Cruz vs Beto

[kevwun 16302]

County officials can change parties and not really skip a beat.  Wish he would have sniffed this out and been pro-active.

[Huckleberry 34407]

Harris County totals:

Straight Ticket Republican - 408,413
Straight Ticket Democrat - 511,282

Ed Emmett total - 572,816
Lina Hidalgo total - 590,524

Non straight ticket totals:

Emmett - 164,403
Hidalgo - 79,242

Emmett is correct that straight ticket voting cost him the election. 2020 is going to be a different landscape in Texas once there is no more straight ticket, but it's not necessarily going to help just one of the parties in every race.

For a comparison and because we're in this thread:

Non straight ticket Cruz - 87,538
Non straight ticket O'Rourke - 121,679

So there are people who actually voted based on the race in Harris County, just not nearly enough in Emmett's case.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Huckleberry

[wildcat09 29561]

2 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

The problem with the left is they are treating Trump like the hand picked candidate the right chose. He's the "anyone but Hillary" placeholder President that will be voted out likely by his own party in 2020 unless they keep going after him and make him a right wing martyr.  That happens and not only will they have completely screwed up the 2016 election but will unbelievably done even worse by screwing up 2020.  

There are people in Africa who think that doctors trying to treat ebola are actually witches that think this is dumb.

[jimmyjazz 46986]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Harris County totals:

Straight Ticket Republican - 408,413
Straight Ticket Democrat - 511,282nty, just not nearly enough in Emmett's case.

This is a dumb question, but that's never stopped me before:  how is "straight ticket" determined?  Hear me out.  I voted "straight ticket" D when I got in the booth -- first time I've ever done this.  But then I went back and modified a couple of votes.  I'm curious how that's counted?

Not that it matters one bit, but man there were a lot of people and issues on the Travis County ballot.  

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

This is a dumb question, but that's never stopped me before:  how is "straight ticket" determined?  Hear me out.  I voted "straight ticket" D when I got in the booth -- first time I've ever done this.  But then I went back and modified a couple of votes.  I'm curious how that's counted?

Not that it matters one bit, but man there were a lot of people and issues on the Travis County ballot.  

Because you changed a couple of votes it is not counted as a straight ticket. What you did is technically called a "gay ticket". 

[Huckleberry 34407]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is a dumb question, but that's never stopped me before:  how is "straight ticket" determined?  Hear me out.  I voted "straight ticket" D when I got in the booth -- first time I've ever done this.  But then I went back and modified a couple of votes.  I'm curious how that's counted?

Not that it matters one bit, but man there were a lot of people and issues on the Travis County ballot.  

I would think those are then not counted straight ticket but now that you mention it I'm not sure at all.

[jimmyjazz 46986]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I would think those are then not counted straight ticket but now that you mention it I'm not sure at all.

Yeah, it wouldn't shock me that once that choice is selected, the count is made.

At any rate, it's a pretty trivial point.

[Celery Man 21076]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Math error aside, Cruz didn't spend a dime, huh?  No dark money ads or mailouts working in his favor?  

An important part you leave out is the majority of Beto's money came from inside the state.  Texans funding their own choice for senate.  Cruz accepted much more out of state money.  If we were voting by Texans who supported their candidate with time and/or funding, Beto would win in a landslide. 

get out of here with your pussy facts

[Texas Jeff 1998]

This is a dumb question, but that's never stopped me before:  how is "straight ticket" determined?   

I would guess that it’s the people that marked the straight ticket box at the top of the ballot. You can leave this blank or you can mark it, then change individual votes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jimmyjazz 46986]

Just now, Texas Jeff said:

 

I would guess that it’s the people that marked the straight ticket box at the top of the ballot. You can leave this blank or you can mark it, then change individual votes.

 

See, it wouldn't shock me if that were the case, and it's ridiculous.  My final ballot wasn't "straight ticket" but I did start out with that selection.

I don't honestly know if there is interesting data to be culled regarding straight ticket voters, but at the very least they should define it as ballots where only one party was selected throughout, perhaps ignoring those races where that party was absent.

