Texas 2020 general election

[Voldemort86 2259]

43 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Not very encouraging. Hoping to see a couple of things in the general election:

1. Republicans have a bunch of olds that vote in every election, including dog catcher. Dems want a shot to take trump out and will show up when he’s on the ballot against a dem.

2. This primary was weird and fragmented with nobody starting any type of movement. Hopefully Biden will be riding a wave of anti trump momentum into the general.

3. It’s going to be tough because trumps people WILL show up.

2024 is the year where I think Texas will be in play.

 

still need another 5 years of olds dying off.

[Huckleberry 32694]

3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Those are the races where ballot position and name can make the difference.  I skip those races too, but a lot of people make a completely uniformed decision.

Baseball uniformed or football uniformed? Important because wearing a helmet to the ballot box just seems weird.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Texas73 420]

40 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Great night for Joe Biden here but the thing I fount most interesting is that the GOP cast 2,000,541 votes vs Dems 1,620,224 vote total.  Lot of Ground to make up for the Dems from a total perspective, in the General if they want to take Texas. General in 2016 went 4,685,047 for Trump and 3,877,868 for Clinton.

In the presidential Republican primary the vote total is 2,000,619 with 71,359 uncommitted. 

In the presidential Democratic primary the vote total is 1,812,552.

Your Dems 1,620,224 is from the Dem senate total.

Point is the statewide total between the parties is closer than your post indicates.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  And I have some thoughts on a phenomenon we saw in Travis County last night -- not a single male candidate in any local race won.  Not.  One.

Women showed up. They are pissed (can't blame them, by the way).  And in races where they didn't have specific information (judicial races usually fall in that bucket), they opted for the female over the male.  There is NO policy-based or political explanation for Sulak's defeat -- he has never invited any material controversy (other than pissing off one side or another in a case before him), no scandal, no nothing.  There was ZERO reason to vote against him.  In fact, he is one of the best-rated judges in Travis County according to all sides of the bar -- he is a great judge.  But yesterday, he didn't have ovaries, and that cost him.

Has it been confirmed that Sulak lost? It was close. If so, that really sucks. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

16 minutes ago, Texas73 said:

In the presidential Republican primary the vote total is 2,000,619 with 71,359 uncommitted. 

In the presidential Democratic primary the vote total is 1,812,552.

Your Dems 1,620,224 is from the Dem senate total.

Point is the statewide total between the parties is closer than your post indicates.

My totally unscientific guess is that Texas is an R+3 state now. Close enough for turnout to effect it. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Looks like republican chip Roy is a dead man walking in US House 21 to Wendy Davis. 
 

Also I see that republican loon Robert morrow won the republican primary for a state board of education slot. He seems to have a knack for winning republican primaries in Travis county. 

[bernorange 8348]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

... Also I see that republican loon Robert morrow won the republican primary for a state board of education slot. ...

Legit lol.  That dude is crazy.  He didn't win the seat, BTW,  there will be a runoff election.

Quote

Robert Morrow, who has been a thorn in the side of the GOP, has clinched a spot in the May 26 Republican primary runoff for the State Board of Education District 5 seat, which represents an area spanning Austin to San Antonio, according to the Associated Press.

With most polling places reporting Wednesday morning, Morrow, an anti-Trump provocateur who often posts photos of women's breasts on social media, had 40% of votes in the Republican primary. He will face Lani Popp, a public school speech pathologist who had 34% of votes, in the Republican primary runoff. Inga Cotton, executive director of San Antonio Charter Moms, a nonprofit that provides resources to families about charter schools, had 26% of votes.

...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/robert-morrow-anti-trump-provocateur-clinches-spot-in-state-education-gop-runoff/ar-BB10JWzd

[bernorange 8348]

49 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Maybe I’m different but I see it as irresponsible to pick a candidate when I know nothing about either person running, especially in a primary where they are in the same party. I skipped a lot of races on my ballot for this reason. 

