TX-SEN: True to Form

[NOVA Green]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Well, that's one of the things that I have started looking at when it comes to TX-CD-23...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=300604.0

Bexar County is pivotal and accounts for 50% of the Vote Share of CD-23, as well as the most Republican "Vote Bank" within the CD.

Yet it accounted for the largest chunk of swings between '12 and '16 for US-PRES of just about any County in CD-23.

This is one of the most Republican parts of the District, and swung heavily against Trump in '16, mainly as a result of Anglo voters in the San Antonio (SA) 'Burbs....

Is it reasonable to expect these same communities will not swing even further in the US-TX-SEN race this November, considering that Anglos tend to vote in much higher levels in Midterm elections in TX compared to many other communities that are more heavily "Minority" when it comes to race/ethnicity/country of origin, etc....?

Not buying your argument when it comes to using TX-23 as an example, because it actually defies what the raw data and electoral history tells us about where the actual major swings in Texas occurred between the '12 > '16 US PRES race.

What is my argument that you refer to that you say you are not buying? I am not sure what you think I am arguing.



With respect to TX-23, the NYT/Siena poll had Hurd winning college-educated whites 69% - 23% (almost the same as non-college educated whites). Obviously there is a large MOE there since the sample is only 153 people, but if the "true" numbers are anything close to that, it is not remotely what Dems need to make TX competitive.

My sincere apologies for lack of clarity....

Bexar County and CD-23 Polls in general tend to be not not particularly representative of even "off-year" year election voters....''

I don't know what type of THC or CBD related products you are consuming in the event of CD-23, but Anglos in the District aren't nearly as "cray-cray (Using some lingo from a Black Sista' I worked closely with and we become good friends in 4 Years in Houston, Texas).

Pubs lose TX CD-23 for US-REP, will likely be as a direct result of Anglo swings in the 'burbs of SA, combined with than average TO numbers among working-class Latinos in an "off-year" election....

The reason I posted was directly related to your comments on the TX-23 race, and some of the cross-threads when it comes to Latino turnout in "off-year elections"....

Anglo suburban SA might well exhibit interesting results in November '18 at the US-SEN, US-REP, TX-GOV, etc.... elections....

[Bidenworth2020]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Well, that's one of the things that I have started looking at when it comes to TX-CD-23...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=300604.0

Bexar County is pivotal and accounts for 50% of the Vote Share of CD-23, as well as the most Republican "Vote Bank" within the CD.

Yet it accounted for the largest chunk of swings between '12 and '16 for US-PRES of just about any County in CD-23.

This is one of the most Republican parts of the District, and swung heavily against Trump in '16, mainly as a result of Anglo voters in the San Antonio (SA) 'Burbs....

Is it reasonable to expect these same communities will not swing even further in the US-TX-SEN race this November, considering that Anglos tend to vote in much higher levels in Midterm elections in TX compared to many other communities that are more heavily "Minority" when it comes to race/ethnicity/country of origin, etc....?

Not buying your argument when it comes to using TX-23 as an example, because it actually defies what the raw data and electoral history tells us about where the actual major swings in Texas occurred between the '12 > '16 US PRES race.

What is my argument that you refer to that you say you are not buying? I am not sure what you think I am arguing.



With respect to TX-23, the NYT/Siena poll had Hurd winning college-educated whites 69% - 23% (almost the same as non-college educated whites). Obviously there is a large MOE there since the sample is only 153 people, but if the "true" numbers are anything close to that, it is not remotely what Dems need to make TX competitive.

My sincere apologies for lack of clarity....

Bexar County and CD-23 Polls in general tend to be not not particularly representative of even "off-year" year election voters....''

I don't know what type of THC or CBD related products you are consuming in the event of CD-23, but Anglos in the District aren't nearly as "cray-cray (Using some lingo from a Black Sista' I worked closely with and we become good friends in 4 Years in Houston, Texas).

