(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).

It's not my fault the Republicans ran Mitt Romney.

BTW I'm still waiting to hear you admit you blew it on your O'Rourke prediction with your 10 percent Cruz win and 1.5 million vote win.

(11-11-2018 12:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

It was. And he was better at it than Hillary. So was Obama. Trump was really the triumph of Karl Rove's approach to identity politics. But that can only give you at best a bare majority, and it has to be sliced perfectly to get that. And demographics are changing, that's not going to work much longer, if any.

But Trump was the outlier in many ways. He's a populist, and that appeal wears off quickly. It is now with many, including me.

I really don't see anyone in 2020 that I would support. It's going to be a lesser of evils race for me, and that will probably be libertarian again.

What republicans need to do is what Newt did with the Contract in 1994. Pick a bunch of issues, do some polling to see what positions can win, then adopt those and push them, and make everybody get on message and stay on message. No matter what you are asked, take your answer back to the message.

I think Bismarck is a winner on health care, Bismarck with a Singapore option even better. I don't think the wall is a winner, but I think some combination of increased legal immigration and better enforcement against illegal immigration can work. The economy should have been a big winner, but Trump's protectionist tariffs threaten that. But I could be wrong about these and others.

(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 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

Turnout was up in Fort Bend County. Clinton got 134K votes, O'Rourke got 141K. I'd say turnout was down in Harris County, but don't say it was down in Houston. Fort Bend County is for all practical purposes Houston.

The lack of Hispanic voting was huge. I'm not sure how that is going to change in the future. Even if one of the Castro brothers was running for a major office, I don't think it's going to improve.

(11-11-2018 01:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl 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).

It's not my fault the Republicans ran Mitt Romney.

BTW I'm still waiting to hear you admit you blew it on O'Rourke prediction with your 10 percent Cruz win and 1.5 million vote win.

dems may have a mitt romney problem in 2020, given that “none of the above” is currently the leader in the clubhouse.

Re: my “Cruz prediction”, that post in particular was hyperbole, and a jab at your efforts to get out the vote as if it would make a difference. I expected Cruz to win by 4-5.

I’m still waiting for tom to disavow all of his Senator Robert “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) posts.

(11-11-2018 01:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl 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).

It's not my fault the Republicans ran Mitt Romney.
BTW I'm still waiting to hear you admit you blew it on your O'Rourke prediction with your 10 percent Cruz win and 1.5 million vote win.

Whom do democrats have for 2020 that is better than Mitt Romney?

Based on the current cast of potential candidates, I'll register as a democrat again and vote for Hillary in the primary.

(11-11-2018 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

Youre missing the point of the 2018 election if you think that its all about Beto faking (he didnt) being Hispanic and health care. Pelosi and the Dems did do an excellent job on message discipline by largely refusing to engage Trump and his outgage/distraction of the day. But thats because Trumps antics were so offensive to so many people that they never needed to. Trump motivated at least as many Dems to vote against him as for him. And the Dems made credible arguments on health care AND trumps tariffs (in the Midwest) without a response from the GOP. Expect Pelosi to pass votes on both of them constantly over the next 2 years on both issues and then force Trump and the GOP senate to kill those bills.

Also, the Dems did incredibly well in every statewide race except Governor (which was the one with the Latina candidate). The whole Beto is Mexican argument fails when you look at Lupe Valdez' numbers versus his.

And remember, Beto pretending ( or not) to be Hispanic didnt drive all those Anglo women in Texas suburbs to vote Dem. Chalk up Texas 2018 to Betos name and watch the Dems make a serious play for the Texas House.

(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 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

Looking at what happened in Harris County, I think Democratic turnout was up in Houston. Democrats swept all the county races, including county judge and they took all but the northside commissioner district and only lost that by 8.

(11-11-2018 12:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

That's why Democrats lose, not understanding the other side.

"It was about the economy, stupid."

(11-11-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl 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).

It's not my fault the Republicans ran Mitt Romney.
BTW I'm still waiting to hear you admit you blew it on your O'Rourke prediction with your 10 percent Cruz win and 1.5 million vote win.

Whom do democrats have for 2020 that is better than Mitt Romney.

Based on the current cast of potential candidates, I'll register as a democrat again and vote for Hillary in the primary.

Obama was a far better candidate than Trump. It largely wont matter in 2020, because its all about Trump.

The potential candidates...

Beto, Biden, Booker, Harris, Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, Bloomberg, Swawell, Klobacher, Warren, Castro. Not all will run. I think that Warren and Harris are those with the most negatives (fairly or unfairly) against them. No clue who its gonna be. Nor do I think the Dems choice will matter much.

The GOP called just about every Dem candidate a MS13 supporting communist and it wasnt terribly effective.

That list is awful.