Yesterday, my 20 y/o son told me he was headed to city hall to vote.  First time in his life to vote in a primary election.  I was surprised (at his interest - he didn't seem that engaged).  The only advice I gave him was that on down ballot races, if he had not done any research or didn't know anything about the candidates, to leave it blank and not vote.  Just vote for races where he was informed.

[gmr548 16482]

Oh, there's plenty of details on those, but seriously -- we just elected, as a judge, for the next FOUR YEARS....someone who has been sanctioned, TWICE, for vexatious litigation activities.  She couldn't even APPEAR in the court as a party without getting permission to file a suit....and now she's going to sit on that court's bench.
Litigating in Travis County is going to be a minefield for the next four years.

Wtf why did people vote for her? That was probably the one judicial race where it was easy for a layman to determine a clear contrast. God damn.

[gmr548 16482]

In the presidential Republican primary the vote total is 2,000,619 with 71,359 uncommitted. 
In the presidential Democratic primary the vote total is 1,812,552.
Your Dems 1,620,224 is from the Dem senate total.
Point is the statewide total between the parties is closer than your post indicates.

It's still a stark reminder that more people showed up to vote for an unopposed incumbent than the D field in the second most consequential state in the Democratic primary.

[gmr548 16482]

My totally unscientific guess is that Texas is an R+3 state now. Close enough for turnout to effect it. 

I think it's probably closer to +5-6.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, gmr548 said:

I think it's probably closer to +5-6.

I think it was 2 years ago. So many people moving here though and so many newly registered voters have changed that. Just my opinion though. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

4 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I think it's probably closer to +5-6.

Based on a comparison of total votes in the respective presidential primary, it's 53-47 -- a 6 point spread.  Not much change.  An unpopular candidate and big turnout can shrink that, maybe to 2-3 points, but at this time, it's still a generally insurmountable margin (again, major scandal/development aside -- just assuming trends as usual).

[Pescado_Rojo 19330]

Statewide it is probably still around +5 R, but looking at some of the house races made me hopeful. There were several races where there is an R incumbent, but there were more votes cast in the D primary than the R primary. Tx31, TX10, Tx21, Tx23, and Tx 25 all seem like excellent pick up opportunities for the Ds this cycle. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

My friend ran against her [Sheila Jackson Lee] in the D primary. He didn’t do as well as he thought he was going to do.

I think someone could easily convince themselves that people in her district want a change if you spend time with people that dislike her or worse, they're embarrassed by her. However there appears to be a large crowd that like her or at least support her. I also think it hurt the chance of removing her by having 6 challengers even though she still won 76%.

Hats off to her that she basically doesn't have to compete, and she correctly laughed off her primary challengers.  When I went to an early polling location, she had a "volunteer" holding up a SJL sign. Never hurts to spread some campaign $ by paying polling workers. Helps your constituents.

[Brisketexan 104537]

3 hours ago, A-Tex Devil said:

@Brisketexan or whoever has thoughts. 

So I am curious how the campaigns for the district courts operate.  I spend most of my time in West Austin/Bee Cave/Lakeway and saw nothing but Kennon Wooten and Tim Sulak signs everywhere (as an example).  I didn't see many Cantu-Hexsel or Madeleine Connor signs at all, nor did I really see much about them in social media, from attorneys recommending them etc.  Both Kennon and Tim lost (although perhaps Tim's race close enough that they are still counting), so the Connor/Cantu-Hexsel campaigns were working somewhere.

Do the district court candidates just pick the locations that they think will get the best turnout, such that if I drove to Cedar Park or Round Rock or East Austin I'd see Connor and Cantu-Hexsel signs and not Wooten or Sulak signs?   Those two races were very surprising outcomes to me (especially Sulak), and it was a tough loss for Kennon who was an acquaintance back in school.  She has the demeanor and knowledge of jurisprudence to be on Texas Supreme Court one day.  

 

I mean, I'm sure there's some sort of strategy there -- limited resources (these aren't high-dollar races) mean you spend them where you get the most bang for your buck.  I mean, the district for all the local courts covers the entirety of Travis County, but you put your material in areas of the highest turnout.