Pubs lose TX CD-23 for US-REP, will likely be as a direct result of Anglo swings in the 'burbs of SA, combined with than average TO numbers among working-class Latinos in an "off-year" election....

The reason I posted was directly related to your comments on the TX-23 race, and some of the cross-threads when it comes to Latino turnout in "off-year elections"....

Anglo suburban SA might well exhibit interesting results in November '18 at the US-SEN, US-REP, TX-GOV, etc.... elections....

I personally think we are gonna see a very large amount of crossover voters Hurd/Beto, around 15%. Ortiz Jones may do a tad better in the border counties, with a hispanic surname

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Beto's shift to the left isn't gonna win him swing voters, Cruz will win by 6 points.

This notion that swing voters are wise and thoughtful centrists is one that needs to be dispelled. 

When somebody equates undecided voters with smart, critical thinkers, I always think of this SNL sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAG37Kw1-aw

I like the top comment under that video cause it is so accurate:
It's like after the Brexit vote; the next day, the most googled question was "what is the EU?"

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Beto was interviewed on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert last night.

O'Rourke said on the show (at 5:34) that "they" (whoever that is) traveled all 254 counties of Texas.
Is that even possible, or is it just a saying?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Well, that's one of the things that I have started looking at when it comes to TX-CD-23...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=300604.0

Bexar County is pivotal and accounts for 50% of the Vote Share of CD-23, as well as the most Republican "Vote Bank" within the CD.

Yet it accounted for the largest chunk of swings between '12 and '16 for US-PRES of just about any County in CD-23.

This is one of the most Republican parts of the District, and swung heavily against Trump in '16, mainly as a result of Anglo voters in the San Antonio (SA) 'Burbs....

Is it reasonable to expect these same communities will not swing even further in the US-TX-SEN race this November, considering that Anglos tend to vote in much higher levels in Midterm elections in TX compared to many other communities that are more heavily "Minority" when it comes to race/ethnicity/country of origin, etc....?

Not buying your argument when it comes to using TX-23 as an example, because it actually defies what the raw data and electoral history tells us about where the actual major swings in Texas occurred between the '12 > '16 US PRES race.

What is my argument that you refer to that you say you are not buying? I am not sure what you think I am arguing.



With respect to TX-23, the NYT/Siena poll had Hurd winning college-educated whites 69% - 23% (almost the same as non-college educated whites). Obviously there is a large MOE there since the sample is only 153 people, but if the "true" numbers are anything close to that, it is not remotely what Dems need to make TX competitive.

My sincere apologies for lack of clarity....

Bexar County and CD-23 Polls in general tend to be not not particularly representative of even "off-year" year election voters....''

I don't know what type of THC or CBD related products you are consuming in the event of CD-23, but Anglos in the District aren't nearly as "cray-cray (Using some lingo from a Black Sista' I worked closely with and we become good friends in 4 Years in Houston, Texas).

Pubs lose TX CD-23 for US-REP, will likely be as a direct result of Anglo swings in the 'burbs of SA, combined with than average TO numbers among working-class Latinos in an "off-year" election....

The reason I posted was directly related to your comments on the TX-23 race, and some of the cross-threads when it comes to Latino turnout in "off-year elections"....

Anglo suburban SA might well exhibit interesting results in November '18 at the US-SEN, US-REP, TX-GOV, etc.... elections....

Well, I am in general agreement that swings among suburban whites are the most important factor here, although of course Hispanic (and other non-white) turnout matters as well.

But insofar as Dem support from white suburban voters who swung to Clinton is of crucial importance, there was definitely not much evidence of that in the Siena/NYT TX-23 poll.

I personally think we are gonna see a very large amount of crossover voters Hurd/Beto, around 15%. Ortiz Jones may do a tad better in the border counties, with a hispanic surname

There were not many crossover Hurd/Beto votes in the Siena/NYT TX-23 poll, FWIW.

