TX-SEN: True to Form

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

[cvparty]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

I don't know man... rural TX is super inelastic. It's not like the rural midwest / plains states that are elastic. Most of the democratic votes from rural TX are Latinos, who have low turnout in midterms.

I don't think Beto even gets a 5 point swing from rural TX, honestly. Maybe in rural border counties, but not in the rural panhandle.

[Bidenworth2020]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

I don't know man... rural TX is super inelastic. It's not like the rural midwest / plains states that are elastic. Most of the democratic votes from rural TX are Latinos, who have low turnout in midterms.

I don't think Beto even gets a 5 point swing from rural TX, honestly. Maybe in rural border counties, but not in the rural panhandle.

What? TX-13, the panhandle sistrcit, literally voted for Clinton in 92! There is dem strength possible here.

[ON Progressive]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

I don't know man... rural TX is super inelastic. It's not like the rural midwest / plains states that are elastic. Most of the democratic votes from rural TX are Latinos, who have low turnout in midterms.

I don't think Beto even gets a 5 point swing from rural TX, honestly. Maybe in rural border counties, but not in the rural panhandle.

What? TX-13, the panhandle sistrcit, literally voted for Clinton in 92! There is dem strength possible here.

1992 was an eternity ago in electoral politics. There's a ton of places that voted Clinton in '92, even by majorities, that just aren't winnable for Democrats anymore. The Dem coalitions between then and now are incredibly different.

[KingSweden]

No one knows who Beto is.  From a media stand point.  Mike Espy and David Baria are much better known. But, in this environment, neither are flipping, though

These statements are just false.

[kyc0705]

No one knows who Beto is.  From a media stand point.  Mike Espy and David Baria are much better known. But, in this environment, neither are flipping, though

I'm not exaggerating when I say that this post is the very first time I've ever encountered the name "David Baria."

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

I don't know man... rural TX is super inelastic. It's not like the rural midwest / plains states that are elastic. Most of the democratic votes from rural TX are Latinos, who have low turnout in midterms.

I don't think Beto even gets a 5 point swing from rural TX, honestly. Maybe in rural border counties, but not in the rural panhandle.

What? TX-13, the panhandle sistrcit, literally voted for Clinton in 92! There is dem strength possible here.

1992 was an eternity ago in electoral politics. There's a ton of places that voted Clinton in '92, even by majorities, that just aren't winnable for Democrats anymore. The Dem coalitions between then and now are incredibly different.

Yeah... for example, Phil Bredesen's winning 2018 coalition is going to be completely different from his winning 2002 coalition.

He won a ton of rural white counties in 2002... in 2018, if he wins, it's probably due to insane margins in Nashville + its surrounding suburbs, while not doing terribly in rural TN.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

I don't know man... rural TX is super inelastic. It's not like the rural midwest / plains states that are elastic. Most of the democratic votes from rural TX are Latinos, who have low turnout in midterms.

I don't think Beto even gets a 5 point swing from rural TX, honestly. Maybe in rural border counties, but not in the rural panhandle.

What? TX-13, the panhandle sistrcit, literally voted for Clinton in 92! There is dem strength possible here.

1992 was an eternity ago in electoral politics. There's a ton of places that voted Clinton in '92, even by majorities, that just aren't winnable for Democrats anymore. The Dem coalitions between then and now are incredibly different.

Yeah... for example, Phil Bredesen's winning 2018 coalition is going to be completely different from his winning 2002 coalition.

He won a ton of rural white counties in 2002... in 2018, if he wins, it's probably due to insane margins in Nashville + its surrounding suburbs, while not doing terribly in rural TN.

Hold your horses, he has not won yet.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

I don't know man... rural TX is super inelastic. It's not like the rural midwest / plains states that are elastic. Most of the democratic votes from rural TX are Latinos, who have low turnout in midterms.

I don't think Beto even gets a 5 point swing from rural TX, honestly. Maybe in rural border counties, but not in the rural panhandle.

What? TX-13, the panhandle sistrcit, literally voted for Clinton in 92! There is dem strength possible here.

1992 was an eternity ago in electoral politics. There's a ton of places that voted Clinton in '92, even by majorities, that just aren't winnable for Democrats anymore. The Dem coalitions between then and now are incredibly different.

Yeah... for example, Phil Bredesen's winning 2018 coalition is going to be completely different from his winning 2002 coalition.

He won a ton of rural white counties in 2002... in 2018, if he wins, it's probably due to insane margins in Nashville + its surrounding suburbs, while not doing terribly in rural TN.

Hold your horses, he has not won yet.

His losing map would look similar too. Strong margins in nashville + suburbs, but poor in rural TN. Just lower numbers across the board.