Still, you noted one very well-funded and very qualified candidate, Kennon Wooten, who has a lot more resources than her opponent, Maria Cantu Hexsel.  Kennon had lots of TV ad buys, all that stuff....and still lost rather soundly, 57-43.  Now, I have a hypothesis -- to the uninformed voter, "Kennon" is a gender-neutral name, maybe even male.  So, see my comment above about male candidates getting beaten across the board.  Thankfully, in this race, we had two good and qualified candidates to choose from -- Maria will do a great job, and she is well-regarded by her peers.

But every few elections, we see yet another example of why having judicial elections isn't always a great idea.  Bad candidates win/good candidates lose, just because of the letter next to their name, or because of their gender, or because one has a cooler-sounding name.  Their performance and record as a judge (or as a challenger with a resume) has almost nothing to do with the election outcome.  It would be best if people just didn't vote in races they don't know anything about (e.g., I failed to research my local SBOE seat, so I left that one blank).

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2659]

Madeleine Connor is just straight-up nuts, and I mean that literally. 

She was at a judicial candidate forum recently and someone asked about why she deserved the judgeship after being branded a frivolous lawsuit-filer by the state bar, and her response was "I disagree, that's just your opinion." And also, "Chapter 11 is unconstitutional."  This from a now- district judge applying state law. LOL 

[tx 3 putt 76296]

Great job south Austin, keeping this guy going : 

[Ghost of LL 15469]

4 hours ago, A-Tex Devil said:

@Brisketexan or whoever has thoughts. 

So I am curious how the campaigns for the district courts operate.  I spend most of my time in West Austin/Bee Cave/Lakeway and saw nothing but Kennon Wooten and Tim Sulak signs everywhere (as an example).  I didn't see many Cantu-Hexsel or Madeleine Connor signs at all, nor did I really see much about them in social media, from attorneys recommending them etc.  Both Kennon and Tim lost (although perhaps Tim's race close enough that they are still counting), so the Connor/Cantu-Hexsel campaigns were working somewhere.

Do the district court candidates just pick the locations that they think will get the best turnout, such that if I drove to Cedar Park or Round Rock or East Austin I'd see Connor and Cantu-Hexsel signs and not Wooten or Sulak signs?   Those two races were very surprising outcomes to me (especially Sulak), and it was a tough loss for Kennon who was an acquaintance back in school.  She has the demeanor and knowledge of jurisprudence to be on Texas Supreme Court one day.  

 

Seriously--you're over-thinking it.  Tim is a man.  Kennon is an ambiguous name.  

Uninformed voters went to the polls and voted for the woman over the man right down the ballot.  That is really the only explanation.

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Great job south Austin, keeping this guy going : 

Reported for doxxing. 

[A-Tex Devil 2445]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Seriously--you're over-thinking it.  Tim is a man.  Kennon is an ambiguous name.  

Uninformed voters went to the polls and voted for the woman over the man right down the ballot.  That is really the only explanation.

Fair. I didn’t think about that aspect at all. And I believe KW was second of the two for those that vote first name on ballot.  I am in camp that won’t vote if I don’t  know.

I do note that the dude got most votes for DA.   I wonder if the anti-Moore contingent that is switching from Martinson to Garza can keep things in his favor in runoff.  I have to believe Martinson will endorse Garza  

 

[APMP 685]

Sulak losing is a DISASTER. It's central docket.

And we are going to his only child's wedding this weekend, man I can't even imagine the whirlwind of emotions they are going through...

[gmr548 16482]

I think it was 2 years ago. So many people moving here though and so many newly registered voters have changed that. Just my opinion though. 

Eh. Cruz eeked it out, but Abbott won by double digits and a lot of the statewide races were high single digits. You're right that it's generally shifting though.

Based on a comparison of total votes in the respective presidential primary, it's 53-47 -- a 6 point spread.  Not much change.  An unpopular candidate and big turnout can shrink that, maybe to 2-3 points, but at this time, it's still a generally insurmountable margin (again, major scandal/development aside -- just assuming trends as usual).

