It bugged me to read about the Florida election controversy because basically I wasn't sure how the race was that close to begin with. So I decided to compare the numbers between the 2016 and 2018 elections in terms of presidential vote and then this year's senate vote of the closest senate races in 2018.

Texas - 2018 (R +3), 2016 (R +7) - net R loss (4)
Florida - 2018 (*even basically), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (1)
Arizona - 2018 (D +1), 2016 (R + 3.5) - net R loss (4.5)
Nevada - 2018 (D +5), 2016 (D + 2) - net R loss (3)
Michigan - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (*even) - net R loss (7)
Pennsylvania - 2018 (D +13), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (14)
Wisconsin - 2018 (D +11), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (12)
Ohio - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (R +8) - net R loss (15)
Missouri - 2018 (R +6), 2016 (R +18) - net R loss (12)

other states -- Montana (R loss 24), North Dakota (R loss 23), Tennessee (R loss 15), West Virginia (R loss 45)

I only looked up these states. Someone else can certainly try to find me a race where the Republicans actually gained in votes from 2016 to 2018. Maybe you can find another state race in the states I already listed where the R loss isn't as severe.

But until you can find another race, I'm not sure how Florida is the only state in the country that doesn't have a minimum 3 to 4 point turnaround. I'm not expecting it to turn to the extent of some of those upper midwest swing states but my point is there might be some weird things going on in Florida to begin with that basically are producing a race that is too close to call to begin with.

(11-11-2018 11:10 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  It bugged me to read about the Florida election controversy because basically I wasn't sure how the race was that close to begin with. So I decided to compare the numbers between the 2016 and 2018 elections in terms of presidential vote and then this year's senate vote of the closest senate races in 2018.

Texas - 2018 (R +3), 2016 (R +7) - net R loss (4)
Florida - 2018 (*even basically), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (1)
Arizona - 2018 (D +1), 2016 (R + 3.5) - net R loss (4.5)
Nevada - 2018 (D +5), 2016 (D + 2) - net R loss (3)
Michigan - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (*even) - net R loss (7)
Pennsylvania - 2018 (D +13), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (14)
Wisconsin - 2018 (D +11), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (12)
Ohio - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (R +8) - net R loss (15)
Missouri - 2018 (R +6), 2016 (R +18) - net R loss (12)

other states -- Montana (R loss 24), North Dakota (R loss 23), Tennessee (R loss 15), West Virginia (R loss 45)

I only looked up these states. Someone else can certainly try to find me a race where the Republicans actually gained in votes from 2016 to 2018. Maybe you can find another state race in the states I already listed where the R loss isn't as severe.

But until you can find another race, I'm not sure how Florida is the only state in the country that doesn't have a minimum 3 to 4 point turnaround. I'm not expecting it to turn to the extent of some of those upper midwest swing states but my point is there might be some weird things going on in Florida to begin with that basically are producing a race that is too close to call to begin with.

You're comparing President to Senator. Democrats lost a lot of votes in Montana, WV, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota.

And Republican incumbent governors won comfortably in Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts.

Theres a potential reason why Trumpism did relatively better in Florida than elsewhere...its that the electorate in Florida is probably older, and a lot older, than electorate elsewhere.

The reason why MD. MA, and VT are not proxies for Trump is because the Governors werent Trump clones. In Florida, DeSantis definately was.

I think that if you look at the Percentage gain or loss from the Presidential race to the Senate races, youll see a significant gain just about everywhere for the Dems, save Florida.

The good news for the GOP was in Ohio and Florida. The awful news was in Pennsylvania and Michigan, where the GOP got crushed. Simply flipping those 2 states gives the Dems 269 without Florida, Ohio, ME-2, NE-2, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, or Iowa. I think Wisconsin is looking really iffy for the GOP too.

If the Dems hold every state from 2016 and flip Michigan and Pennsylvania, the the best Trump can do is hope for is a tie. Minnesota and New Hampshire are the only targets for the GOP, and I dont think either of them are flipping.

Either way, 2020 is going to come down to if the GOP can convince enough non Trump voters to go 3rd party.

(11-11-2018 11:40 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Theres a potential reason why Trumpism did relatively better in Florida than elsewhere...its that the electorate in Florida is probably older, and a lot older, than electorate elsewhere.

The reason why MD. MA, and VT are not proxies for Trump is because the Governors werent Trump clones. In Florida, DeSantis definately was.

Well you were right about TX7. I was very surprised. Culberson started sending out lots of e-mails on what he was doing, so it was obvious he knew he had a battle. Still surprised he lost.

(11-11-2018 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 11:40 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Theres a potential reason why Trumpism did relatively better in Florida than elsewhere...its that the electorate in Florida is probably older, and a lot older, than electorate elsewhere.

The reason why MD. MA, and VT are not proxies for Trump is because the Governors werent Trump clones. In Florida, DeSantis definately was.

Well you were right about TX7. I was very surprised. Culberson started sending out lots of e-mails on what he was doing, so it was obvious he knew he had a battle. Still surprised he lost.