[Zaybay]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Well, that's one of the things that I have started looking at when it comes to TX-CD-23...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=300604.0

Bexar County is pivotal and accounts for 50% of the Vote Share of CD-23, as well as the most Republican "Vote Bank" within the CD.

Yet it accounted for the largest chunk of swings between '12 and '16 for US-PRES of just about any County in CD-23.

This is one of the most Republican parts of the District, and swung heavily against Trump in '16, mainly as a result of Anglo voters in the San Antonio (SA) 'Burbs....

Is it reasonable to expect these same communities will not swing even further in the US-TX-SEN race this November, considering that Anglos tend to vote in much higher levels in Midterm elections in TX compared to many other communities that are more heavily "Minority" when it comes to race/ethnicity/country of origin, etc....?

Not buying your argument when it comes to using TX-23 as an example, because it actually defies what the raw data and electoral history tells us about where the actual major swings in Texas occurred between the '12 > '16 US PRES race.

What is my argument that you refer to that you say you are not buying? I am not sure what you think I am arguing.



With respect to TX-23, the NYT/Siena poll had Hurd winning college-educated whites 69% - 23% (almost the same as non-college educated whites). Obviously there is a large MOE there since the sample is only 153 people, but if the "true" numbers are anything close to that, it is not remotely what Dems need to make TX competitive.

My sincere apologies for lack of clarity....

Bexar County and CD-23 Polls in general tend to be not not particularly representative of even "off-year" year election voters....''

I don't know what type of THC or CBD related products you are consuming in the event of CD-23, but Anglos in the District aren't nearly as "cray-cray (Using some lingo from a Black Sista' I worked closely with and we become good friends in 4 Years in Houston, Texas).

Pubs lose TX CD-23 for US-REP, will likely be as a direct result of Anglo swings in the 'burbs of SA, combined with than average TO numbers among working-class Latinos in an "off-year" election....

The reason I posted was directly related to your comments on the TX-23 race, and some of the cross-threads when it comes to Latino turnout in "off-year elections"....

Anglo suburban SA might well exhibit interesting results in November '18 at the US-SEN, US-REP, TX-GOV, etc.... elections....

Well, I am in general agreement that swings among suburban whites are the most important factor here, although of course Hispanic (and other non-white) turnout matters as well.

But insofar as Dem support from white suburban voters who swung to Clinton is of crucial importance, there was definitely not much evidence of that in the Siena/NYT TX-23 poll.

I personally think we are gonna see a very large amount of crossover voters Hurd/Beto, around 15%. Ortiz Jones may do a tad better in the border counties, with a hispanic surname

There were not many crossover Hurd/Beto votes in the Siena/NYT TX-23 poll, FWIW.

Dont use the Siena poll to figure out Beto's numbers, that is literally what I was warning not to do. Its better to just use statewide polling.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Dont use the Siena poll to figure out Beto's numbers, that is literally what I was warning not to do. Its better to just use statewide polling.

Use a statewide poll to figure out Beto's numbers in TX-23?

[Zaybay]

Dont use the Siena poll to figure out Beto's numbers, that is literally what I was warning not to do. Its better to just use statewide polling.

Use a statewide poll to figure out Beto's numbers in TX-23?

some of them do offer a regional breakdown, so yeah.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Dont use the Siena poll to figure out Beto's numbers, that is literally what I was warning not to do. Its better to just use statewide polling.

Use a statewide poll to figure out Beto's numbers in TX-23?

some of them do offer a regional breakdown, so yeah.

With a sample size that would be much smaller than the actual TX-23 poll.

[Zaybay]

Dont use the Siena poll to figure out Beto's numbers, that is literally what I was warning not to do. Its better to just use statewide polling.

Use a statewide poll to figure out Beto's numbers in TX-23?

some of them do offer a regional breakdown, so yeah.

With a sample size that would be much smaller than the actual TX-23 poll.