Statewide it is probably still around +5 R, but looking at some of the house races made me hopeful. There were several races where there is an R incumbent, but there were more votes cast in the D primary than the R primary. Tx31, TX10, Tx21, Tx23, and Tx 25 all seem like excellent pick up opportunities for the Ds this cycle. 

If anything, being close in primary turnout is negative for Democrats in this cycle. There's no Republican presidential contest and many of those congressmen have no significant opposition. Typically competitive races are what drive primary turnout, so Rs still being ahead despite the lack of real contests isn't great. I do get that in many places the Republican primary is the general election and people vote accordingly, but still.

[Voldemort86 2259]

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Eh. Cruz eeked it out, but Abbott won by double digits and a lot of the statewide races were high single digits. You're right that it's generally shifting though.


If anything, being close in primary turnout is negative for Democrats in this cycle. There's no Republican presidential contest and many of those congressmen have no significant opposition. Typically competitive races are what drive primary turnout, so Rs still being ahead despite the lack of real contests isn't great. I do get that in many places the Republican primary is the general election and people vote accordingly, but still.

Most Fox News watchers are fucking drones who will show up to vote no matter what. 
 

For now, id just look at the Democratic primary turnout in 2016 compared to 2020 and go from there. The republican numbers in the general won’t change. Their people are dying and their not really bringing in new / young republicans to the fold. Right now, our numbers matter more than republicans. The focus still needs to be on getting the democrat numbers up. 

[Huckleberry 32694]

The total votes in the 2016 Texas Presidential primary were 2.8M to 1.4M. GOP went from doubling up the Democratic primary to being up 53-47 in 2020. Now obviously a lot of that is the incumbent situation. But the Democratic primary went from having 1.4M votes to 2.1M in 4 years. This analysis of the 53-47 split is extremely superficial.

[Brisketexan 104537]

8 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

If anything, being close in primary turnout is negative for Democrats in this cycle. There's no Republican presidential contest and many of those congressmen have no significant opposition. Typically competitive races are what drive primary turnout, so Rs still being ahead despite the lack of real contests isn't great. I do get that in many places the Republican primary is the general election and people vote accordingly, but still.

Yeah, under the old rules, I'd agree with your analysis.  But now that the GOP is a cult, not a political party, "voter enthusiasm" is a whole different animal.  Republicans live for any chance they can to show their adoration of and fealty to their orange Godking.  I think the lesson is that all of those GOP voters damned well will show up and vote in the general, too, because they LOVE them some voting for Trump.

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

This analysis of the 53-47 split is extremely superficial.

Oh, agreed.  BUT.....look at the 2018 general.  Statewide Dem v. Repub races -- low margin of 3% with Beto v. Cruz (when people LOATHE Cruz), same margin in Paxton's race (same reason), and just under 5% in Patrick's race (same), but in the more "generic" races (think Texas Supreme Court, where 99% of the voters are just voting for the party next to the name -- they don't know shit about the actual candidate), the margins were all around 53-47 or 54-46 -- a 6 to 8 point spread.  GENERICALLY, that's what Texas was in 2018.

I suspect that demographically, the Dems are closing the margin about .75% per year.  So, to go from around a 7 point spread in 2018 to around a 6 point spread in 2020 seems right.  It also means that Texas doesn't become a true tossup state (that is, in races where there's some reason to lean against the GOP candidate -- think of the races where the margin was only 3-5%) until 2024, at the earliest.  I think we could see an unpopular GOP incumbent lose that year.

I don't think we'll see a Supreme Court seat flip until 2026 at the earliest.  I'd like to be wrong -- I like all of the Dem candidates this year, and they're getting my support.  But it's gonna take something big to get those seats to flip now.  But you don't know till you try, and I'm glad they're actually trying now.

