Texas 2020 general election

[Brisketexan 104465]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Nope--I'm holding off early voting for precisely that same reason.

False choice.  The real choice: it doesn't matter, and you know it.  The Democratic Party is going to fuck up this process, alienate a huge chunk of its core supporters (who will either stay home, vote third party, or vote for Trump), handing him a second term with a bow on it.

I mean, I'm holding off on voting for the same reason....but it doesn't matter.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

58 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I'm struggling to get a good read on which of the Dems is actually the most electable in the purple/light red states, regardless of ideology.   Have we coalesced around a favorite yet in that regard?

Electability isn't a thing.  Vote your conscience.

[Voldemort86 2259]

31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Nope--I'm holding off early voting for precisely that same reason.

I keep waiting for a viable “ not socialist” candidate to emerge, but I’m skeptical that it’s ever going to happen. I’m going to vote anyway. I’m waiting until after Nevada votes, but the results there probably won’t help make my decision easier. I think Bernie will endanger the democrats house majority. Keeping the house is important for the vast majority of Americans sanity. Trump and the GOP only pass legislation 25% of Americans want. It’s a disgrace, but we might have to sweat things out until they self correct in 2022 again.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5104]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Electability isn't a thing.  Vote your conscience.

Yeah my conscience is coming up empty in this race, as it usually does with the president.  I'm not exceedingly used to voting for democrats yet.

[gmr548 16463]

6 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Furthermore, early voting starts today and the only reason I haven't voted already is I haven't the foggiest idea who to vote for in the presidential race.  I have one goal for the next president, and that is that they aren't Trump.  I'm struggling to get a good read on which of the Dems is actually the most electable in the purple/light red states, regardless of ideology.   Have we coalesced around a favorite yet in that regard?

Polling data pretty consistently says this is Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. And now maybe Bloomberg. Do with those contrasts what you will.

[RayDog 682]

In a recent Nevada poll Bernie's favorability was +38, Biden's was -2, and Bloomberg's was -16.

But Bernie is the least electable according to corporate media.

 

[gmr548 16463]

5 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

 I think Bernie will endanger the democrats house majority.

Lol do you have any idea how ridiculous this statement is?

[berlinerbaer 670]

Texas Democratic Primary Senate Debate for your eyeballs

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

One of those running in Austin/Travis County

https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2020/01/28/43000-sanction-issued-against-austin-lawyer-whos-running-for-judge/?slreturn=20200118223845

Quote

Madeleine Connor, an Austin attorney who is running for a Travis County district court bench, must pay more than $43,000 in sanctions for bringing unreasonable and vexatious litigation against board members of a utility district.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas in Austin ordered Connor to pay the defense attorney fees to Lost Creek Municipal Utility District directors Leah Stewart, Eric Castro and Chuck McCormick.

Quote

“Severe monetary sanctions are necessary to send the message to Connor that bad-faith litigation brought for the purpose of harassment will not be tolerated, especially by an officer of the court,” Pitman wrote in a sanctions order. “Connor’s frivolous filings have needlessly diverted this court’s time and resources away from the hundreds of meritorious cases and controversies on its docket.”

Connor, who is challenging incumbent 353rd District Judge Tim Sulak in the Democratic Primary in March, said she doesn’t believe that she did what Pitman wrote in his order. She said her dispute with the utility district started as a lawsuit she filed over the district’s plans to install sidewalks in her neighborhood. She said the district’s directors retaliated against her by sending “litigation status updates” to her neighborhood, and other correspondence and internet postings.

 

[Brisketexan 104465]

Yeah, she’s bad news, and she’s running against one of the best, most respected, and well-liked judges around.

[Irieguy 1059]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Lol do you have any idea how ridiculous this statement is?

Gmr is right. Look at Cook ratings. There aren’t enough close seats for the Republicans to have a realistic chance. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

 

 

 

already at 2016 per capita numbers before the election year push.  900,000 got registered election year 2016.  be interesting where we end up.  1.1MM would mean registration growth rate is 2x population growth rate.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

They need to watch those numbers for suppression.  Oops, 500k got removed.  Oops, another 200k couldn't make it to the polls on time.