[Kyle 207]

1 hour ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

See, here’s the problem: people like Hugo and Pancho are so condescending to those who have a different opinion than they do. Everyone on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are the same way. Their opinion is the only right one and if you disagree then you’re an idiot, a red neck, a racist or a rape enabler. Those are the only people who vote republican. All the enlightened folks voted democrat. If this rhetoric didn’t exist, people like me would’ve probably sat out this election because I didn’t care for any of the candidates. I only voted because I didn’t want this type of elitist attitude running everything, telling me what I should and shouldn’t believe. 

 

I’m happy that congress is split. Get rid of all the hyperpartisan bullshit and work together to govern.

This. As a moderate, the hyperbolic, hateful emotional tone of every discussion is a big turnoff. I prefer to discuss issues than personality. I did not care for Cruz, but I saw no compelling reason to change. I understood O'Rourke's charisma and appeal, but I would prefer someone more centrist than either Cruz or O'Rourke. Given the results, did not see a compelling reason to change.

I was one of those people stimulated by the Kavanaugh hearing because dirty tricks inherently turn me off to both sides. I did not support the lack of vote on Garland, and I did not support the fake hit on Kavanaugh.

[Caddox 952]

How are my favorite mentally ill surly posters doing this morning? Feeling rational?

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 minute ago, Kyle said:

I did not support the lack of vote on Garland

How did you express this lack of support?

[Kyle 207]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

How did you express this lack of support?

I did not vote Republican in 2016.

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 minute ago, Kyle said:

I did not vote Republican in 2016.

For any race? That wouldn't make sense, either. Or just for President?

Edited November 7, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

4 minutes ago, Kyle said:

This. As a moderate, the hyperbolic, hateful emotional tone of every discussion is a big turnoff. I prefer to discuss issues than personality. I did not care for Cruz, but I saw no compelling reason to change. I understood O'Rourke's charisma and appeal, but I would prefer someone more centrist than either Cruz or O'Rourke. Given the results, did not see a compelling reason to change.

I was one of those people stimulated by the Kavanaugh hearing because dirty tricks inherently turn me off to both sides. I did not support the lack of vote on Garland, and I did not support the fake hit on Kavanaugh.

 

[staboner 5067]

1 hour ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

See, here’s the problem: people like Hugo and Pancho are so condescending to those who have a different opinion than they do. Everyone on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are the same way. Their opinion is the only right one and if you disagree then you’re an idiot, a red neck, a racist or a rape enabler. Those are the only people who vote republican. All the enlightened folks voted democrat. If this rhetoric didn’t exist, people like me would’ve probably sat out this election because I didn’t care for any of the candidates. I only voted because I didn’t want this type of elitist attitude running everything, telling me what I should and shouldn’t believe. 

 

I’m happy that congress is split. Get rid of all the hyperpartisan bullshit and work together to govern.

They are condescending to bigotry, cheating, lying, etc. (at least Pancho is). Hugo is a bit much I agree there. 

Our political dialogue is broken. Everyone knows this. Having a split government ain't fixing shit. Elitist attitudes? Really? 2000 wants itself back. 

When the POTUS/Rs lie, enable bigotry and/or releases BS racist political adds - show up. Say something. It would be nice to hear from you. 

[Celery Man 21076]

8 minutes ago, Caddox said:

How are my favorite mentally ill surly posters doing this morning? Feeling rational?

[Kyle 207]

12 minutes ago, staboner said:

They are condescending to bigotry, cheating, lying, etc. (at least Pancho is). Hugo is a bit much I agree there. 

Our political dialogue is broken. Everyone knows this. Having a split government ain't fixing shit. Elitist attitudes? Really? 2000 wants itself back. 

When the POTUS/Rs lie, enable bigotry and/or releases BS racist political adds - show up. Say something. It would be nice to hear from you. 

I think you're pretty much proving his point. If you want to fix political dialogue, stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a name and engage in the marketplace of ideas. Neither party has the market cornered on bigotry, cheating, lying, etc. If you really want change, it starts on an individual level - do you choose to discuss ideas and policies or make hateful comments about the other tribe.

[Horn21 175]

17 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I was one of those people stimulated by the Kavanaugh hearing because dirty tricks inherently turn me off to both sides. I did not support the lack of vote on Garland, and I did not support the fake hit on Kavanaugh.

