(03-09-2018 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-08-2018 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here are the claims I've made

you also seriously implied that two data points is a trend, primaries = Generals and 'the team that won' is going to be as motivated/invested as the team that lost.

Before the last election (the Presidential cycle) dozes of knowledgeable people and even more posters were making identical claims to yours about (among other things) the changing demographics of the country etc etc etc....

and they were all wrong.

If you'd like to continue to argue the same point... fine...

And you lost the popular vote by a wide margin. Look, you guys found a way, for the second time in the last five elections, to gerrymander your way to the Oval Office. Okay, just simply make that argument if you'd like.

Either way, there are a few things going on here in Texas

1) Historically, Democratic vote margins improve dramatically in statewide races over the primary voting margin

2) The Democrats had a massive increase in turnout in their primary, far outpacing the Republicans.

Now, you could argue that the increase in item 2 will mitigate the historic trend in item 1. We will have to see about that.

I'd argue that its way too early to write Beto off. And that the primary results in no way point to a massive Cruz win. Why not go back to 2012 to see the last Cruz race.

In 2012.... Republican primary turnout vs Democratic Primary turnout 75-25%. Actual final voting margin (Cruz over Sadler) 55% to 40%. So a 50 point margin in primary vote went all the way down to a 15% one.

This year, the primary margin was closer to 60-40. It doesn't take a 35 percent improvement in vote margin to elect O'Rourke to the Senate.