The GOP has lost significant support with educated Anglo voters. They also lost Pete Sessions district in Dallas which has similar demographics. In TX 23, Hurd hung on, but that district isnt as educated as the 2 we took.

How many points did Abbott win by in Texas?

Bottom line: Republicans cannot win at identity politics. The media will see to it that they don't.

(11-11-2018 12:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How many points did Abbott win by in Texas?

About 14 percent which is more than Trump's margin in 2016. He had a bigger victory margin than any other significant Texas election.

But that's still down from the 20 percent win he had over Wendy Davis in 2014, and I believe it was a bit lower than projected. If O'Rourke wasn't running, it would have been a bigger margin IMO.

Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to consider winning Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.6 million votes, or a net increase of 500k. At 4.8 million, that puts them above Trumps 2016 vote total. At 5 miilion, the Dems definitely win.

Democratic Turnout was up from 2016 in Austin and parts of DFW. But it was DOWN in Houston, San Antonio and the Valley. That saved Cruz. Hispanic voting was up dramatically from 2014, but down about 25 percent from 2016. Finding and turning out those voters in 2020....nets around 300,000 more votes to the Dems. The other votes...thats going to be the challenge. The only two places where that kind of margin is doable is with young voters and new transplants to Texas. Its a tall order, but a possible one. We reslly need a strong candidate against Cornyn to help Gotv

(11-11-2018 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to win Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.8 million votes, or a net increase of 700k.

"Beto" got those votes by almost totally avoiding issues and going strictly on a contrived Latin nickname (it's actually more Portuguese than Spanish) and a toothy grin that appeared in selfies from all 254 counties. It was a campaign totally in fluff with almost no substance. If I were running in Texas on Robert O'Rourke's voting record, I'd run on fluff and avoid substance too.

(11-11-2018 12:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How many points did Abbott win by in Texas?

About 14 percent which is more than Trump's margin in 2016. He had a bigger victory margin than any other significant Texas election.

But that's still down from the 20 percent win he had over Wendy Davis in 2014, and I believe it was a bit lower than projected. If O'Rourke wasn't running, it would have been a bigger margin IMO.

A) Thats because Wendy Davis was a whackjob that ran on killing babies.

B) If $70million Beto wasnt in the race, he would have won by more.

(11-11-2018 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 11:10 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  It bugged me to read about the Florida election controversy because basically I wasn't sure how the race was that close to begin with. So I decided to compare the numbers between the 2016 and 2018 elections in terms of presidential vote and then this year's senate vote of the closest senate races in 2018.

Texas - 2018 (R +3), 2016 (R +7) - net R loss (4)
Florida - 2018 (*even basically), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (1)
Arizona - 2018 (D +1), 2016 (R + 3.5) - net R loss (4.5)
Nevada - 2018 (D +5), 2016 (D + 2) - net R loss (3)
Michigan - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (*even) - net R loss (7)
Pennsylvania - 2018 (D +13), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (14)
Wisconsin - 2018 (D +11), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (12)
Ohio - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (R +8) - net R loss (15)
Missouri - 2018 (R +6), 2016 (R +18) - net R loss (12)

other states -- Montana (R loss 24), North Dakota (R loss 23), Tennessee (R loss 15), West Virginia (R loss 45)

I only looked up these states. Someone else can certainly try to find me a race where the Republicans actually gained in votes from 2016 to 2018. Maybe you can find another state race in the states I already listed where the R loss isn't as severe.

But until you can find another race, I'm not sure how Florida is the only state in the country that doesn't have a minimum 3 to 4 point turnaround. I'm not expecting it to turn to the extent of some of those upper midwest swing states but my point is there might be some weird things going on in Florida to begin with that basically are producing a race that is too close to call to begin with.

You're comparing President to Senator. Democrats lost a lot of votes in Montana, WV, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota.

And Republican incumbent governors won comfortably in Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts.

To Dems none of those states matter...flyover country

They all are about the popular vote and stuffing the ballot box with illegal votes

(11-11-2018 12:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  How many points did Abbott win by in Texas?

Lol oh

(11-11-2018 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Republicans cannot win at identity politics. The media will see to it that they don't.

Trumps entire campaign and electoral college win and 2016 was based upon identity politics.

Very interesting data, OP.

Now do 2008 and 2010 (net differentials), and then tell us who won the presidency in 2012.

Thanks (for wasting everyone’s time).

(11-11-2018 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to win Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.8 million votes, or a net increase of 700k.

"Beto" got those votes by almost totally avoiding issues and going strictly on a contrived Latin nickname (it's actually more Portuguese than Spanish) and a toothy grin that appeared in selfies from all 254 counties. It was a campaign totally in fluff with almost no substance. If I were running in Texas on Robert O'Rourke's voting record, I'd run on fluff and avoid substance too.

Beto actually took some strong stands. He didnt pretend to be a gun supporter, he flat out said...I want gun control. He fully supported a womans right to choose. He strongly supported DACA and strongly opposed the wall. He supported Black Lives Matter strongly. You cant argue that Beto avoided issues. And the GOP ran a lot of ads calling him to the left of Sanders and Pelosi. I dont think anyone can say his policy positions were fluff. Yes, he is a good looking man, and oozes cool. That does help. But beyond that, he and his campaign also outworked the Cruz people too. And he did it with effectively no existing party infrastructure.