Were you stimulated and or turned off by the dirty trick of sending nearly 8k armed troops to the border under a false pretense and a complete fabrication of the truth?  

[Kyle 207]

Just now, Horn21 said:

Were you stimulated and or turned off by the dirty trick of sending nearly 8k armed troops to the border under a false pretense and a complete fabrication of the truth?  

Words matter. If you want to have a reasonably dialogue, it has to begin with personal integrity. Sending troops to the border is not a dirty trick. One can agree or disagree with it, but it is not a dirty trick by any definition.

What was the "false pretense" or "complete fabrication of the truth?" 

Immigration is a extremely complex moral and political question that requires more than hyperbolic emotion to solve.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is no middle.

The fuck there isn’t. 

All I had to ask myself was how is Brisket, DD, and Bad Teammate voting? Ok, I’ll do the opposite. 

[Jiggy-Z 3507]

21 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

Is that Ronny Milsap?

[LowPressure 73]

Looks like Beto outspent him 2 to 1.

Not to mention free MSM press & coverage.  The left threw the kitchen sink at Cruz...and he won.

 

Ted Cruz (R) • Incumbent	$40,118,702	$33,896,025	$6,702,090	10/17/2018
Beto O'Rourke (D)	$69,099,803	$59,162,289	$10,336,214	10/17/2018

[Huckleberry 34407]

4 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Words matter. If you want to have a reasonably dialogue, it has to begin with personal integrity. Sending troops to the border is not a dirty trick. One can agree or disagree with it, but it is not a dirty trick by any definition.

What was the "false pretense" or "complete fabrication of the truth?" 

Immigration is a extremely complex moral and political question that requires more than hyperbolic emotion to solve.

Sending the military to the border for the purpose of confronting a caravan of immigrants who are over a thousand miles away is absolutely a political stunt. What exactly do you think the troops were supposed to accomplish at the border?

[American Swindle 102]

8 minutes ago, Horn21 said:

Were you stimulated and or turned off by the dirty trick of sending nearly 8k armed troops to the border under a false pretense and a complete fabrication of the truth?  

Is this a tactic they call "whataboutism"?  

[Kyle 207]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Sending the military to the border for the purpose of confronting a caravan of immigrants who are over a thousand miles away is absolutely a political stunt. What exactly do you think the troops were supposed to accomplish at the border?

Agreed.

[Horn21 175]

2 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Words matter. If you want to have a reasonably dialogue, it has to begin with personal integrity. Sending troops to the border is not a dirty trick. One can agree or disagree with it, but it is not a dirty trick by any definition.

What was the "false pretense" or "complete fabrication of the truth?" 

Immigration is a extremely complex moral and political question that requires more than hyperbolic emotion to solve.

Am I to understand that your position is that sending 8k troops was not a political move?  Sending the troops to combat something that has taken place regularly for...20 years?

Let's be clear.  There is ZERO threat posed by this caravan.  It has reduced significantly in number (as it ALWAYS does).  Trump completely made up this idea that it's full of MS13 and general "Middle Easterners" and even if it was, he sent the troops while this scary caravan was 1,000 miles away.  He did it before the election because....wait for it...it was a dirty trick. 

[LowPressure 73]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Straight ticket voting in Harris county was a lot of that.  It also ousted Ed Emmett for a 27 year old with no experience.  We are fucked in the case of a Hurricane. 

Sometimes a good ass kicking wakes fools up.

But I doubt it.

I am amazed at MA & MD where GOP Gov won big & lost the Senate seat big.

 

 

[Huckleberry 34407]

2 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Agreed.

So how do you not see that it was a trick deployed under false pretenses? The military was never actually going to do anything at the border, they were sent weeks before the immigrants will arrive, etc. It was 100% false pretenses and fabrications. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

So how do you not see that it was a trick deployed under false pretenses? The military was never actually going to do anything at the border, they were sent weeks before the immigrants will arrive, etc. It was 100% false pretenses and fabrications. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Agreed. 

[hobbes2702 13353]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Agreed. 

But don’t call him names. He’s being honest and isn’t stupid at all

[bad_teammate 13481]

Ted Cruz has a nationally-recognized name. His name recognition in Texas must be as close to 100% as anyone's could be. He just ran a hard presidential primary in 2016, which he won in Texas. He is a Republican in a state that has not elected a statewide Democrat in 24 years.