[Pescado_Rojo 19327]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

They need to watch those numbers for suppression.  Oops, 500k got removed.  Oops, another 200k couldn't make it to the polls on time.

Then the bots will start with the posts about cops checking for warrants when you show up to vote and suppress a few hundred thousand more

[RayDog 682]

17 million registered with a 64% turnout is almost 10.9 million votes. If it gets closer to 11 million votes, Trump loses, several congressional seats will flip, the state house starts looking like a real possibility, and even Cornyn could be beatable.

[Voldemort86 2259]

2 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

 

 

already at 2016 per capita numbers before the election year push.  900,000 got registered election year 2016.  be interesting where we end up.  1.1MM would mean registration growth rate is 2x population growth rate.

Would be interesting if they published where the new registrations are coming from.

harris, bexar, Travis, El Paso, and Dallas county ?   Good news

 

every else?  Poopy.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

25 minutes ago, RayDog said:

17 million registered with a 64% turnout is almost 10.9 million votes. If it gets closer to 11 million votes, Trump loses, several congressional seats will flip, the state house starts looking like a real possibility, and even Cornyn could be beatable.

Don't give me hope man.

[RayDog 682]

11 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

Would be interesting if they published where the new registrations are coming from.

harris, bexar, Travis, El Paso, and Dallas county ?   Good news

 

every else?  Poopy.

In a previous article it said Harris county registrations went up 14% while the population went up 4%, and for Bexar it was 19% and 11%. Other states along I-35 population centers grew even faster.

Have no doubt that this is mostly Democrats and Independents currently leaning Democratic. There have been lots of non-voting Democrats in Texas waiting for the year when their vote would matter again.

[Voldemort86 2259]

6 minutes ago, RayDog said:

In a previous article it said Harris county registrations went up 14% while the population went up 4%, and for Bexar it was 19% and 11%. Other states along I-35 population centers grew even faster.

Have no doubt that this is mostly Democrats and Independents currently leaning Democratic. There have been lots of non-voting Democrats in Texas waiting for the year when their vote would matter again.

Gotta admit Bexar isn’t as blue as I’d like it to be and I think it should be.  Got more work to do there.

[gmr548 16463]

17 million registered with a 64% turnout is almost 10.9 million votes. If it gets closer to 11 million votes, Trump loses, several congressional seats will flip, the state house starts looking like a real possibility, and even Cornyn could be beatable.

You're consistently really aggressive on turnout assumptions. Texas hasn't had 64 percent turnout (relative to registered voters) since 1992 for quasi-native son Bush I. According to SOS office it's only happened one other time, for Reagan's second term, since 1970.

Even 2008 was only 59 percent. I've seen you project as high as 70 percent. What are you basing this on?

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

My District is very red. I've never voted in the Democratic primary before and given the conversation among the volunteers I listened to eavesdropped on during the last election, I'm hoping my vote is

Actually counted

I make it out alive.

I can't decide if early votes are more subject to tampering than election day votes if that were to be a thing. Is that a concern?

[RayDog 682]

57 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

You're consistently really aggressive on turnout assumptions. Texas hasn't had 64 percent turnout (relative to registered voters) since 1992 for quasi-native son Bush I. According to SOS office it's only happened one other time, for Reagan's second term, since 1970.

Even 2008 was only 59 percent. I've seen you project as high as 70 percent. What are you basing this on?

There was a 3.5% increase in eligible voters voting in 2008, so there could be a similar percentage this time. That year registrations went up at the same pace so the percentage of registered voters did not go up. Beating 2016 turnout for Hillary and Trump should not be difficult. The jump from 2014 to 2018 puts the turnout in 2020 in uncharted territory.

The 70% national number comes from the CNN poll where 74% where extremely or very excited to vote compared to 58% in 2015 and 61% actual in 2016. The real number has always been greater than CNNs number from the year before. Again this is uncharted territory. Some pundits think 70% nationally is possible with a turnout of over 150 million, 21 million more than 2016.

