of the movement.

I think it obvious that the key is 'getting more votes'.

FTR, the direction of the movement of BOTH was by your own admission, UP. OF COURSE it was up more in the group that had three candidates and lost the last election versus the one that won.

This whole idea that once a trend moves one way, it continues is ridiculous. The left should have learned that after all of the predictions (there are posts by many of these same people alluding to this) talking about how the demographics are all favoring Democrats and that Republicans won't be in power for the next 20+ years.

Yes, GOP turnout up (maybe) 15 percent. Dem turnout up 90 percent. That's statewide compared to 2014. In CD7, Dem turnout vs 2014. Up 402.0% percent. GOP turnout vs 2014...Up 0.6%

I don't think you're going to like the results of analysis of increases in Democratic voting between Democratic primaries and the general election versus the Republicans.

Yes, Rafael is still favored, but its not over. And CD23, CD7, and CD32 are looking like tossups or lean Dem seats at this point.

LOL, Trump and his enablers aren't likely to be any more popular in November than they are now. But we will see.

----

Basically Trump managed an EC win by pulling off a 1 in 100 percent chance of losing the popular vote by 3 million and cobbling together an inside straight flush run in selected states. I wouldn't read too much into it either.

More denial. You will never get through all the stages of grief at this pace.

He won because he campaigned where the races were close instead of falsely thinking he needed to spend a lot of time in GA, AZ and CA. Had he pulled a handful more votes in New Hampshire and a few thousand in Nevada, he wouldn't have needed MI, PA or WI. Winning all 3 of those just made it a YUUUGe win.
03-08-2018 08:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Texas Primaries
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...36455.html

Funny:

"...“I guess the DCCC can’t rig a primary as well as their counterparts at the DNC,” said Matt Gorman, a spokesman for House Republicans’ campaign committee.
In each of the three competitive districts, the top-funded candidate failed to qualify for the runoff. In Hurd’s district, Jay Hulings, a former federal prosecutor who had been backed by the Castro brothers, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Blue Dog Coalition, was in fourth place. Meier, a former Obama administration official, finished fourth in the Dallas district. And in Houston, Alex Triantaphyllis, who ran a local nonprofit, also came in fourth. Those loses could fuel grassroots organizations and local activists who have argued against the national party prioritizing candidates with the best fundraising track records...."
03-08-2018 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,388
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 441
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #45
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-08-2018 07:00 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Two more takeaways. Dan Patrick is vulnerable but again the democrats need a strong candidate in that race. And locally I was hoping the Democratic frontrunner in my local house seat - kulkarni- would fare better but I missed the fact that he admitted to getting busted for taking cocaine at age 18, a story which broke in the paper 2 weeks ago.

Sri Kulkarni will probably still be the nominee. I don't think that's really going to be much of an issue in the race (heck the voters in Ft Bend didn't care about Bush). I think that will be an interesting race to see exactly how much danger Olsen is going forward. Ft Bend is turning blue, but that district excludes its most Democratic parts. Kulkarni is also a member of the fastest growing demographic in that county, which are persons of South Asian heritage. I think that Olsen is probably okay this year...The real win in that district is to make the GOP's attempts to gerrymander metro Houston a real nightmare. If Sri can get into the mid 40s in that district, Olsen will probably try to move his district South and West, thus opening up an opportunity for an Asian plurality CD in SW Harris/Ft Bend.

By the way, I don't think Plummer is really a serious candidate.
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2018 11:15 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-08-2018 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ECUGrad07 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,840
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 384
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Texas Primaries
Yeah, the Republicans will win Texas because they gerrymandered Houston. LMAO.

Tom is like a cartoon character...seriously.
03-08-2018 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,388
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 441
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #47
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-08-2018 03:20 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Yeah, the Republicans will win Texas because they gerrymandered Houston. LMAO.

Tom is like a cartoon character...seriously.


Here are the claims I've made

1) Democratic turnout has increased significantly statewide and ESPECIALLY in certain Congressional Districts
2) With crossover voting, its really hard to draw too many hard and fast dismissals of statewide voting based upon primary voting totals unless you really dive into the actual voting. O'Rourke isn't out of the race for Senate, although Cruz is probably leading at this point.
3) In CD7, a deep dive points towards a toss-up to a Democratic win. The opinion by another poster that Culbertson is somehow going to increase his margin from 2016 (when he ran against a nominal challenger) is pretty much laughable.
4) In CD23, a deep dive analysis of the primary turnout confirms the prediction that Hurd is in deep, deep trouble.
5) In CD32, the analysis also points towards serious trouble for Pete Sessions
6) Demographic and political changes within Harris and Fort Bend Counties are likely to cause huge problems for the Republicans if they try to hold onto all their current Houston area districts in redistricting. VRA requirements will also make it very hard for the GOP to pack the ever increasing numbers of Dem voters, and especially Anglo Dems, into the existing Dem CDs.

Nowhere in that analysis did I make the assertion that Texas horrendous and undemocratic gerrymanders somehow had an impact on statewide races.