[Voldemort86 2259]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, agreed.  BUT.....look at the 2018 general.  Statewide Dem v. Repub races -- low margin of 3% with Beto v. Cruz (when people LOATHE Cruz), same margin in Paxton's race (same reason), and just under 5% in Patrick's race (same), but in the more "generic" races (think Texas Supreme Court, where 99% of the voters are just voting for the party next to the name -- they don't know shit about the actual candidate), the margins were all around 53-47 or 54-46 -- a 6 to 8 point spread.  GENERICALLY, that's what Texas was in 2018.

I suspect that demographically, the Dems are closing the margin about .75% per year.  So, to go from around a 7 point spread in 2018 to around a 6 point spread in 2020 seems right.  It also means that Texas doesn't become a true tossup state (that is, in races where there's some reason to lean against the GOP candidate -- think of the races where the margin was only 3-5%) until 2024, at the earliest.  I think we could see an unpopular GOP incumbent lose that year.

I don't think we'll see a Supreme Court seat flip until 2026 at the earliest.  I'd like to be wrong -- I like all of the Dem candidates this year, and they're getting my support.  But it's gonna take something big to get those seats to flip now.  But you don't know till you try, and I'm glad they're actually trying now.

The doom and gloom talk really is pathetic. Democrats need to be playing the long game here. As long as our numbers keep improving every election cycle, we will eventually break through. According to huckleberry’s post, we have seen improvement. Even if the GOP had a competitive primary with trump on the ballot and 3 million showed up. I’d be ok with that. We’re still gaining on them, slowly but surely.

[Huckleberry 32694]

Make of it what you will, numbers are numbers.

[Brisketexan 104537]

28 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

The doom and gloom talk really is pathetic. Democrats need to be playing the long game here. As long as our numbers keep improving every election cycle, we will eventually break through. According to huckleberry’s post, we have seen improvement. Even if the GOP had a competitive primary with trump on the ballot and 3 million showed up. I’d be ok with that. We’re still gaining on them, slowly but surely.

My talk above that you cited isn't "doom and gloom."  It says exactly what you're noting -- Dems are gaining.  I'm just extrapolating the date when they'll fully catch up.  The clock is running out on the GOP in Texas -- in races where their candidate is awful, it may run out a bit sooner.  In cases where their candidate is just a generic (R), it may take a bit longer.

Individual races can be outliers -- remember Ann Richards' win over Williams in 1990. That was the ONLY statewide race where a Dem won that year.  And it happened because Claytie shot himself in the foot, repeatedly.  We could see something like that here at any time -- I think we saw that 2018 was a bit soon, 2020 probably is as well....but it COULD happen. 

But in terms of generic D v. generic R?  I think my timetable looks about right.

[Gap03 3264]

54 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Make of it what you will, numbers are numbers.

That graph definitely makes things look more promising - specifically:

1.  The fact that registered voter increase in 2016 seems to directly correspond to increases in voter turnout.

2.  The fact that there was only modest increase in R votes in 2016 - although I have to admit that it's disconcerting that a fair chunk of the additional turnout must have gone for independent candidates (I guess not all Gary Johnson voters were mythical ...).

If the Ds can convert most of the Indy voters to D voters and continue the trend of picking up a significant majority of newly registered voters in 2020, Texas could be in play.  Obviously, it's dangerous to make assumptions based on just a few data points, but I kind of buy into the phenomenon of Trump and the Rs pulling new anti-Trump voters off the sidelines.    

[Voldemort86 2259]

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My talk above that you cited isn't "doom and gloom."  It says exactly what you're noting -- Dems are gaining.  I'm just extrapolating the date when they'll fully catch up.  The clock is running out on the GOP in Texas -- in races where their candidate is awful, it may run out a bit sooner.  In cases where their candidate is just a generic (R), it may take a bit longer.

Individual races can be outliers -- remember Ann Richards' win over Williams in 1990. That was the ONLY statewide race where a Dem won that year.  And it happened because Claytie shot himself in the foot, repeatedly.  We could see something like that here at any time -- I think we saw that 2018 was a bit soon, 2020 probably is as well....but it COULD happen. 