I will add that about 10% of the total would come from Texas, which would mean 11 million.

Edited February 19, 2020 by RayDog

[gmr548 16463]

57 minutes ago, RayDog said:

There was a 3.5% increase in eligible voters voting in 2008, so there could be a similar percentage this time. That year registrations went up at the same pace so the percentage of registered voters did not go up. Beating 2016 turnout for Hillary and Trump should not be difficult. The jump from 2014 to 2018 puts the turnout in 2020 in uncharted territory.

The 70% national number comes from the CNN poll where 74% where extremely or very excited to vote compared to 58% in 2015 and 61% actual in 2016. The real number has always been greater than CNNs number from the year before. Again this is uncharted territory. Some pundits think 70% nationally is possible with a turnout of over 150 million, 21 million more than 2016.

I will add that about 10% of the total would come from Texas, which would mean 11 million.

That doesn't really pass a sanity check.

The US hasn't hit 60 percent turnout in over 50 years. It's only happened five times since 1900, all in the 50's-60's. 70 percent turnout wouldn't be uncharted territory, it'd be off the edge of the Earth. There were 136.6mm votes cast for POTUS in 2016 per the FEC official results. A 21mm vote increase would be 157mm. What you described would be a massively bigger increase than between any two consecutive elections and bigger than the increase from 2004 to 2016. Come on.

As for TX, per the SOS office, turnout in 2016 was essentially identical to 2008 (59.5 to 59.3 percent) in terms of registered voters and about one percentage point higher in 2016 (46% to 45%) in terms of voting age population. So it isn't like there is a bunch of low hanging fruit there, proportionally speaking. There were 8.9mm votes in 2016, meaning 11mm represents about a 22 percent increase in the electorate when the VAP has increased by about 11 percent since 2019, per the SOS. Statewide, there were about 950k more registered voters in November 2019 than in 2016. Let's assume we add 1mm registered voters in a year (after adding less in three years, including spirited registration efforts in 2018). 11mm votes in 2020 is basically assuming that every newly registered voter actually votes in 2020. Come on.

I'd love to be wrong but what you're projecting is really wild relative to even the most recent elections. I know I've replied to your posts before so I'll stop dogging you for it, but know that it's a pie in the sky, actual legitimate revolution type number relative to current American voting behavior.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

I would think that as the registered voters count grows, the more likelihood that turnout decreases a bit.

I also hope that the large counties are adequately preparing for the combo of more voters and the no más straight ticket voting.

[Pasken 1309]

4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

My District is very red. I've never voted in the Democratic primary before and given the conversation among the volunteers I listened to eavesdropped on during the last election, I'm hoping my vote is

Actually counted

I make it out alive.

I can't decide if early votes are more subject to tampering than election day votes if that were to be a thing. Is that a concern?

That’s terrible to think about. What kind of machines do the rural counties use to vote?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

That doesn't really pass a sanity check.

The US hasn't hit 60 percent turnout in over 50 years. It's only happened five times since 1900, all in the 50's-60's. 70 percent turnout wouldn't be uncharted territory, it'd be off the edge of the Earth. There were 136.6mm votes cast for POTUS in 2016 per the FEC official results. A 21mm vote increase would be 157mm. What you described would be a massively bigger increase than between any two consecutive elections and bigger than the increase from 2004 to 2016. Come on.

As for TX, per the SOS office, turnout in 2016 was essentially identical to 2008 (59.5 to 59.3 percent) in terms of registered voters and about one percentage point higher in 2016 (46% to 45%) in terms of voting age population. So it isn't like there is a bunch of low hanging fruit there, proportionally speaking. There were 8.9mm votes in 2016, meaning 11mm represents about a 22 percent increase in the electorate when the VAP has increased by about 11 percent since 2019, per the SOS. Statewide, there were about 950k more registered voters in November 2019 than in 2016. Let's assume we add 1mm registered voters in a year (after adding less in three years, including spirited registration efforts in 2018). 11mm votes in 2020 is basically assuming that every newly registered voter actually votes in 2020. Come on.