---

You're obviously analytically challenged if you're making the claim that GOP gerrymandering doesn't give them an advantage in the number of CDs they control in Texas. You know, there are actual data points you can look at for this. Like the 'wasted vote' metric, which tracks the number of votes not for the winning candidate. Or the raw Democratic vote vs raw Republican vote for statewide elections versus the percentage of seats held by each party. Or any number of other metrics.
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2018 03:35 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-08-2018 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 37,785
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 1712
I Root For: StL Cards & USM
Location: who knows?
Post: #48
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-07-2018 04:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 04:19 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Tom, your style of analysis went out the door with Trump's victory. There is a new political playbook and it doesn't have even one chapter on what you are writing about.....

Nationalists, social cultural warriors, and flat earth trade protectionists aren't really part of the dynamic in CD-7. Its an Anglo district, but one that rebukes the Christian Right, voted for Clinton, and is highly educated too.

bwahahahahaha.....

you never fail to disappoint.....

you're 'something else' I can only laugh at in the realm of surreal......

[Image: rootimages_jul2015_henpecked-a02.gif?w=8...;amp;ssl=1]
03-09-2018 04:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Texas Primaries
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...."
03-09-2018 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Texas Primaries
What is it about Democrats and swearing? Hillary used the "F" word in her debate with Bernie.

Does it help with independents? I would think not. It definitely turns off a lot of people. I can't imagine it adds many.

To me, doing it in a public forum just says "maleducado." Or pandering. Or just flat out oblivious to the consequences. Not sure which of the 3 is worse.
03-09-2018 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,388
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 441
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #51
RE: Texas Primaries
(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?
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2018 03:23 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-09-2018 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 30,402
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 660
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #52
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-08-2018 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here are the claims I've made


you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...
03-09-2018 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,388
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 441
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #53
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-09-2018 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-08-2018 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here are the claims I've made


you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...

And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2018 04:45 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-09-2018 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Texas Primaries
(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.
03-09-2018 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTSAMarineVet09 Offline
Corporal of the Board.
*

Posts: 13,374
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 880
I Root For: UTSA
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #55
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-09-2018 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2018 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-08-2018 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here are the claims I've made


you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...

And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.

03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao03-lmfao
03-09-2018 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-09-2018 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2018 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-08-2018 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here are the claims I've made


you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...

And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.

Delusion was one of my daughter's vocabulary words this week. You continue in the delusion that the Democrats won the last election and that gerrymandering had something to do with your large loss in the electoral college. Delusion-"erroneous belief that is held despite evidence to the contrary"
03-09-2018 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,388
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 441
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #57
RE: Texas Primaries
(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)
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2018 05:37 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-09-2018 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,388
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 441
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #58
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-09-2018 04:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-09-2018 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2018 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-08-2018 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here are the claims I've made


you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...

And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.

Delusion was one of my daughter's vocabulary words this week. You continue in the delusion that the Democrats won the last election and that gerrymandering had something to do with your large loss in the electoral college. Delusion-"erroneous belief that is held despite evidence to the contrary"

Ok, what would YOU call a situation where the system is designed so that a candidate can win with fewer votes than the other candidate?

I'd call it gerrymandering. Others would call it 'the legacy of a racist electoral system designed to protect slavery' that has the same impact as a racial gerrymander today. I think you'd prefer gerrymandering.

General rule, if you can get more votes than your opponent and still lose, then its effectively gerrymandered. Especially if it helps one race or party over another repeatedly.

WARNING - If you even try to argue that the solution is for Democrats to move to other areas, then I WILL bring up discriminatory practices in the Homestead Act, and the fact that other minorities are effectively shut out of economic and educational opportunities in many 'red' areas.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2018 05:44 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-09-2018 05:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Texas Primaries
(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.
03-09-2018 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Texas Primaries
(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2018 04:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-09-2018 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2018 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-08-2018 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here are the claims I've made


you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...

And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.

Delusion was one of my daughter's vocabulary words this week. You continue in the delusion that the Democrats won the last election and that gerrymandering had something to do with your large loss in the electoral college. Delusion-"erroneous belief that is held despite evidence to the contrary"

Ok, what would YOU call a situation where the system is designed so that a candidate can win with fewer votes than the other candidate?

I'd call it gerrymandering. Others would call it 'the legacy of a racist electoral system designed to protect slavery' that has the same impact as a racial gerrymander today. I think you'd prefer gerrymandering.

General rule, if you can get more votes than your opponent and still lose, then its effectively gerrymandered. Especially if it helps one race or party over another repeatedly.

WARNING - If you even try to argue that the solution is for Democrats to move to other areas, then I WILL bring up discriminatory practices in the Homestead Act, and the fact that other minorities are effectively shut out of economic and educational opportunities in many 'red' areas.

Its called the electoral college. Its the way our elections have worked since 1789. No its not gerrymandering. You have 51 individual races. It doesn't matter if you get 3 or 4 or 5 million more votes in one state. That is irrelevant to the rules.

If you don't like it, amend the constitution or move to someplace without an electoral college, like Iran or Russia. Don't continue the delusional nonsense about being cheated.
03-09-2018 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.