But in terms of generic D v. generic R?  I think my timetable looks about right.

I didn’t mean to single you out. I meant other people on this thread who were lamenting that the repubs still outvoted Dems statewide. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, Voldemort86 said:

I didn’t mean to single you out. I meant other people on this thread who were lamenting that the repubs still outvoted Dems statewide. 

Oh, we should lament.  Lament away.  We're still stuck in a time of fuckery, so lament it.

[gmr548 16482]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, agreed.  BUT.....look at the 2018 general.  Statewide Dem v. Repub races -- low margin of 3% with Beto v. Cruz (when people LOATHE Cruz), same margin in Paxton's race (same reason), and just under 5% in Patrick's race (same), but in the more "generic" races (think Texas Supreme Court, where 99% of the voters are just voting for the party next to the name -- they don't know shit about the actual candidate), the margins were all around 53-47 or 54-46 -- a 6 to 8 point spread.  GENERICALLY, that's what Texas was in 2018.

I suspect that demographically, the Dems are closing the margin about .75% per year.  So, to go from around a 7 point spread in 2018 to around a 6 point spread in 2020 seems right.  It also means that Texas doesn't become a true tossup state (that is, in races where there's some reason to lean against the GOP candidate -- think of the races where the margin was only 3-5%) until 2024, at the earliest.  I think we could see an unpopular GOP incumbent lose that year.

I don't think we'll see a Supreme Court seat flip until 2026 at the earliest.  I'd like to be wrong -- I like all of the Dem candidates this year, and they're getting my support.  But it's gonna take something big to get those seats to flip now.  But you don't know till you try, and I'm glad they're actually trying now.

[berlinerbaer 670]

6 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Maybe I’m different but I see it as irresponsible to pick a candidate when I know nothing about either person running, especially in a primary where they are in the same party. I skipped a lot of races on my ballot for this reason. 

I agree, although I voted for a few people only because I got a letter or a flyer in the mail. Without knowing anything else, the fact that I got a mailer indicated to me that the candidate is more likely to run a serious campaign.

With that said, the state house candidate to which I applied the above tactic finished 3rd in his race. The possible explanation was that he was spamming my electronic inbox, which doesn't necessarily indicate deep pockets.

[elfenix 34169]

speaking of judicial elections stupidity:

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by elfenix

[berlinerbaer 670]

4 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Statewide it is probably still around +5 R, but looking at some of the house races made me hopeful. There were several races where there is an R incumbent, but there were more votes cast in the D primary than the R primary. Tx31, TX10, Tx21, Tx23, and Tx 25 all seem like excellent pick up opportunities for the Ds this cycle. 

Don't forget TX-22. Sri Kulkarni has a great shot against either Troy Nehls or Kathaleen Wall.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Make of it what you will, numbers are numbers.

great graph. I'm all onboard in voting Trump out, and would love to see him lose Texas, but I don't see how Dems in Texas can find a net 800K votes from 2016. Sure olds die off, new voters turn 18, Hillary was hated and new people move to the state.  But a net 800K in 4 years is a tall order. The closest that has occurred is Texas Dems finding 700K new voters from Kerry to Obama.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

great graph. I'm all onboard in voting Trump out, and would love to see him lose Texas, but I don't see how Dems in Texas can find a net 800K votes from 2016. Sure olds die off, new voters turn 18, Hillary was hated and new people move to the state.  But a net 800K in 4 years is a tall order. The closest that has occurred is Texas Dems finding 700K new voters from Kerry to Obama.

When you say it that way, it actually makes me feel more optimistic, going from milquetoast to exciting nominee got 700k when Texas voting population was 80% of what it is now.  We don't have that nominee quality bump, but we do have going from unliked to medium, at least.

 

Rs have flat-lined since 2004, and D's have picked up the newly registered voters. Given 1.8MM new registered voters since 2016 and a sudden increase in likelihood to vote, it almost sounds possible. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

Also, I see from Huckleberry's chart and a couple of other sources that Dem primary voters outnumbered GOP primary voters this time (the data I had was from this morning, and still showed a GOP advantage).  Does anyone have a source that gives us the exact total number of voters in each primary?  That's interesting.  Sure, it doesn't totally translate to how many will show up and vote for each party in the general...but it's an interesting data point.