True, but that poll had a lot of errors in it. Cohn even made a chart about it:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1041046405748613120

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1041060209391755265


And even reading the stats the poll got have no real sense to them.

-Trump at a positive approval

-GCB going R

-18-29 year olds going R by 30 points

So yeah, I would rather trust the regional breakdown than a poll that even the creator notes has had a lot of issues.

[Virginiá]

Did they ever mention how they financed these polls? Isn't it super expensive to poll this many districts?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Those 2 tweets are not remotely the same thing as Cohn saying "that poll had a lot of errors in it."

[Zaybay]

Those 2 tweets are not remotely the same thing as Cohn saying "that poll had a lot of errors in it."

Listen, man, if you want to keep using the Siena polls for every analysis, go right ahead. I wont stop you. Ive already made my case clear.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Listen, man, if you want to keep using the Siena polls for every analysis, go right ahead. I wont stop you. Ive already made my case clear.

They are the only public polls that exist for a lot of Congressional districts. I am not sure what other non-existent poll we should be using for, say, TX-23.

If we had other polls to choose from, then for sure, we should be looking at those. But the vast majority of the good quality public (i.e. non-internal) phone polls of House districts we are getting this cycle are from NYT/Siena.

That is better than simply ignoring the NYT/Siena polls just because you don't like their results in some cases (i.e. I haven't seen you complain much about their MN-03 and CO-06 polls, you just like complaining about the ones in which Dems are down).

[Pericles]

If Texas voted in the middle of October, it probably would have been pretty close to a Trump +4 sort of result, Clinton had a much bigger nationwide lead(she got up to a 7-point lead in mid-October) then than she had at the end and this was coming right off the Access Hollywood tape and generally what had been a disastrous few weeks for Trump. However, the national environment changed following the Comey letter, the shift of the news cycle and as the GOP base came home, RCP's final average actually had it Trump +11.7%(so almost a 3-point pro-Trump error).

[Zaybay]

Listen, man, if you want to keep using the Siena polls for every analysis, go right ahead. I wont stop you. Ive already made my case clear.

They are the only public polls that exist for a lot of Congressional districts. I am not sure what other non-existent poll we should be using for, say, TX-23.

If we had other polls to choose from, then for sure, we should be looking at those. But the vast majority of the good quality public (i.e. non-internal) phone polls of House districts we are getting this cycle are from NYT/Siena.

That is better than simply ignoring the NYT/Siena polls just because you don't like their results in some cases (i.e. I haven't seen you complain much about their MN-03 and CO-06 polls, you just like complaining about the ones in which Dems are down).

No, I have complained about those polls,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I point out that they are oversampling suburbanites who happen to be D, which is also the overall conclusion that I came to, that these polls oversample Suburban voters, and undersample minority and young voters. Im not some partisan cheer leader.

But my point is to not look for some deeper stuff in these polls, such as the TX one. Trying to figure out Beto's chances of winning based on it is a fools errand. Its a data point, and, in a district like Hurd's we shouldnt base an entire analysis over one poll.

To refer to the original argument on how to see if the suburbanites are trending D in the district, a better indicator may be the primary numbers, as anyone can vote in any primary. Its just a thought.

Edit: Cohn's chart is actually really helpful in figuring out the quality of a poll. The amount the numbers were shifted can give us an idea if a response rate was low and therefore the poll had to be manipulated. Polls such as MN-08, MN-03, KS-02, and WI-01  had very low levels, and so can be considered much more precise, where as polls like FL-26, TX-07, WV-03 and TX-23 had to be heavily adjusted, and so can be considered much less indicative of the actual district.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

If Texas voted in the middle of October, it probably would have been pretty close to a Trump +4 sort of result.

According to this:

http://www.electproject.org/early_2016

4,497,431 votes in Texas in 2016 were cast early. On the Atlas 2016 Presidential results, there are a total of 8,993,166 votes listed.

So about 50% of Texas votes were cast, more or less, in the middle of October.

