5 Takeways from the election
- Thread starter Marine03
- Start date
Stupid, the margins of all races are far, far closer than they have been in 20+ years in Texas.
Abbott had 130X more cash than Valdez.The fact that it still only had a roughly 6% swing (note: "swing" by the definition of it by every single country in the world other than your house in Hurricane, West Virginia) is a huge red flag for Republicans regarding Texas.
On one side, you had a Republican incumbent governor in charge of a state whose economy has been rolling. He was the longest serving attorney general in Texas' history. He was a Texas Supreme Court judge before that and went to a prestigious law school. He had 130X more cash for the election than his competitor.
On the other side, you had a female, openly gay, hispanic woman of migrant-farming parents whose Bachelor's is from Southern Nazarene University. Her only elected position was as a sheriff. She had no history of politics. There had to be a runoff in her primary, because she didn't even get a majority of votes. She had 130X less cash than her competitor.
Yet there was only about a 6% swing, which is the closest race Abbott has ever been in regardless of the elected position or it being just a primary or a general election.
That is some very, very worrisome shit for Republicans in Texas.
By no means can a reasonable person say that Texas isn't turning bluer . . . and at a rapid pace. Statistics simply cannot be manipulated to argue your side.
No wonder we cannot come to any compromise or agreements in governing. If you choose to support any issue, you are automatically labeled as "far left" or "far right". After the name calling, we then have justification to no longer communicate because we all know that extremes will not budge on their stances. We have been sabotaged by these extremes through media and too many of us have bought into this type of thinking. The United States has been built on compromise and through the efforts of many immigrants. I still believe that the majority of folks fall in the middle and would prefer discussion, fair debate and reasoning to be our governing principals. Not name calling or castigation.
Texas has 28.5 million in population....that makes that 200k look a lot smaller. Cruz lost 6 points this time vs 2012. And that is all from demographic change, which is not slowing down. Beto won 900k more votes than the Dem in 2012...again, all demographic change.
An interesting fact: Texas and New York now have the same percentage of urban/suburban vs rural population (only 13% rural). And Texas by land mass is a MUCH more rural state.
Abbott? Hard to beat a governor when the economy is booming. The Texas economy barely even slowed down in the great recession (see graph). Oil is straight money.
Don’t try to reason cuntry. He doesn’t like facts. Plus he is not capable of understanding charts.Texas has 28.5 million in population....that makes that 200k look a lot smaller. Cruz lost 6 points this time vs 2012. And that is all from demographic change, which is not slowing down. Beto won 900k more votes than the Dem in 2012...again, all demographic change.
An interesting fact: Texas and New York now have the same percentage of urban/suburban vs rural population (only 13% rural). And Texas by land mass is a MUCH more rural state.
Abbott? Hard to beat a governor when the economy is booming. The Texas economy barely even slowed down in the great recession (see graph). Oil is straight money.
Everything in this paragraph is misleading. 28.5 million people didn't vote, nor can they. About 8.3 million people voted in this race. What Cruz lost from 2012 was not even remotely due to demographic changes, much less solely because of it. There was virtually no challenger in that race.
Abbot got 63,000 fewer votes this time than Trump did in 2016. Valdez got 357,000 less than Hillary.
Beto was a good candidate with the entire machine behind him. Cruz isn't liked by many in his own party, yet he still won by a comfortable margin. In a normal environment, Abbot/Valdez and the 13.3% difference is going to happen far more often than Cruz/Beto.
By the way, that Abbot win is 4% more than Trump beat Hillary. Doesn't sound like a rapidly changing demographic.
This^^^
Despite being one of the most unlikeable people in politics and being pretty much despised by his own party, he still beat Beto and his money machine. The margin isn't a "swing" to the left, it's an indictment of how terrible Cruz is. Texas isn't going blue any time soon.
I interpret that as you have trouble following a logical argument.
No shit Sherlock. But you do seem to have "small state syndrome" bragging about the spread of total votes. Texas ain't WV....200k there was a 2.6% win, not a staggering victory for the son of JFK's assassin.
Yo are wrong.
Make up your mind, is he the true picture of GOP dominance in Texas or not? Jesus.
I bet they like him more than Beto. You think fvcking Beto didn't get Republican to hit the Cruz lever? You are nuts.
There is no "normal environment" in a rapidly growing and changing electorate.
Doesn't sound like you know shit. Half of Texas's growth since 2010 is Hispanics. Not the wetback kind, the native born kind. Hispanics have been in Texas longer than white people, no surprise there...and they tend to have more kids. We know roughly 30% of Hispanics that vote vote Republican...I wonder how the other 70% vote? Add in the growth of younger, educated voters that have moved to Texas (surprise, there's that economy thing), we know how they tend to vote, and you start to get the picture.