(11-11-2018 01:53 PM)bullet 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 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

Looking at what happened in Harris County, I think Democratic turnout was up in Houston. Democrats swept all the county races, including county judge and they took all but the northside commissioner district and only lost that by 8.

Ive run the numbers....Turnout in Metro Houston fell by 10 percent from 2016, and that was pretty much evenly distributed around the area. It was double that of 2014.

(11-11-2018 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl 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).

It's not my fault the Republicans ran Mitt Romney.
BTW I'm still waiting to hear you admit you blew it on your O'Rourke prediction with your 10 percent Cruz win and 1.5 million vote win.

Whom do democrats have for 2020 that is better than Mitt Romney.

Based on the current cast of potential candidates, I'll register as a democrat again and vote for Hillary in the primary.

Obama was a far better candidate than Trump. It largely wont matter in 2020, because its all about Trump.

The potential candidates...

Beto, Biden, Booker, Harris, Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, Bloomberg, Swawell, Klobacher, Warren, Castro. Not all will run. I think that Warren and Harris are those with the most negatives (fairly or unfairly) against them. No clue who its gonna be. Nor do I think the Dems choice will matter much.

The GOP called just about every Dem candidate a MS13 supporting communist and it wasnt terribly effective.

And Democrats called Trump a Nazi, fascist, rapist, mysoginist, racist and a whole bunch of other things. How did that work out?

(11-11-2018 01:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

That's why Democrats lose, not understanding the other side.

"It was about the economy, stupid."

Then how do you explain 2018?

But you are slightly correct in one aspect. It WAS fundamentally about the new global economy for many voters, especially those that arent going to be winners in the new setup. Trump was able to pick then up while enough retaining traditional Republicans to eeke out a tiny victory.

Even with a supposedly booming economy and no unpopular war....the Dems absolutely crushed the GOP, winning the national vote by over 7 million votes in a MIDTERM election.

(11-11-2018 02:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl 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).

It's not my fault the Republicans ran Mitt Romney.
BTW I'm still waiting to hear you admit you blew it on your O'Rourke prediction with your 10 percent Cruz win and 1.5 million vote win.

Whom do democrats have for 2020 that is better than Mitt Romney.

Based on the current cast of potential candidates, I'll register as a democrat again and vote for Hillary in the primary.

Obama was a far better candidate than Trump. It largely wont matter in 2020, because its all about Trump.

The potential candidates...

Beto, Biden, Booker, Harris, Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, Bloomberg, Swawell, Klobacher, Warren, Castro. Not all will run. I think that Warren and Harris are those with the most negatives (fairly or unfairly) against them. No clue who its gonna be. Nor do I think the Dems choice will matter much.

The GOP called just about every Dem candidate a MS13 supporting communist and it wasnt terribly effective.

And Democrats called Trump a Nazi, fascist, rapist, mysoginist, racist and a whole bunch of other things. How did that work out?

Id argue that Trumps misogyny and his signaling to the alt right has been very effective in turning out women to vote against him.

Basically, Trump is making the Dems argument for them on fitness for office

And allowing the Dems to beat the GOP up on healthcare, living wages, and trade policy with no response from the GOP.

(11-11-2018 01:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Youre missing the point of the 2018 election if you think that its all about Beto faking (he didnt) being Hispanic and health care. Pelosi and the Dems did do an excellent job on message discipline by largely refusing to engage Trump and his outgage/distraction of the day. But thats because Trumps antics were so offensive to so many people that they never needed to. Trump motivated at least as many Dems to vote against him as for him. And the Dems made credible arguments on health care AND trumps tariffs (in the Midwest) without a response from the GOP. Expect Pelosi to pass votes on both of them constantly over the next 2 years on both issues and then force Trump and the GOP senate to kill those bills.
Also, the Dems did incredibly well in every statewide race except Governor (which was the one with the Latina candidate). The whole Beto is Mexican argument fails when you look at Lupe Valdez' numbers versus his.
And remember, Beto pretending ( or not) to be Hispanic didnt drive all those Anglo women in Texas suburbs to vote Dem. Chalk up Texas 2018 to Betos name and watch the Dems make a serious play for the Texas House.

I wouldn't say that Robert didn't fake it. He sure made "Beto" the focus of his entire campaign, and sort of let the idea get out there, and clearly didn't do anything to stop it. Talk about "dog whistles."

The one thing about Texas that I find amazing is that Dan Patrick won by as big a margin as he did. If there was any republican to repudiate on the standard democrat talking points, it was Dan, who is an almost looney religious conservative.

The tariffs were a political mistake, and will probably prove to be an economic one as well. They certainly hurt in the midwest where their impact has been felt.

Republicans need to get their act together and come up with winning issues in 2020. Otherwise I fear we will see the likes of Kamala Harris or Fauxcohontas or Spartacus, with Pelosi still running a democrat house.