How Trump polls here is an interesting data point, as Trump is a solid proxy for GOP support (they are now one and the same).  As of December, he was dead even here, but as of Feb 20th, he had a net +7 margin (which is about what I think our current party breakdown is).

Edited March 5, 2020 by Brisketexan

[gmr548 16482]

12 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

going from milquetoast to exciting nominee

Which of these two do you believe Joe Biden falls under?

[Huckleberry 32694]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, I see from Huckleberry's chart and a couple of other sources that Dem primary voters outnumbered GOP primary voters this time (the data I had was from this morning, and still showed a GOP advantage).  Does anyone have a source that gives us the exact total number of voters in each primary?  That's interesting.  Sure, it doesn't totally translate to how many will show up and vote for each party in the general...but it's an interesting data point.

How Trump polls here is an interesting data point, as Trump is a solid proxy for GOP support (they are now one and the same).  As of December, he was dead even here, but as of Feb 20th, he had a net +7 margin (which is about what I think our current party breakdown is).

I just pulled from the NYT reported results at the time I made it. Presidential primary totals only. Entirely possible that was the discrepancy. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Huckleberry

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

11 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Which of these two do you believe Joe Biden falls under?

that was about going from Kerry to Obama.  I said going from hated to meh is Hillary to Biden.

[Gap03 3264]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, I see from Huckleberry's chart and a couple of other sources that Dem primary voters outnumbered GOP primary voters this time (the data I had was from this morning, and still showed a GOP advantage).  Does anyone have a source that gives us the exact total number of voters in each primary?  That's interesting.  Sure, it doesn't totally translate to how many will show up and vote for each party in the general...but it's an interesting data point.

How Trump polls here is an interesting data point, as Trump is a solid proxy for GOP support (they are now one and the same).  As of December, he was dead even here, but as of Feb 20th, he had a net +7 margin (which is about what I think our current party breakdown is).

From the Washington Post, the primary #s, based on 99.6% precincts reporting, are:

• Democratic:   2,481,849 
• Republican:    2,034,301 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/texas-democratic-primary-live-results/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/texas-republican-primary-live-results/

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, Gap03 said:

From the Washington Post, the primary #s, based on 99.6% precincts reporting, are:

• Democratic:   2,481,849 
• Republican:    2,034,301 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/texas-democratic-primary-live-results/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/texas-republican-primary-live-results/

 

that map is fucking hysterical.  Bloomberg won Roberts county with 6 votes.

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, Gap03 said:

From the Washington Post, the primary #s, based on 99.6% precincts reporting, are:

• Democratic:   2,481,849 
• Republican:    2,034,301 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/texas-democratic-primary-live-results/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/texas-republican-primary-live-results/

 

That's a 55-45 breakdown.  That's one helluva gap.  Seriously, that's amazing.

I'd love to see a gender breakdown as well (as in, how many of those Dem voters were women).  Because, again, my current election thesis is mostly this: women are fucking PISSED.

[gmr548 16482]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

that was about going from Kerry to Obama.  I said going from hated to meh is Hillary to Biden.

I obviously can't read. My bad.

[Gap03 3264]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

that map is fucking hysterical.  Bloomberg won Roberts county with 6 votes.

Yeah, in 4 of the counties Bloomberg won, he did so with fewer than 150 votes.  They shouldn't even bother to color those counties in on the D primary map ... 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's a 55-45 breakdown.  That's one helluva gap.  Seriously, that's amazing.

I'd love to see a gender breakdown as well (as in, how many of those Dem voters were women).  Because, again, my current election thesis is mostly this: women are fucking PISSED.

Texas D primary was 56-44 women, per WaPo.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Bernie and Bloomberg tied King County 1-1.  YOUR VOTE MATTERS!