You don’t remember the hype over Marco Rubio in 2010?
Or John McCain in 2000?
Rubio was treated like a rock star by Republicans. Not the mainstream media across the board.
Yes, if anything, Beto probably got people to donate more money than they otherwise would have done by getting them motivated.
He’s probably going to lose, there’s just more Republicans than Democrats in Texas. But it looks like there will be more people voting just during the early voting period than voted altogether in the 2014 midterms - with luck, these people will be voting in competitive races in House districts like TX-7, TX-23, TX-32, and so on, so maybe he’ll help flip a few seats. If that happens, it’s all worth it.
Also you really can’t overstate how psychologically nice it is to have a race that the Republican incumbent can’t ignore. One of the most irritating things about statewide Republicans in my opinion at least is their habit of just pretending Texas Democrats don’t exist at all. Maybe they’ll grudgingly admit there are some hippies in Austin but even then they claim that liberal organizations have to bus protesters in from out of state when there are demonstrations against various things. And really, why would they act otherwise? Greg Abbott isn’t losing a single minute’s sleep about Lupe Valdez, Ken Paxton’s been indicted and is facing trial and still no one knows who the hell Justin Nelson is. But Ted Cruz has to run a real race! He’ll probably win. But he doesn’t know for sure.
And is that a reflection on Rubio or the media?
Wait, bussing people in to Texas? It’s like, a three day bus ride from anywhere out of state to anywhere worth mentioning in the state.
Thanks for the link, just had time to read it. Very informative.
For some reason I’m just very curious about exactly how people are being polled in this particular race. Beto is running an unconventional campaign - for example, lots of time on facebook, lots of money (by a huge margin) spent on facebook ads.
What I’m trying to figure out, is how are the pollsters finding the people to contact that are being polled. I suppose in a perfect world, you’d have every eligible voter in Texas and all their contact information, and then randomly select a thousand or so.
I heard on NPR this morning about a poll that was limited to finding/contacting people through landlines. My gut instinct (probably ignorant) was that’s a junk poll. How can limiting something to landlines be representative of all Texas voters. Your link touches on this, by speaking about “weighting” (the easier it is to find people the less they are weighted in the poll, the harder to find, the more they are weighted) and by further stating to take the averages of a lot of polls, not just one. That all makes sense.
I’ve googled around and found recent polls to try and see where they are drawing their sample voters from, but they just say the sample is based on 1,000 “likely voters.” Is it important (in a meaningful way) that I should care about how they found these likely voters?
I’ll be looking forward to see if the polling resembles the results.
On Rubio. He doesn’t have the star quality that Beto does.
Like I said, the “likely voter screen”, as well as the weighting, is down to the pollsters’ choices and expertise and they don’t always advertise how they do it. They could simply ask “do you intend to vote?” or they could only call people who they know voted in the last two elections. And in weighting the demographics, they basically have to go on past elections and guesstimate how similar the voting demographics will be this election. If a lot of irregular voters turnout then yes, the polls will probably be off.
The landline only polling has indeed had criticism but it doesn’t really make it a junk poll. How they adjust for landline only failings will matter. Check out 538’s pollster ranking to get a sense of how trustworthy the company is.
Well yes, that’s kind of my point. adaher claims the media doesn’t treat Republicans as “rock stars” but who are the “rock star Republicans” the media are somehow failing to cover? Despite the implication, the media didn’t make O’Rourke a “rock star candidate”; he did that himself, and the media are merely reporting on it. Why should the media be giving “rock star” coverage to tepid candidates. I suppose one could argue that the media ought to be giving equal hype to candidates on both sides but then you’re advocating for some weird affirmative-action system.
I could also point out that Trump himself got the same kind of intense media coverage treatment, garnering more free media coverage and, surprisingly, less overall negative coverage than his opponent. So saying that the media “never do this for Republicans” is not only based on weak assumptions, it’s also clearly untrue.
Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, has a string of Tweets teasing a report on early voting coming out soon.
A couple caught my eye and are thread relevant…
That’s quite a boost. I wonder if that’s the crazy factor that the polling didn’t account for. I know they weight the respondents to account for the fact that different age groups respond to polls differently, but I would assume they also factor in how likely those ages are to vote. So it’s expected that there will be fewer respondents in the 20-30 age group versus 40-50, but it’s also been expected that there are fewer people casting votes in the younger group versus older. I’m assuming much of that boost is from people voting for Beto, but I guess we’ll have to wait to find out.
I’m not at all sure what is to account for it, but in support of the increase in the number of under 30 voters, I’ll provide this bit of news: Travis county has always had an early voting site at the University of Texas. Flawn Academic Center has been a early and regular voting center for years. The last few elections saw lines around the building and out the door. They added the Perry-Castenada library which is about three blocks away. I just checked the wait times and there are lines at both locations with early voting being open 1 week and 1 day.
We honestly don’t know how good the polls are going to be since there hasn’t been a competitive statewide race in Texas in over 20 years. This isn’t whining about unskewing, there’s also a chance that Cruz could crush Beto.
The last poll that I can remember which was similar was the 2016 Michigan Democratic primary where Sanders won and defied the polls. Michigan was one of those ‘jump the gun’ states in 2008 so Obama didn’t campaign there. The 2004 race was a caucus and Kerry had pretty much locked down the nomination.
So, we’ve got a week to see what happens.
“The sun is riz, the sun is set, and we is still in Texas yet!”
Most recent polls have Cruz with a fairly comfortable lead, 5%. I’d be pleasantly surprised if he lost.
That explains why Musk is so big on the Hyperloop. Get those illegal voters around faster.
Worse, he would have to win huge. This is Texas, where voting is the first stage of political skulduggery. Beto wins by a thin margin, and battalions of lawyers will be formed up to attack. Florida 2000 made you want to hoist the Jolly Roger and start slitting throats? Ain’t seen nothing yet.
As a former Texan, please expand on your expert opinion. How thin is too thin a margin?
Look up Ann Richards on the wiki thingy. She was the Texas version of Rachel Notley. After 1 term, she was replaced by the most delightful (/s) George W. Bush. The NDP walked in through a split between the Prog-Cons and Wildrose; I kind of doubt they can pull enough of a majority or plurality to hold onto the provincial government next year, unless Alberta’s economy is especially wonderful over the next several months.