Cruz vs Beto

[F250 28611]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

42.8% see and hear what Trump does, and APPROVES OF IT.  Come on, man.  You know that's a fucking stain on this country that doesn't wash out. 

I suspect a big chunk of this group are just generic Republicans that are not aware of what Trump does. A lot of registered voters ignore the news and just show up to vote. Most Americans that don't vote pay even less attention to political news.

I'd say that the people that actually support Trump's actions are much less than 42% of the population.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My family and I have done plenty more than that.

While you've engaged in breathless orange cocksuckery.  I'm good with what the history books will say about me.  And I'm definitely good with what they'll say about you.

Oh, and Jimmy -- I'm just looking at the Trump approval ratings.  538 currently has him at 42.8%.  So, yeah, I rounded up 2.2%.  42.8% see and hear what Trump does, and APPROVES OF IT.  Come on, man.  You know that's a fucking stain on this country that doesn't wash out.

It may wash out.  A large chunk of that 42.8% are fearful old people.  They aren't gonna live forever.  Richard Spencer and Johnny Sack types are noisy, but they aren't particularly numerous.

The big problem with the fearful olds is that they really don't receive accurate information.  For example, Fox News barely reported on Khashoggi's murder.  Many of their viewers may not even know that it happened at all, so they certainly wouldn't know about the cover up attempt, or Trump's rush to the Saudis' side.  Instead, they were hearing bullshit about Diane Feinstein.  Now they're hearing bullshit about the caravan.  The bomb news is unavoidable, even for Fox, but its a secondary story for them while they focus on the "invading" caravan.  Meanwhile, the bombs are the number 1 news story throughout the world with Khashoggi remaining a close 2nd.

I think Facebook will clean itself up sufficiently.  Fox News will continue to try to maintain that 42.8 percent though.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13387]

8 minutes ago, F250 said:

I suspect a big chunk of this group are just generic Republicans that are not aware of what Trump does. A lot of registered voters ignore the news and just show up to vote. Most Americans that don't vote pay even less attention to political news.

I'd say that the people that actually support Trump's actions are much less than 42% of the population.

 

If some people see their 401k balance, they won't be quite as happy today.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

I suspect a big chunk of this group are just generic Republicans that are not aware of what Trump does. A lot of registered voters ignore the news and just show up to vote. Most Americans that don't vote pay even less attention to political news.

I'd say that the people that actually support Trump's actions are much less than 42% of the population.

 

That's true too. At the end of the day, Trump is just one guy who was the right type of asshole to pull off Trumpism.  Nobody else is walking through that door that is remotely capable of picking up the reigns.  The GOP will go right back to the bullshit it was before.

[Native Horn 3474]

29 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

No they are GOTV events where you get to meet him. You can request tickets and attend. Assume it’s a rally

Does homeboy even speak Spanish?  Or is he strictly a French/English guy?

[David Dennison 18471]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's true too. At the end of the day, Trump is just one guy who was the right type of asshole to pull off Trumpism.  Nobody else is walking through that door that is remotely capable of picking up the reigns.  The GOP will go right back to the bullshit it was before.

Trumpism is white identity politics. His supporters reward him for putting white people first. That's where America is in 2018. 

If you know anything about the history of the United States, it isn't all that shocking. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Trumpism is white identity politics. His supporters reward him for putting white people first. That's where America is in 2018. 

If you know anything about the history of the United States, it isn't all that shocking. 

Yes, but Trump is the only guy who can win a nationwide election on that platform.  Richard Spencer or Steve Bannon could not win a single state even though both are smarter people than Trump.  The GOP will go back to Romney and Bush type candidates after Trump.  They certainly don't do minorities any favors, but they aren't openly hostile to them either.

[BurntOrange&White 39253]

Weren’t those 80k votes spread over 3-4 states that the Russians specifically targeted?

[Pancho 44153]

15 hours ago, Jack Burton said:

Pancho is also drunk, cause that shit above is cringworthy.