While white Texans remain the largest demographic group in Texas, their growth rate since 2010 was easily outpaced by other major demographic groups.
I don't make shit up...here:
Race 2010 population estimate 2016 population estimate Change
Asian 960,549; 1,301,143; 35.5%
Black 2,900,003; 3,298,870; 13.8
Hispanic 9,460,960; 10,881,124; 15
White 11,429,004; 11,872,926; 3.9
- Note: "White" includes individuals only categorized by the U.S. Census as non-Hispanic. "Hispanic" includes individuals of any race.
- Source: U.S. Census Bureau
I can dig up numbers on how Texas whites are trending more educated and urban if you wish.
People hate politicians in general, but they love their politicians, even if they actually don't like them. See Joe Manchin.
Cruz isn't like by the GOP big whigs because he has continually thumbed his nose at him. I'm sure McConnell thinks Cruz is an asshole, but he sure didn't get behind a primary challenger.
Like usual, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Beto was able to get entirely new demographics to actually turn out in numbers. It was a huge change in the demographics of voters. He focused on minorities and the young demographic. It worked - more people voted EARLY in Texas than voted in the entire 2014 midterms.
Cruz received 200,000 fewer votes this election than he did in his last Senate campaign. Beto received 824,000 more votes than the Democratic candidate who ran against Cruz the last time. Even with more voters in this election, Cruz had fewer votes while the Democratic candidate had a huge surge in votes.
From the 2014 Senate election, Cruz received 1.386 million more than the Republican candidate. Beto received 2.425 million more than the Democratic candidate.
If you're too dumb to see the huge swing that took place, then you must have had Banker for a math tutor.
You just aren't good at numbers. Hell, you aren't even average at numbers.
Then, how do you explain the ever smaller margin in the presidential elections:
Reagan: 64% Mondale: 36% (28%)
Bush: 56% Dukakis: 43% (13%)
Bush: 41% Clinton: 37% Perot: 22%
Dole: 49% Clinton: 44% Perot: 7%
Bush: 59% Gore: 38% (21%)
Bush: 61% Kerry: 38% (23%)
McCain: 55% Obama: 44% (11%)
Romney: 57% Obama: 41% (16%)
cheeto: 52% Clinton: 43% (9%)
McCain received 5% fewer percentage points than Romney, guess that means Texas was trending Bluer in 2008 than 2012.
Cruz, the actual Hispanic not married to a billionaire, picked up 40% of the Hispanic vote. As long as Republicans hit that 40% mark in Texas they have nothing to worry about.
By the way the response to this post will just be paragraphs and paragraphs of character assassination, foul words, and a cavalcade of written diarrhea.
There really is no point in having a cogent conversation because the only way Raoul and others can communicate is by boorish and lame word salad.
Cruz, the actual Hispanic not married to a billionaire, picked up 40% of the Hispanic vote. As long as Republicans hit that 40% mark in Texas they have nothing to worry about.
By the way the response to this post will just be paragraphs and paragraphs of character assassination, foul words, and a cavalcade of written diarrhea.
There really is no point in having a cogent conversation because the only way Raoul and others can communicate is by boorish and lame word salad.
"It's the economy, stupid." Even with Texas not being hit as hard by what was going down in 2008, people were still worried and the incumbent party was going to take a hit.
Valid statistical and empirical evidence is word salad? That's a new definition for that phrase.
I have seen no cogent argument here that Texas is not rapidly changing.
I had no idea Beto married money; honestly I thought he was single, and possibly gay. And I am not sure Canadian Hispanic counts.
I don't even care about Beto, and wouldn't have voted for him if I lived in Texas, this haircut is enough for me to say no:
The actual number Keeper stated went right past me....yeah, 5% isn't even close.
Clearly, he was using balsamic vinaigrette to put over his word salad of fabricated numbers.
Wow. That's entirely different than what you posted.
I'm just going to do you a favor and leave this one alone. Somebody else can play the asshole role tonight if they want to laugh at you.
Oh, I understand exactly how you came up with your 5% claim. It's just that it is entirely different than your claim that "McCain received 5% fewer percentage points than Romney."
Yes, the split between the two races was 5% which is entirely different than what you first said.
Not to be a jerk, but yeah rifle is correct. Votes received is simply that, the share of total votes cast that were cast for that particular candidate. Spread or split is what you had in mind.
At times, they can be. You'd have to be using them discussing the same thing, which you weren't.
Enlisting and enrolling are the same thing.
The fact you are trying to argue this is baffling. This isn't semantics or nitpicking. What you originally stated and what you now claim you meant are entirely different things.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
saip Mike Green invited to NFL combine. I did not see anyone else
- Latest: raleighherdfan
-
-
-
-