Keep in mind that ask the counties from Austin and San Antonio southward went for Hillary. IOW the pointy bottom part of Texas is, if not blue, then at least purple.
Short answer: No. Texas Monthly ALWAYS puts Democratic contenders on the cover and asserts that THIS is the year Texas turns blue.
Unless Ted Cruz has an underage girlfriend somewhere (and Trump would have exposed that if there were even RUMORS), he’ll win handily. But if the Dems want to waste a fortune as they did on Wendy Davis, that’s their affair.
Why should we keep that in mind? It’s been that way for a long time.
Okay. I stand corrected. YOU don’t need to keep that in mind. In fact, I’ll be absolutely fine if you promptly forget I ever suggested it.
But this thread has emphasized that Texas is a red state. This is a very big state with 254 counties. The rest of the country may not have on their top-of-mind consciousness that NOT every county in Texas is red.
No, that’s not the proper data-based stance. From an old thread:
So you can look use the Alabama race as a reminder of the importance of national environment. In this case it cost the GOP 10 points. Ted Cruz is a potentially weak candidate (though not as bad as Moore), so you can refer to the middle category for an absolute worst case scenario. Ted Cruz won the 2012 race by 16 percentage points. So we’ll need 6 out of those middle 10 points if The Oily One is to be defeated, if the national climate remains where it was. A tall order, but not impossible.
The last category must indeed be set aside.
Mid-cycle elections are all about turnout. One thing you have to keep in mind about Texas is that we’ve got a lot of potential Hispanic voters here but they don’t show up and never have. There’s also a traditionally more nuanced relationship between the Texas GOP and Hispanic voters than you find in some other places and as a result there are more Hispanic Republicans than in other states.
However, in Texas in particular, voter turnout in general is pretty poor as a rule. In the 2014 election, just over 28% of eligible voters even bothered to show up. So if you had apathy on the part of usual voters and if a lot of motivated Democrats who don’t usually vote actually bothered to show up, then O’Rourke could absolutely pull off a statewide win. That’s a hell of a lot of ifs though. There are a lot of political graves of Texas Democrats who have been trying to pull it off for a long time.
Right but you could the same about almost every “safe” state. Everyone talks about California being solid Dem. If we were talking about a Cali Senate race, should we keep in mind that the north-east corner always goes Red?
Bu I get it. You’re a Texan and want to make sure people remember “we’re not all Republicans!”. But anyone reading here ought to know that it’s not a 90% Republican win every election.
Given gerrymandering and the Republican political machine with all their rich donors, voter turnout, especially in mid-terms, have been all but pointless.
Beto (yes, I’m a huge supporter) may be mostly “not Cruz” in the national media, but his almost entirely grassroots campaign is extremely positive. His criticisms of the GOP are specific and issue-based.
His smartest move has been campaigning in rural towns usually presumed solid red. The enthusiastic crowds with no counter-demonstrations to speak of have energized many who thought they were all alone. Google “town-hauling across Texas.”
BTW, “Beto” is a Spanish nickname for Roberto, although O’Rourke is not Hispanic. His dad was a much-respected county official in El Paso, and Beto speaks fairly fluent Spanish.
“The Republican Tax Act Could Turn Texas Blue”
Long, detailed article, but this is the upshot:
Also remember that the state is now 5% Asian, 12.6% black and almost 40% Hispanic (with 3/4th of those primarily speaking Spanish in the home); and the Republicans are doing a great job of alienating minorities.
Huh. Not doubting you but the only guy I knew who went by ‘Beto’ is Gilberto Hernandez. Maybe ‘Beto’ doubles up.
And how different is that from when Cruz won his first election?
Sorry, but I’m not buying it. When Moore last ran for state office in 2012, he won by 4%. So that’s your starting point for him in the 2017 election. Comparing him to a “normal Republican” and then subtracted amounts that just happen to be exactly 10% looks more like a sloppy estimate than an actual data-driven analysis. What an amazing coincidence that all three “data-based” deductions were exactly 10%!
So, the Times thinks that blue state tax refugees are going to vote mostly Democratic in their new states, since putting more Democrats in office at the state and federal level is a good strategy to keep their tax burdens relatively low?
That logic seems a bit tenuous…
The major unintended consequence of the Republican tax bill is probably going to be an acceleration of state initiatives to legalize marijuana, as a source of new tax revenue.
Push polls are actually valuable because they point the way to a winning message. Could O’rourke win if he hammered away on the message in that poll and Cruz had no effective response? Absolutely. Chances are though, Cruz will have a great campaign and raise tons of cash. And O’Rourke is probably too liberal.
The real question is why the Castro brothers won’t challenge Cruz. Supposedly they are future Democratic stars, yet don’t seem to think they can win statewide.
The primary’s next month and the filing deadlines for candidates was last December, so neither could decide to enter the race now.
Texas doesn’t allow people to run for multiple offices, so if Joaquin decided to throw in for the Senate seat he’d have to give up his seat in the House like Beto did. I guess Julian could have made a run for it, but it doesn’t make sense for multiple Democrats to tear each other up in the primary and open up a seats for what is a long-shot bid in the first place. I don’t know if O’Rourke coordinated with anybody, but he decided to go for it and that basically cleared the field of other serious contenders after that.
I’ll have to dig into this.
If you give a more generous read, you’ll see that actual figures are more like 9-11%. But 10% is easily within reasonable error bounds. So: no coincidence. This is a data-based, back of the envelope calculation. The methodology is sound and even laudable, as it doesn’t showcase false precision.
I agree that setting the proper baseline is important though. You seem to have conceded that separating out the 3 factors of Moore’s defeat is a sound methodology, and you can’t just say that the Alabama case has no relevance. It’s relevant, as long as you make the proper sort of adjustments.
Exactly right. There was a lot of talk of Joaquin challenging Beto, but he backed off for the sake of party unity (or lack of squabbling). One of the twins is expected to go for the governor’s mansion - probably Julian so Joaquin can stay in the House.
It would seem more logical that California Republicans move to Texas than their Dems.
However, if enough California D’s leave to make Texas blue, all that does is make California red. So it’s literally a lose-win strategy.
Beto has a shot. Not much of one, but a better shot than many think - as noted above he is working rural Texas hard, getting larger than expected turnouts. I would say he has a 10% shot if the election were held today.