I haven’t drank since my MeMaw’s funeral last Saturday 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Pancho Negro

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, yoladu said:

J. Sack must be dealing with a hell of a hangover this morning.. expect him to resurface on this thread sometime this afternoon.

Wasn’t drinking at all last night.  Looking forward to Election Day for all you Beto cheerleaders.  

[Bruh Man 3160]

remember the secret trump vote in '16? there might be a secret beto vote this time. 

 

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

Turnout in Houston and San Antonio need to improve. 

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

If the average stays around 3% daily statewide through early voting, we'll be ~36% before election day. that would sweet.

[Huckleberry 32638]

So far the numbers look decent for Cruz in these counties. In 2016 Clinton won these counties 51.4% to 48.6% (counting only votes for Trump and Clinton). If you assign the same percentages on a county-by-county basis as they had R vs. D in 2016, which is admittedly a huge assumption, then O'Rourke leads in these counties right now 51.1% to 48.9%. Essentially what that means is that the counties that voted for Trump have received more early votes so far relative to 2016 than the counties that voted for Clinton. O'Rourke really needed turnout to be higher in Clinton counties than Trump counties relative to 2016.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Celery Man 20832]

 

[Huckleberry 32638]

She standing on a platform for that picture?

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[Mole 4318]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

A precipice.  You know, like, "a ledge." 

Precipice? Precipice. There’s no way that’s a word.

[Celery Man 20832]

Precipice? Precipice. There’s no way that’s a word.

It’s the precipice of an enormous crossroads.

[Js1 84988]

9 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

 

Olds trying to vote before they die.

[Gap03 3223]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Olds trying to vote before they die.

Between the data on the olds + early voting in Collin / Williamson / Brazoria counties, it looks like the GOP / Fox News tactic of continuing to scare the shit out of their base is working.  

[Mack Tripper 693]

The olds voting isn't remarkable. The big takeaway from that graph is the high numbers of people voting who have never voted in a primary before. If Beto has any shot, he needs to these kind of people you don't/rarely vote to turn out. 

[Bruh Man 3160]

the percent of early voters that are above 90+ outnumber the percent that are below 20. wtf this can't be right.

[Huckleberry 32638]

Seems right. There are probably 4 times as many 18 and 19 year old Texans as 90+ Texans.

But the 90+ group votes by mail in huge numbers and the 18 and 19 year olds basically don't at all. Combine that with overall turnout by age and it makes sense to me.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

38 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

 

I honestly do not understand the information contained in this graph as there is no reference data anywhere. Can someone decipher this?

[Patrick Bateman 3874]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seems right. There are probably 4 times as many 18 and 19 year old Texans as 90+ Texans.

But the 90+ group votes by mail in huge numbers and the 18 and 19 year olds basically don't at all. Combine that with overall turnout by age and it makes sense to me.

Yep.... absentee/mail ballots.  I think it looks right too...

[Huckleberry 32638]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I honestly do not understand the information contained in this graph as there is no reference data anywhere. Can someone decipher this?

The percentage of people who have early voted so far this year by age group. There are two data sets, in green is all early voters so far and in orange is only early voters who have never voted in a primary before.

I don't have enough history on all the data to know if it's elucidating or not. It seems fairly obvious that younger voters would be less likely to have voted in a primary before because they haven't been voting as long.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Huckleberry
didn't quote

[Mack Tripper 693]

I don't understand how the orange lines can be higher than the green lines. If the green lines are all early voters of a given age range, and the orange lines are the subset that have never voted in a primary, how can the orange line be higher than green?

[elfenix 34161]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I honestly do not understand the information contained in this graph as there is no reference data anywhere. Can someone decipher this?

the green bar breaks early voters down by age and show it as a % of early votes cast.  the orange bar is for early voters who also have not voted in a primary.

[Bruh Man 3160]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Seems right. There are probably 4 times as many 18 and 19 year old Texans as 90+ Texans.