[SteveRogers]

Just saw this Ted Cruz ad on tv after the Longhorn game. If this is the best Cruz has got, then I’m certainly starting to feel better about this thing.

https://youtu.be/fVebl3w3jEY

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

No, I have complained about those polls,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I point out that they are oversampling suburbanites who happen to be D, which is also the overall conclusion that I came to, that these polls oversample Suburban voters, and undersample minority and young voters. Im not some partisan cheer leader.

The results in CO-06 and MN-03 are very much consistent with the 2016 Presidential results - in both districts Clinton won by 9 points or so, and the Dem candidates are leading by about

As for supposedly oversampling suburban voters, I don't see how it is really possible to oversample suburban voters in CO-06 and MN-03. If those districts are not literally 100% suburban, then they are something like maybe 99% suburban or maybe 98% suburban. The argument that these polls are wrong because they have too many suburban voters is simply bizarre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Primary voting in TX were a reliable indication of much of anything, Obama would have won TX in 2008.

Primary voting in lots of parts of TX is also effectively the general election - it is not uncommon for people who are really Dems to vote in Republican primaries, and vice versa, depending on where they live.

Primary turnout is also often higher than General Election turnout in certain parts of the state (particularly South TX).

[Zaybay]

No, I have complained about those polls,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I point out that they are oversampling suburbanites who happen to be D, which is also the overall conclusion that I came to, that these polls oversample Suburban voters, and undersample minority and young voters. Im not some partisan cheer leader.

The results in CO-06 and MN-03 are very much consistent with the 2016 Presidential results - in both districts Clinton won by 9 points or so, and the Dem candidates are leading by about

As for supposedly oversampling suburban voters, I don't see how it is really possible to oversample suburban voters in CO-06 and MN-03. If those districts are not literally 100% suburban, then they are something like maybe 99% suburban or maybe 98% suburban. The argument that these polls are wrong because they have too many suburban voters is simply bizarre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Primary voting in TX were a reliable indication of much of anything, Obama would have won TX in 2008.

Primary voting in lots of parts of TX is also effectively the general election - it is not uncommon for people who are really Dems to vote in Republican primaries, and vice versa, depending on where they live.

Primary turnout is also often higher than General Election turnout in certain parts of the state (particularly South TX).

You literally asked me why I wasnt critical of the two polls, to which I said that it was oversampling D voters who happened to be suburban, which was indicative of a larger trend Ive noticed in the other polls, and then you basically say that the polls are perfect and I shouldnt be critical of them. Do you want me to criticize them or not?

Also, the idea that just because the district is voting the same way presidentially, its correct, is rather poor logic, and would point to Ds winning Valadao, Katko's seats and the Ds losing Cartwright, and the MN seats. Presidential races and midterms are not the same thing, and even though the logic may seem correct in this instance, its basically the same as saying the Bradley effect is why Brown lost the 2014 MD gubernatorial race.

Anyway, as I pointed out, those two polls are the more accurate ones, due to the fact that they are suburban, but there is an indicative trend of suburbanites being over represented in these. And the key word there is indicative, this isnt just confined to the two seats.

Anyway, the primary thing was just a thought, nothing serious. Perhaps it may just be a better idea to just use the statewide polls that are done, and not go district by district. Again, I wont stop you.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Just saw this Ted Cruz ad on tv after the Longhorn game. If this is the best Cruz has got, then I’m certainly starting to feel better about this thing.

https://youtu.be/fVebl3w3jEY

That's an ad saying "muh black people kneeling is bad." It will go over VERY VERY well in Louie Gohmert land, which is precisely the sort of area where Cruz needs to wrack up big margins, and where he underperformed in 2012. Remember, Cruz is Hispanic, and hence one of his weaknesses is that he himself can be the target of racism (and anti-Hispanic racism held down his margins in 2012). What this ad does is re-direct the racism of rural Texas away from Cruz and at Beto instead. If you don't think this is a good ad, then you don't know rural (and also quite a few suburban and urban) TX white voters.