(11-11-2018 02:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And allowing the Dems to beat the GOP up on healthcare, living wages, and trade policy with no response from the GOP.

Virtue signaling and just saying "living wage" doesn't mean or do anything. Unemployment is at record lows, and wages are up organically under President Trump's tax cuts.

Raise taxes and make it illegal for someone to work for $14.99/hour, and the most vulnerable in our society's "living wage" becomes $0/hour.

(11-11-2018 02:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:53 PM)bullet 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 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

Looking at what happened in Harris County, I think Democratic turnout was up in Houston. Democrats swept all the county races, including county judge and they took all but the northside commissioner district and only lost that by 8.

Ive run the numbers....Turnout in Metro Houston fell by 10 percent from 2016, and that was pretty much evenly distributed around the area. It was double that of 2014.

Everything goes down in non-presidential years.

(11-11-2018 02:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

That's why Democrats lose, not understanding the other side.

"It was about the economy, stupid."

Then how do you explain 2018?

But you are slightly correct in one aspect. It WAS fundamentally about the new global economy for many voters, especially those that arent going to be winners in the new setup. Trump was able to pick then up while enough retaining traditional Republicans to eeke out a tiny victory.

Even with a supposedly booming economy and no unpopular war....the Dems absolutely crushed the GOP, winning the national vote by over 7 million votes in a MIDTERM election.

Republicans picked up seats in the Senate, probably 3. JFK picked up 3. Ike picked up 5. Nixon picked up 2. Reagan, W and LBJ each picked up 1. The rest lost, and lost big, all the way back to the Great Depression. So only Ike may have had a better mid-term.

Republicans still won most of the governor's races, including Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts, which obviously were not about Trump.

And the House loss was lower than average and pretty disappointing to the Democrats.

(11-11-2018 02:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Youre missing the point of the 2018 election if you think that its all about Beto faking (he didnt) being Hispanic and health care. Pelosi and the Dems did do an excellent job on message discipline by largely refusing to engage Trump and his outgage/distraction of the day. But thats because Trumps antics were so offensive to so many people that they never needed to. Trump motivated at least as many Dems to vote against him as for him. And the Dems made credible arguments on health care AND trumps tariffs (in the Midwest) without a response from the GOP. Expect Pelosi to pass votes on both of them constantly over the next 2 years on both issues and then force Trump and the GOP senate to kill those bills.
Also, the Dems did incredibly well in every statewide race except Governor (which was the one with the Latina candidate). The whole Beto is Mexican argument fails when you look at Lupe Valdez' numbers versus his.
And remember, Beto pretending ( or not) to be Hispanic didnt drive all those Anglo women in Texas suburbs to vote Dem. Chalk up Texas 2018 to Betos name and watch the Dems make a serious play for the Texas House.

I wouldn't say that Robert didn't fake it. He sure made "Beto" the focus of his entire campaign, and sort of let the idea get out there, and clearly didn't do anything to stop it. Talk about "dog whistles."

The one thing about Texas that I find amazing is that Dan Patrick won by as big a margin as he did. If there was any republican to repudiate on the standard democrat talking points, it was Dan, who is an almost looney religious conservative.

The tariffs were a political mistake, and will probably prove to be an economic one as well. They certainly hurt in the midwest where their impact has been felt.

Republicans need to get their act together and come up with winning issues in 2020. Otherwise I fear we will see the likes of Kamala Harris or Fauxcohontas or Spartacus, with Pelosi still running a democrat house.

I don't think the tariffs were a political mistake. And I think they are a long overdue correction. We are finally putting the American worker on the same rules. We've turned a blind eye to other nation's protectionism. We've got a better NAFTA as a result. We've got a better deal with South Korea. Anything is better than what we have been doing with China.

(11-11-2018 03:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

That's why Democrats lose, not understanding the other side.

"It was about the economy, stupid."

Then how do you explain 2018?

But you are slightly correct in one aspect. It WAS fundamentally about the new global economy for many voters, especially those that arent going to be winners in the new setup. Trump was able to pick then up while enough retaining traditional Republicans to eeke out a tiny victory.

Even with a supposedly booming economy and no unpopular war....the Dems absolutely crushed the GOP, winning the national vote by over 7 million votes in a MIDTERM election.

Republicans picked up seats in the Senate, probably 3. JFK picked up 3. Ike picked up 5. Nixon picked up 2. Reagan, W and LBJ each picked up 1. The rest lost, and lost big, all the way back to the Great Depression. So only Ike may have had a better mid-term.

Republicans still won most of the governor's races, including Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts, which obviously were not about Trump.

And the House loss was lower than average and pretty disappointing to the Democrats.

I think it will be 2 seats. Sinema is up by 28k votes. The map was terrible for the Dems in 2018.