But the 90+ group votes by mail in huge numbers and the 18 and 19 year olds basically don't at all. Combine that with overall turnout by age and it makes sense to me.

90+ is old as fuck man. I can't imagine there are that many alive in Texas (even if all of them vote) to outnumber the lines we've seen at campuses (I know all of them aren't 20 yr old or younger). 

[jimmyjazz 45398]

3 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

90+ is old as fuck man. I can't imagine there are that many alive in Texas (even if all of them vote) to outnumber the lines we've seen at campuses (I know all of them aren't 20 yr old or younger). 

It's a percentage.

[elfenix 34161]

1 hour ago, Mack Tripper said:

I don't understand how the orange lines can be higher than the green lines. If the green lines are all early voters of a given age range, and the orange lines are the subset that have never voted in a primary, how can the orange line be higher than green?

"of people who have never voted in a primary AND are early voting, X% of them are between the age of ___ and ___" is a different set of data than "of people who are early voting, Y% of them are between the age of ___ and ___."  there's lots of people in their 20s and 30s who've never voted in a primary, and that figure should trend downhill with age.  which is what the graph illustrates.

 

 

edit: here's another of his charts, he's looking at (it appears) all history.

so the orange bar in the first graph should be the people in the green and yellow bars here

(i'm kind of amazed at how few people have voted in both primaries)

Edited October 25, 2018 by elfenix
said the opposite of what i intended in my parenthetical

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

The percentage of people who have early voted so far this year by age group. There are two data sets, in green is all early voters so far and in orange is only early voters who have never voted in a primary before.

I don't have enough history on all the data to know if it's elucidating or not. It seems fairly obvious that younger voters would be less likely to have voted in a primary before because they haven't been voting as long.

Are you sure? After reading your description and going back and looking i have a different take: let's take my age group: 30-39. That demographic seems to account for almost 10% of the total number of early voters. And of those voters, almost 15% of them were voting in a midterm for the first time. That's how i am now reading it

 

Edit: reread your statement and i think i misread it the first time. I think we're saying the same thing

[Huckleberry 32638]

8 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"of people who have never voted in a primary AND are early voting, X% of them are between the age of ___ and ___" is a different (smaller) set of data than "of people who are early voting, Y% of them are between the age of ___ and ___."  there's lots of people in their 20s and 30s who've never voted in a primary, and that figure should trend downhill with age.

Correct. Let's say there have been 1000 early voters. Of those early voters, 10 are under 20 and 20 are 90+.

Now imagine that 500 of these voters have never voted in a primary before. 8 of the under 20 voters have not, and 5 of the 90+ voters have not.

That means that in the green set the under 20 bar will be 1% and the 90+ bar will be 2%. In the orange set the under 20 bar will be 4% and the 90+ bar will be 1%.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Huckleberry

[elguapo 4572]

I was told there would be no maths?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

[JimmyJames 12271]

Yeah this thread has become way too difficult. I’m heading back to the shag to see what badmofo is up to and to look for some scat. 

[Pancho 44153]

Math =

[Dahobbs 17392]

21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Correct. Let's say there have been 1000 early voters. Of those early voters, 10 are under 20 and 20 are 90+.

Now imagine that 500 of these voters have never voted in a primary before. 8 of the under 20 voters have not, and 5 of the 90+ voters have not.

That means that in the green set the under 20 bar will be 1% and the 90+ bar will be 2%. In the orange set the under 20 bar will be 4% and the 90+ bar will be 1%.

How do you get 4%? If it is percentage of total early voters who have never voted, I'd expect it to be 8/500 = 1.6%. If it is percentage of under 20 early voters who have no primary history, I'd expect it to be 8/10 = 80%. I'm clearly not understanding you or this chart.  

[Huckleberry 32638]

39 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"of people who have never voted in a primary AND are early voting, X% of them are between the age of ___ and ___" is a different set of data than "of people who are early voting, Y% of them are between the age of ___ and ___."  there's lots of people in their 20s and 30s who've never voted in a primary, and that figure should trend downhill with age.  which is what the graph illustrates.