Beto O'Rourke had no recognition outside Texas, and basically none inside Texas. He's a Democrat in a state that hasn't elected a statewide Democrat in 24 years.

This is an embarrassing result for Cruz and the Republicans at large. It's not a great one for O'Rourke and Dems, but Cruz should not win this race by fewer than 10 points.

[Kyle 207]

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

Just now, Kyle said:

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

Oh, I get it, you're a fucking idiot. This all makes more sense now. Carry on. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

3 minutes ago, Kyle said:

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

Yes, that is absolutely my contention. The caravan intends to enter the United States at a port of entry and submit claims for asylum. That is 100% legal. Additionally, these caravans are a regular occurrence; the fact that you're only just now hearing about them should tell you something if you're actually a moderate who wants to look at things analytically.

For now I will assume you're being truthful about your intentions, so go research the caravan and asylum and then consider that you're basing your entire argument on the lie that they are trying to enter illegally. Or you could just ask yourself a simple question: If you were trying to sneak across a border would you broadcast your group to the world?

Edited November 7, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Pancho 46067]

1 hour ago, crimsonlonghorn said:

You still mad? 

What the fuck would I be mad about?  That's the best part you think people are mad lol.

You still bigoted against gays? (That answer is yes.)

 

[hobbes2702 13353]

5 minutes ago, Kyle said:

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

There isn’t a caravan trying to enter illegally. You don’t know how asylum works. This is why people say you abd your ilk are stupid. Because you are

[27-25 2082]

5 minutes ago, Kyle said:

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

Any use of the US military for a "political stunt" I think immediately qualifies it for a "dirty trick".  The military should never be used for political purposes and particularly on US soil.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10763]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Assuming Trump doesnt get swept up by Mueller before 2020, which Republican do you think beats him?  He isn't a placeholder. He is the beating heart of your party. He lapped your entire field before he even got to the "but Hillary" part of the election. 

On celebrity front - Mark Cuban
Politicians - Mike Pence, Mitt Romney (yeah I know..), Bob Corker and Susana Martinez (although I think she ends up being VP candidate in 2020)

The next 2 years are going to wear heavily on Trump and everyone behind him... he's got a lot time to make some more stupid comments and alienate a few more groups of voters.

We can refer back, but Republicans running Trump in 2020 will face same fate Hillary faced in 2016.

[staboner 5067]

28 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I think you're pretty much proving his point. If you want to fix political dialogue, stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a name and engage in the marketplace of ideas. Neither party has the market cornered on bigotry, cheating, lying, etc. If you really want change, it starts on an individual level - do you choose to discuss ideas and policies or make hateful comments about the other tribe.

no. not seeing the forest through the trees bud. thats what I am calling out. I am not partisan and wish for the idiotic R v D battle to be reformed and put to sleep.

And expecting my fellow citizens to call out BS is not calling anyone names. Stop being such a pussy. <--- That is calling you a name. Hold on tight man. 

again, 2000 wants its posting back. 

again, when R party abuses power and creates division I hope to see you here reviewing it with us. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by staboner

[Horn21 175]

6 minutes ago, Kyle said:

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

Huck has sufficiently dismissed your odd position, but if you don't believe us, perhaps you'll believe retired military leaders...

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/05/664492127/several-former-military-leaders-speak-out-against-troops-sent-to-u-s-mexico-bord

DUBIK: What makes it different is the timing. There's certainly nothing unusual about using federal troops in support of domestic authorities. That's done many, many times. What's abnormal is the timing of this deployment in relationship to the midterm elections.

......

KELLY: And so again, what bothers you about this particular deployment at this particular time?

DUBIK: Well, again, the timing because it didn't appear to have any military purpose. There's no military invasion. There's - didn't appear to be any invasion, actual invasion probabilities. So why send them?

[Kyle 207]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Yes, that is absolutely my contention. The caravan intends to enter the United States at a port of entry and submit claims for asylum. That is 100% legal. Additionally, these caravans are a regular occurrence; the fact that you're only just now hearing about it should tell you something if you're actually a moderate who wants to look at things analytically.