Paging IceSpear

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

You literally asked me why I wasnt critical of the two polls, to which I said that it was oversampling D voters who happened to be suburban, which was indicative of a larger trend Ive noticed in the other polls, and then you basically say that the polls are perfect and I shouldnt be critical of them. Do you want me to criticize them or not?

I said you seemed to be complaining much more about polls that had Dems down in comparison to polls that had Dems up. Complaining is not the same as criticizing. As for you being critical, I don't really care per se whether you want to be critical or not - I will simply replying to what you had said before and pointing out that you tend to emphasize polls that are bad for dems and not ones that are good. But what I do care whether your criticisms make sense or not - criticize all you want as long as your criticisms are actually sensible, and not just criticizing for the sake of criticizing without having an actual basis for doing so. And it makes 0 sense to say that a poll of an entirely suburban district is oversampling suburban voters, given that essentially all voters are by definition suburban.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was not saying that those polls were either correct or incorrect, I was saying that you shouldn't say that the fact that Dems were ahead by more than a few points tells you in any way that there is anything wrong with the NYT/Siena methodology here. You are the one who said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i.e. you were saying that the Siena methodology must be wrong because they had Dems up by about 9 in districts that Clinton won by about 9, and for some bizarre reason you seem to think that is implausible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have no way of real way of knowing, other than Voodoo, which polls are accurate and which ones are not. Aside from the sheer logical impossibility of oversampling suburbanites in a 100% suburban district, you also have no way of knowing whether suburbanites are being overrepresented in polls because you do not know any more than anyone else exactly what turnout will be and who will vote.

But insofar as special elections are indicative, they do in fact point to the probability of large suburban turnout. You are obviously not stupid, you are aware of that, so I'm frankly befuddled why you keep saying this.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/sean_r_owen/status/1041182844234522624

[Blair]

Hilarious to see Ted Cruz (principled Conservative fighter) running on the vitally important issue of NFL players standing.

The ad is hilarious for showing the reaction that Beto gets from the crowd- whilst the veteran gets a scant rounds of applause from an audience of people in their mid 80s.

But usual disclaimer about TV ads- they don't matter, they're never as important, they don't sway voters that Beto needs etc.  

[Zaybay]

snip

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to have ignored everything I have said this entire time except for suburban, so I shall explain again.

Also, just statistics here, but since most polls show the Republican ahead, and most of the polls that are full of problems also seem to have the Republican ahead, I will, logically, talk more about them than the others.

My point was that the pollster overall is oversampling Suburban voters. Not just in one poll, all of them. I have already given my reasoning, but to sum it up, areas that have more suburban voters are more likely, statistically, to answer the phone to a pollster, than rural, young, or racial minorities. In districts like MN-03, this is barely noticeable, and the result here is rather accurate, as the district is mostly suburban. Its also accurate in KS-02, where there are really just rurals. But put these areas together, and then you get problems. The districts that had to be weighed the most, FL-26, TX-23, TX-07, all share a problem of Republican Suburbanites, minorities, and rural areas that arent being represented. That is the overall problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, ignoring the reasoning I used in the other posts and just making an assumption based on the fact that I said that saying a district will vote the same way for a presidential candidate as a house candidate is bad reasoning, case#1 being the fact that these guys lived from 2016, and case#2 being Hurd and the OC Rs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. We both dont know, so I could be right or you could be right. We have data and evidence that points towards me being right, such as the weighing of the polls, previous polls, and national environment, so I would be inclined to favour my side.

As for the special elections, that not at all what they have shown. Special elections have shown that Democrats. are turning out to vote at a higher level than previously. And if we want to use geography, then your still wrong. Most special election results have shown Rural areas swing back the most, not suburban areas. Suburbs have gone 6 points D, while rurals have gone 18 points D. And on a turnout level, its, again, been Democrats turning out, not suburbanites.