I'd love to be wrong but what you're projecting is really wild relative to even the most recent elections. I know I've replied to your posts before so I'll stop dogging you for it, but know that it's a pie in the sky, actual legitimate revolution type number relative to current American voting behavior.

150MM+ nationwide won’t happen, but a big Texas jump will.  It’s suddenly competitive for the first time in decades in an era when the desire to vote in general has gone up.  That’ll drive up interest.  
 

it won’t be comparable to the midterm jump, but only because that borders on mathematically impossible. But the same fire that drove turnout then is still going.   https://www.texastribune.org/2018/11/07/texas-election-results-turnout-county-look-up/

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

That doesn't really pass a sanity check.

The US hasn't hit 60 percent turnout in over 50 years. It's only happened five times since 1900, all in the 50's-60's. 70 percent turnout wouldn't be uncharted territory, it'd be off the edge of the Earth. There were 136.6mm votes cast for POTUS in 2016 per the FEC official results. A 21mm vote increase would be 157mm. What you described would be a massively bigger increase than between any two consecutive elections and bigger than the increase from 2004 to 2016. Come on.

As for TX, per the SOS office, turnout in 2016 was essentially identical to 2008 (59.5 to 59.3 percent) in terms of registered voters and about one percentage point higher in 2016 (46% to 45%) in terms of voting age population. So it isn't like there is a bunch of low hanging fruit there, proportionally speaking. There were 8.9mm votes in 2016, meaning 11mm represents about a 22 percent increase in the electorate when the VAP has increased by about 11 percent since 2019, per the SOS. Statewide, there were about 950k more registered voters in November 2019 than in 2016. Let's assume we add 1mm registered voters in a year (after adding less in three years, including spirited registration efforts in 2018). 11mm votes in 2020 is basically assuming that every newly registered voter actually votes in 2020. Come on.

I'd love to be wrong but what you're projecting is really wild relative to even the most recent elections. I know I've replied to your posts before so I'll stop dogging you for it, but know that it's a pie in the sky, actual legitimate revolution type number relative to current American voting behavior.

It is the percentage of registered voters and yes it was over 61% nationally in 2016. And if you think the turnout will be lower than for Trump and Hillary, then there is no point having an intellectual discussion with you.

In 2016 two states did surpass 70% of eligible voters and a group of others including Florida passed 65%. So there may be a dozen or so states that pass the 70% of eligible voters with close to half being at 70% of registered voters. I still expect Texas to be around 64% of registered voters, call it +/- 3%.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Texas has historically been one of the least voting states. It’s been known for a long time that if turnout were to increase, even among just registered voters, that the state could flip. There’s a reason the republicans here are worried. The potential has always been there. Guess we’ll see. 

[tx 3 putt 76159]

[gmr548 16463]

12 minutes ago, RayDog said:

It is the percentage of registered voters and yes it was over 61% nationally in 2016. And if you think the turnout will be lower than for Trump and Hillary, then there is no point having an intellectual discussion with you.

The writing is on the wall for higher turnout. I'm extremely skeptical it'll be to the extent of 70 percent. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 hour ago, Pasken said:

That’s terrible to think about. What kind of machines do the rural counties use to vote?

It’s new machines this year with touch screens. The fellow at the desk said “they lock them up at night so they’re safe.” So I asked him about where the data is uploaded and he had no clue how that works. Did not give me confidence.

[elfenix 34168]

ugh kathaleen wall is back?  fuck

[tx 3 putt 76159]

18 minutes ago, elfenix said:

ugh kathaleen wall is back?  fuck

 

she has deep pockets. hopefully she loses the primary, again 

[RayDog 682]

Reuters/Ipsos poll

Independent Article Reuters/Ipsos poll

"Overall, the number of "certain" voters rose by 7 percentage points nationally from 2015 to 2019. It increased by more than that in the largest metropolitan areas, rising by 9 points in communities with between 1 million and 5 million people and 8 points in metropolitan areas with at least 5 million people. Smaller and rural communities lagged behind. The number of "certain" voters rose by 5 points in sparsely populated, Republican-dominated "non-metro" areas."