For now I will assume you're being truthful about your intentions, so go research the caravan and asylum and then consider that you're basing your entire argument on the lie that they are trying to enter illegally. Or you could just ask yourself a simple question: If you were trying to sneak across a border would you broadcast your group to the world?

I appreciate the thoughtful response. We can respectfully agree to disagree on asylum, illegality, etc. I realize the cloak of asylum was used as the story, but  questions of granting asylum is another complexity to a tough political and moral issue. I concede I'm not an expert on the nuances of asylum, but I would happily buy you any bottle of whiskey if most of the members of the caravan ultimately entered the country legally and followed the appropriate procedures.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

8 minutes ago, Kyle said:

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

I'm a moderate, but I'm also stupid as shit. Why isn't there a party that represents my interests?! Granted, I don't know anything about any issues, but I do know that I don't like people being mean. My #1 issue is people not being nice to politicians at restaurants. And pretty much any party can make up any insane bullshit excuse for doing the dumbest shit and I'll go along with it because, again, I am really fucking stupid. There's a horde of criminals coming to invade our country and you have to send the Troops to stop them? Well I certainly am not going to look into this or perform any critical thinking of my own, so it all sounds good to me! 

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I'm a moderate, but I'm also stupid as shit. Why isn't there a party that represents my interests?! Granted, I don't know anything about any issues, but I do know that I don't like people being mean. My #1 issue is people not being nice to politicians at restaurants. And pretty much any party can make up any insane bullshit excuse for doing the dumbest shit and I'll go along with it because, again, I am really fucking stupid. There's a horde of criminals coming to invade our country and you have to send the Troops to stop them? Well I certainly am not going to look into this or perform any critical thinking of my own, so it all sounds good to me! 

OatmealRaisinKyle

[hobbes2702 13353]

2 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I appreciate the thoughtful response. We can respectfully agree to disagree on asylum, illegality, etc. I realize the cloak of asylum was used as the story, but  questions of granting asylum is another complexity to a tough political and moral issue. I concede I'm not an expert on the nuances of asylum, but I would happily buy you any bottle of whiskey if most of the members of the caravan ultimately entered the country legally and followed the appropriate procedures.

They are all entering the country legally. Jesus Christ. You do not understand anything about how asylum works or the laws associated with it. Most of the caravan will not be given asylum and will be deported.

 

[Kyle 207]

4 minutes ago, Horn21 said:

Huck has sufficiently dismissed your odd position, but if you don't believe us, perhaps you'll believe retired military leaders...

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/05/664492127/several-former-military-leaders-speak-out-against-troops-sent-to-u-s-mexico-bord

DUBIK: What makes it different is the timing. There's certainly nothing unusual about using federal troops in support of domestic authorities. That's done many, many times. What's abnormal is the timing of this deployment in relationship to the midterm elections.

......

KELLY: And so again, what bothers you about this particular deployment at this particular time?

DUBIK: Well, again, the timing because it didn't appear to have any military purpose. There's no military invasion. There's - didn't appear to be any invasion, actual invasion probabilities. So why send them?

I don't think I'm doing a good job of helping explain the nuances, but I doubt it really matters. Nothing I am going to say or share is going to change your mind or anyone on the board. I thought I owed you a response. If you disagree with me, no skin off either one of our backs. I will continue to believe that words matter and see a difference between a "political stunt" and a "dirty trick." For example, a "dirty trick" would be if the GOP funded the caravan and then deployed the troops to fight it, but you'll never see it that way and alas, It is really not worth anymore of our time. Have a great week.

[hobbes2702 13353]

This is why people call you stupid. You prove them right, over and over and over.

[Kyle 207]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

They are all entering the country legally. Jesus Christ. You do not understand anything about how asylum works or the laws associated with it. Most of the caravan will not be given asylum and will be deported.

 

Chuckle. Similarly, I'll buy you a bottle of any whiskey you want if that actually happens.

[hobbes2702 13353]

1 minute ago, Kyle said:

Chuckle. Similarly, I'll buy you a bottle of any whiskey you want if that actually happens.

Cool. You should go ahead and purchase. Your lack of understanding about how this works is hilarious