Hey kids, this thread is about a specific race. Try not to rehash the last election, please.
Fair enough.
In 2012 Cruz got 4.4 million votes, the democratic candidate got 3.2 million votes.
In 2014 the GOP candidate got 2.8 million votes, the democratic candidate got 1.6 million votes.
Even if the GOP turnout in 2018 is about the same in 2014, that means that Cruz will get close to 3 million votes.
Then again, Texas went pretty far to the left from 2012 to 2016. In 2012 Obama got 3.3 million vote, Hillary got 3.9 million votes in 2016. An extra 600,000 democrats materialized in Texas between 2012 and 2016. I assume most of that is from immigration from other states combined with registration of latinos and millennials.
So maybe, if there are 4 million voting democrats in Texas in 2018, and turnout is only 10-20% lower than in a presidential year, then the democrat will get 3.2-3.6 million votes.
If GOP turnout is the same as midterm turnout, they can count on close to 3 million votes. Assume there are 4.7 million republican voters in Texas, and turnout is 40% lower in 2018 than it would be in an election year. That is about 2.8 million GOP voters.
It depends on turnout. 4.7 million voting republicans, 4 million voting democrats in Texas. If the dems only see turnout drop 20% from presidential year but GOP turnout drops 40%, then yeah the dem will win roughly 2.9 million dem votes to 2.8 million GOP votes.
That sounds familiar somehow. 
You said Obama should get credit for some good things, if they happen in the next few decades. What are bad things that might happen in the next twenty years for which Obama should be blamed? Are there any? Or, as I mentioned, it only goes one way.
Regards,
Shodan
What sort of possibilities do you have in mind?
You do need to make your own points, not ask other people to do it for you and complain when you don’t like what they say.
nm - nothing to do with Cruz and his elections.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s an answer too. :dubious:
There was a specific moderator instruction to keep posts in this thread on track discussing Ted Cruz’s reelection campaign and the possibility of Beto O’Rourke unseating him.
Early voting for the primary starts Tuesday.
True enough.
The question “Does he have a chance?” has only one answer: “Maybe, it depends”. Not much else to discuss this early.
So one of Cruz’s opponents in the GOP primary, energy industry lawyer Stefano de Stefano, was a registered Dem in New York “out of necessity […] in order to have any say in the elections that mattered in my community.” Maybe Texas Dems should take the hint if they really want to get rid of Cruz because it’s a pretty safe bet that the ® is going to win, istm.
Without seeing a further breakdown I’d be wary that you are also including a cohort of ‘Never-Trump’ Republicans that might be happy( or “happy” )to vote for Cruz.
You know what happens when you assume. You don’t think it might have had anything to do with the fact that Trump is a piece of shit who did just about everything he possibly could to insult the Hispanic community?
Was there a vote shift in other states with large latino populations? Hillary won the Latino vote by less than Obama did in 2012. 66% in 2016 vs 71% in 2012.
Trump won more votes than Romney. So I don’t know how many never Trumpers there are.
I guess if you combine Johnson’s vote into Trumps and combine Stein’s vote into Clintons, then in Texas it was 5 million to 4 million.
So yes, the margin was smaller when third party votes are added in.
But again, if GOP turnout is down 40% (which considering the GOP control congress and the presidency, and a 40% reduced turnout is probably a good bet based on historical trends), then they get 3 million votes for Cruz. If democrat turnout is down 20% vs presidential years, they get 3.2 million votes for Beto.
So its possible for Beto to win. But it’d have to be a pretty good wave. A 50 vs 40 million vote margin for 2018 should make Texas a tossup.
You brought it up. You do the legwork.
I did, I listed how Hillary won less of the latino vote than Obama did. You made an accusation, I disproved it. End of discussion.
No, not even close. I find it interesting that my simply commenting that there might have been another factor is considered an accusation. Secondly, you have proven nothing, provided no cite whatsoever, merely made an assertion. You also have made no explanation at all as to why you think the difference in percentage of Latino voters voting for the Democrat has any bearing on your original assertion.
You have proven nothing; you have simply pulled a Shodan. So shit or get off the pot.
Beto O’Rourke raises $2.2 million in first 45 days of 2018
I just want to believe this is possible soooo bad. However, the lifelong Cubs fan part of me expects disappointment. If you’re going to watch a pile of money burn you may as well have as big a pile as you can get. Right? That doesn’t sound right.
To be clear, even though I think it unlikely that O’Rourke will be Democrat #51, I still think that it’s absolutely worthwhile for the Democrats to invest heavily in this race, as well as in every other race where there’s even a snowball’s chance. Even if investing in a race isn’t enough to flip it our way, it’s good for the party to be invested across the country: What we do now in Texas will affect other states now, and Texas in the future.
What does this even mean? I’m going to assume when you say “pulled a Shodan” that you mean, respond with clarity and rapier wit. Otherwise this is just being a jerk. If you want to make an argument, do so. Cut out this tip toeing effort to see how much you can get away with.
[/moderating]
Actually, I was referring to boldly and loudly proclaiming an assertion, providing no evidence for it, and then coming up with some rationalization for not providing evidence when asked, a tactic that Shodan has used multiple times.