BTW, Beto has bern called Beto for his whole life. Was Rafael trying to hide is foreign heritage (Canada) by calling himself Ted. Its really a dumb argument. Beto doesnt claim to be Hispanic, and Hispanic turnout, while record setting for a midterm, didnt improve as dramatically as other groups.

Beto crushed Cruz with Anglo Urban/Suburban women. Thats a particular area of concern for the GOP in Tarrant, Collin, Denton, and Williamson Counties.

If the GOP craps the bed again with that demographic, they could still win Texas, but there are 12 Texas house seats in suburban areas where the GOP hung on by less than 5 percent. The Dems need 9 seats to take control. 6 more GOP seats in Congress from Texas are vulnerable if the GOP loses much more margin in the suburbs.

Basically every suburban county had strong movement to the left save Montgomery.

(11-11-2018 01:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Very interesting data, OP.

Now do 2008 and 2010 (net differentials), and then tell us who won the presidency in 2012.

Thanks (for wasting everyone’s time).

2018 has voter turnout closer to a Presidential year for the Dems. But not for the GOP.

Lets look at the House

2008.

GOP 52.2m, Dems 65.2m

2010

GOP 44.8m, Dems 38.9m

2012

GOP 58.2m, Dems 59.6m

2014

GOP 40.1m, 35.6m

2016

GOP 63.4m, Dems 62.3m

2018 (so far)

GOP 48.8m. Dems 55.7m

(11-11-2018 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Republicans cannot win at identity politics. The media will see to it that they don't.

Identity politics is unsustainable. As we saw with nearly every communist regime ever ... who is and isn't "privileged" is a forever moving line. Next up on the chopping block are Asians (already seeing this in college admissions), white women (already seeing this on social media writ large), and white gay men. A "purity" race to the bottom eventually produces a majority outside of it.

The question is how long until the bubble bursts? If it's a slow burn I could see the country splitting apart before it implodes under its own filth.

(11-11-2018 01:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Beto actually took some strong stands. He didnt pretend to be a gun supporter, he flat out said...I want gun control. He fully supported a womans right to choose. He strongly supported DACA and strongly opposed the wall. He supported Black Lives Matter strongly. You cant argue that Beto avoided issues. And the GOP ran a lot of ads calling him to the left of Sanders and Pelosi. I dont think anyone can say his policy positions were fluff. Yes, he is a good looking man, and oozes cool. That does help. But beyond that, he and his campaign also outworked the Cruz people too. And he did it with effectively no existing party infrastructure.
BTW, Beto has bern called Beto for his whole life. Was Rafael trying to hide is foreign heritage (Canada) by calling himself Ted. Its really a dumb argument. Beto doesnt claim to be Hispanic, and Hispanic turnout, while record setting for a midterm, didnt improve as dramatically as other groups.
Beto crushed Cruz with Anglo Urban/Suburban women. Thats a particular area of concern for the GOP in Tarrant, Collin, Denton, and Williamson Counties.
If the GOP craps the bed again with that demographic, they could still win Texas, but there are 12 Texas house seats in suburban areas where the GOP hung on by less than 5 percent. The Dems need 9 seats to take control. 6 more GOP seats in Congress from Texas are vulnerable if the GOP loses much more margin in the suburbs.
Basically every suburban county had strong movement to the left save Montgomery.

"Beto" owned up on those issues when pushed. But I think he got a lot more votes for being cute and Latino (yes, I know people who voted for him because he was the Hispanic in the race) than he did for his issue positions. I don't know anybody who voted for him because of his position on guns. I even know someone with a "come and take it" bumper sticker who voted for "Beto" because he was the Hispanic in the race. Yes that is anecdotal, but I'm guessing it's not uncommon.

Democrats nationally claim the election was about health care, and I tend to agree. Republicans have screwed the pooch on health care to an incredible degree. And the right answer is staring them in the face--Bismarck not only works better than anything else, but it should be an easy sell. Bismarck with a Singapore option would work even better. And I think health care cost them big time in the suburbs.

(11-11-2018 01:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Very interesting data, OP.

Now do 2008 and 2010 (net differentials), and then tell us who won the presidency in 2012.

Thanks (for wasting everyone’s time).

2018 has voter turnout closer to a Presidential year for the Dems. But not for the GOP.

Lets look at the House

2008.

GOP 52.2m, Dems 65.2m

2010

GOP 44.8m, DEms 38.9m

2016

GOP 63.4m, Dems 62.3m

2018 (so far)

GOP 48.8m. Dems 55.7m

dems got their “check”, and will no longer be able to run on Trump hate. 2020 will be about results. Trump accomplishments vs pelosi obstruction. Whew, buddy.

Probably would have been better if the GOP kept the House this cycle, then you could have (or at least had a better shot) at sweeping the House and Presidency. Now the dems have ~30 seats in red districts, and the GOP only needs to flip ~15. And Trump will be on the ballot :)

No shot for the dems in the Senate until at least 2022.