 

 

edit: here's another of his charts, he's looking at (it appears) all history.

so the orange bar in the first graph should be the people in the green and yellow bars here

(i'm kind of amazed at how few people have only voted in one party's primary)

This also looks better for Cruz than O'Rourke. Clinton won these counties 54.5% to 45.5% in 2016. If we assign the only one party primary and mixed primary but last primary in that party voters to each candidate, then currently Cruz leads O'Rourke 50.4%-49.6% in these early vote totals out of voters with a primary history. In order for O'Rourke to outpace Clinton in these counties he would need the voters with no primary history to break in his favor 66%-34% over Cruz.

There is obviously a lot more to it than that, of course.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Huckleberry 32638]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How do you get 4%? If it is percentage of total early voters who have never voted, I'd expect it to be 8/500 = 1.6%. If it is percentage of under 20 early voters who have no primary history, I'd expect it to be 8/10 = 80%. I'm clearly not understanding you or this chart.  

Yeah, I screwed that up. 1.6% is correct, point being that it's higher than the 90+ orange bar.

[Dahobbs 17392]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This also looks better for Cruz than O'Rourke. Clinton won these counties 54.5% to 45.5% in 2016. If we assign the only one party primary and mixed primary but last primary in that party voters to each candidate, then currently Cruz leads O'Rourke 50.4%-49.6% in these early vote totals out of voters with a primary history. In order for O'Rourke to outpace Clinton in these counties he would need the voters with no primary history to break in his favor 66%-34% over Cruz.

There is obviously a lot more to it than that, of course.

Given that next to no one votes in dem primaries in Texas, that actually doesn't sound that bad for O'Rourke. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Dahobbs

[relapse98 634]

17 hours ago, longhorndude said:

Still curious to hear now Johnny Sack of Shit justified his vote for Ken Paxton.

Piece of shit lawyer votes for another piece of shit lawyer. Don't act so suprised.

[Huckleberry 32638]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Given that next to no one votes in dem primaries in Texas, that actually doesn't sound that bad for O'Rourke. 

I hate you for giving me another way to look at it.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

[Huckleberry 32638]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Given that next to no one votes in dem primaries in Texas, that actually doesn't sound that bad for O'Rourke. 

 

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I hate you for giving me another way to look at it.

Still not looking good for O'Rourke. These counties actually had more 2018 Democratic primary voters than Republican primary voters by a 52%-48% margin, so he's also underperforming against that mark so far. The real analysis would require having these same numbers for previous early voting periods but I don't have that.

[Dahobbs 17392]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This also looks better for Cruz than O'Rourke. Clinton won these counties 54.5% to 45.5% in 2016. If we assign the only one party primary and mixed primary but last primary in that party voters to each candidate, then currently Cruz leads O'Rourke 50.4%-49.6% in these early vote totals out of voters with a primary history. In order for O'Rourke to outpace Clinton in these counties he would need the voters with no primary history to break in his favor 66%-34% over Cruz.

There is obviously a lot more to it than that, of course.

Another bit, the voters with no previous history appear to average around 7 or 8% depending on the county. I would think that would outpace population growth by at least a couple of points.  Seems important.

[JimmyJames 12271]

14 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

That’s hilarious.

And why are all the olds whipping out their phones so they can get a picture of ted Cruz? Cell phones Facebook and Fox News has destroyed our olds way worse than the millennials and whatever the next generation is called. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13387]

1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

 

I would be curious how this guy has this info.  Exit polls?   To my knowledge the counties are not releasing early voter info.   Or is he producing the #s based on previous election results.

Do politicians normally break down demographics by 10 year age ranges?  I'm used to seeing marketing info that are not so detailed. 4 or 5 age ranges only.   I would think that the 18-19 year old or 90+ is rather limited.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Nice Guy Eddie