"In a region formed of "battleground" states including Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona and Colorado, the number of "certain" voters rose by 9 percentage points in large metropolitan areas that have a population of at least 5 million, and 8 points in areas with 1 to 5 million, while it rose by 4 points in smaller, non-metropolitan areas."

"Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who studies voter turnout,[...] expects as many as two-thirds of the voting-age population may cast ballots, a record level of participation for a US presidential election."

Me: If 66% of eligible voters vote that will be over 70% of registered voters in a majority of states.

[Pancho 44358]

Will the ballot have designated D and R by their names?  The election for Houston races a few weeks ago didn’t.

 

can we bring our phone or a piece of paper with us into the booth? This ballot is super long it looks like.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Pancho

[Voldemort86 2259]

How’s early voting going?
 

i know texas won’t turn blue this year, but I wonder how close we might get.

[bolverk 29360]

10 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Will the ballot have designated D and R by their names?  The election for Houston races a few weeks ago didn’t.

 

can we bring our phone or a piece of paper with us into the booth? This ballot is super long it looks like.

I think a piece of paper is allowed but you are not allowed to activate your device at the booth. I've done both but was only warned by an election official when doing the latter.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

23 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Will the ballot have designated D and R by their names?  The election for Houston races a few weeks ago didn’t.

 

can we bring our phone or a piece of paper with us into the booth? This ballot is super long it looks like.

Which ballot? The primary one doesn’t need it since the ballot will either be all Democrat or all Republican. The general election in November will have the party name next to the candidate.

houston city elections are considered non-partisan so candidates don’t explicitly represent their party and it’s not listed on the ballot.

[Texas73 420]

3 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

How’s early voting going?
 

i know texas won’t turn blue this year, but I wonder how close we might get.

https://earlyvoting.texas-election.com/Elections/getElectionDetails.do

In the first 3 days 277,032 people have voted in the Texas Republican primary compared to 211,817 in the Democratic primary.  That is 57% to 43% in favor of republicans. 

I live in Austin but keep up with my east Texas county where I grew up, Van Zandt:

Republican votes: 1073   

Democratic votes: 98

😖

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

^
i am surprised by that.  Are there that many Texans that are just so giddy to do an exhibition vote for Trump?   We don’t have many marquee GOP primaries except for Supreme Court.  Curious as to what’s serving they turnout.  
 

I live in a little blue area inside of a larger red part of town inside of blue Austin.  Everybody at my polling place, including me, asked for D ballots. /csb

 

then again, I can completely empathize with voters who want to wait a bit to see which POTUS candidate they want to back.  Particularly given the Last debate.  I’m already second guessing my choice.  L

Edited February 21, 2020 by Lobo

[Gap03 3248]

11 minutes ago, Texas73 said:

https://earlyvoting.texas-election.com/Elections/getElectionDetails.do

In the first 3 days 277,032 people have voted in the Texas Republican primary compared to 211,817 in the Democratic primary.  That is 57% to 43% in favor of republicans. 

I live in Austin but keep up with my east Texas county where I grew up, Van Zandt:

Republican votes: 1073   

Democratic votes: 98

😖

 

Gotta think that's a function of a lot of D voters out there still trying to figure out which presidential candidate they're going to vote for.  All the "hurr durr" voters in Van Zandt aren't doing a lot of soul-searching before they vote - they probably printed out their EmpowerTexans endorsements and headed straight to the polls to show their undying love for the orange god.

[Larry T. Spider 1740]

41 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Gotta think that's a function of a lot of D voters out there still trying to figure out which presidential candidate they're going to vote for.  All the "hurr durr" voters in Van Zandt aren't doing a lot of soul-searching before they vote - they probably printed out their EmpowerTexans endorsements and headed straight to the polls to show their undying love for the orange god.

This. I was still weighing my options until a few days ago. Still plan to vote early but wanted to see how a few things shook out in the presidential primary first.

[Chad Fuck 17503]

3 hours ago, Texas73 said:

https://earlyvoting.texas-election.com/Elections/getElectionDetails.do

In the first 3 days 277,032 people have voted in the Texas Republican primary compared to 211,817 in the Democratic primary.  That is 57% to 43% in favor of republicans. 

I live in Austin but keep up with my east Texas county where I grew up, Van Zandt:

Republican votes: 1073   

Democratic votes: 98

😖

 

 

Tri-County holla. 

Kaufman represent.

 

[Chad Fuck 17503]

3 hours ago, Gap03 said:

Gotta think that's a function of a lot of D voters out there still trying to figure out which presidential candidate they're going to vote for.  All the "hurr durr" voters in Van Zandt aren't doing a lot of soul-searching before they vote - they probably printed out their EmpowerTexans endorsements and headed straight to the polls to show their undying love for the orange god.

Thirded.

I want to see what happens in Nevada.

[Voldemort86 2259]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

^
i am surprised by that.  Are there that many Texans that are just so giddy to do an exhibition vote for Trump?   We don’t have many marquee GOP primaries except for Supreme Court.  Curious as to what’s serving they turnout.  
 

I live in a little blue area inside of a larger red part of town inside of blue Austin.  Everybody at my polling place, including me, asked for D ballots. /csb

 

then again, I can completely empathize with voters who want to wait a bit to see which POTUS candidate they want to back.  Particularly given the Last debate.  I’m already second guessing my choice.  L

The GOP have several advantages when it comes to voting.

1) they dominate old retired people. Old fucks who have nothing else to do will vote every chance they get even when it’s not a high stakes race. They would probably show up for a local dog catcher election.

2) Nearly everyone who watches Fox News votes.  These are primarily fear driven people. They have been wrongly made to believe that democrats are socialists and will take away everything they hold dear. The average IQ of your typical Fox News watcher must be lower than average. 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

6 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

The GOP have several advantages when it comes to voting.

1) they dominate old retired people. Old fucks who have nothing else to do will vote every chance they get even when it’s not a high stakes race. They would probably show up for a local dog catcher election.

2) Nearly everyone who watches Fox News votes.  These are primarily fear driven people. They have been wrongly made to believe that democrats are socialists and will take away everything they hold dear. The average IQ of your typical Fox News watcher must be lower than average. 

They still couldn’t stop a brown, atheist, Muslim, communist, Indonesian, Marxist, socialist, Kenyan, community organizer from Chicago.  

[Voldemort86 2259]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

They still couldn’t stop a brown, atheist, Muslim, communist, Indonesian, Marxist, socialist, Kenyan, community organizer from Chicago.  

Thank god for that.

obama even won Florida twice which no democrat has ever been able to have success in Florida recently besides him. Very impressive.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

4 hours ago, Gap03 said:

Gotta think that's a function of a lot of D voters out there still trying to figure out which presidential candidate they're going to vote for.  All the "hurr durr" voters in Van Zandt aren't doing a lot of soul-searching before they vote - they probably printed out their EmpowerTexans endorsements and headed straight to the polls to show their undying love for the orange god.

 

3 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

This. I was still weighing my options until a few days ago. Still plan to vote early but wanted to see how a few things shook out in the presidential primary first.

There is also a D group, of which I am a part, that doesn't care who the nominee is this year.  I'm 100% certain to be a voter in November and am pretty uninterested in the primaries.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

9 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

There is also a D group, of which I am a part, that doesn't care who the nominee is this year.  I'm 100% certain to be a voter in November and am pretty uninterested in the primaries.

I'm hoping there are a lot of you.

[bolverk 29360]

43 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 

There is also a D group, of which I am a part, that doesn't care who the nominee is this year.  I'm 100% certain to be a voter in November and am pretty uninterested in the primaries.

Not even for nominations for lower ballot candidates?