[Badger]

Hot take: TX is more likely to flip at this point than OH or WI, especially the latter.

True, but low thresholds there.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

you know if republican turnout is somewhat lower and beto doesn’t get absolutely demolished in the rural areas while maintaining/outdoing hillary’s margins in the triangle, he has a pretty decent chance

He definitely needs to outdo Hillary's margins in the triangle. Rural TX is not swingy at all, so Beto will get demolished there. He may do marginally better than Hillary in rural TX, but not significantly.

yes i mean by appealing to rural areas he could do less horribly than usual and lose by like less than 40 points instead of the high 40s

I don't know man... rural TX is super inelastic. It's not like the rural midwest / plains states that are elastic. Most of the democratic votes from rural TX are Latinos, who have low turnout in midterms.

I don't think Beto even gets a 5 point swing from rural TX, honestly. Maybe in rural border counties, but not in the rural panhandle.

What? TX-13, the panhandle sistrcit, literally voted for Clinton in 92! There is dem strength possible here.

1992 was an eternity ago in electoral politics. There's a ton of places that voted Clinton in '92, even by majorities, that just aren't winnable for Democrats anymore. The Dem coalitions between then and now are incredibly different.

Yeah, no federal dem is winning Hall county anytime in the near future.

[Young Conservative]

Lol at people saying “but Clinton won it 1992!”


What would those same people say to someone in 2004 who said “but Reagan won California in ‘84?”

Roughly the same time elapsed.....

[junior chįmp]

Lying Ted Cruz changes position on child seperation after Beto's rally outside a children detention center....Lyin Ted is chokin like a dog

https://www.twitter.com/dmartosko/status/1008831557396770823?s=19

[KingSweden]

Lol at people saying “but Clinton won it 1992!”


What would those same people say to someone in 2004 who said “but Reagan won California in ‘84?”

Roughly the same time elapsed.....

Even more time, actually.

[UWS]

Lying Ted Cruz changes position on child seperation after Beto's rally outside a children detention center....Lyin Ted is chokin like a dog

https://www.twitter.com/dmartosko/status/1008831557396770823?s=19

What? I wonder which impact it could have on his support among Tea Party voters.

Flip-floppin’ Lyin’ Ted

https://thelibertyconservative.com/ted-cruzs-biggest-flip-flops/

[GeorgiaModerate]

I can't believe I'm saying this about Ted Cruz, and we'll have to see the actual bill to be sure, but the talking points about this bill seem very focused and reasonable.  I was expecting him to propose something that would include full funding for the wall, etc., and put Democrats in the position of opposing a fix to the child separation problem.

[KingSweden]

I can't believe I'm saying this about Ted Cruz, and we'll have to see the actual bill to be sure, but the talking points about this bill seem very focused and reasonable.  I was expecting him to propose something that would include full funding for the wall, etc., and put Democrats in the position of opposing a fix to the child separation problem.

Are there any substantial differences between his bill and the one proposed by Senate Democrats?

[GeorgiaModerate]

I can't believe I'm saying this about Ted Cruz, and we'll have to see the actual bill to be sure, but the talking points about this bill seem very focused and reasonable.  I was expecting him to propose something that would include full funding for the wall, etc., and put Democrats in the position of opposing a fix to the child separation problem.

Are there any substantial differences between his bill and the one proposed by Senate Democrats?

I'm not up on the Senate bill.  This is what I saw for the Cruz bill:

• Double the number of federal immigration judges, from 375 to 750.
  
• Authorize new temporary shelters with accommodations to keep families together.
  
• Mandate that familes must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children.
  
• Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases.

[KingSweden]

I can't believe I'm saying this about Ted Cruz, and we'll have to see the actual bill to be sure, but the talking points about this bill seem very focused and reasonable.  I was expecting him to propose something that would include full funding for the wall, etc., and put Democrats in the position of opposing a fix to the child separation problem.

Are there any substantial differences between his bill and the one proposed by Senate Democrats?

I'm not up on the Senate bill.  This is what I saw for the Cruz bill:

• Double the number of federal immigration judges, from 375 to 750.
  
• Authorize new temporary shelters with accommodations to keep families together.
  
• Mandate that familes must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children.
  
• Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases.

These are all reasonable IMO

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't believe I'm saying this about Ted Cruz, and we'll have to see the actual bill to be sure, but the talking points about this bill seem very focused and reasonable.  I was expecting him to propose something that would include full funding for the wall, etc., and put Democrats in the position of opposing a fix to the child separation problem.

Are there any substantial differences between his bill and the one proposed by Senate Democrats?

I'm not up on the Senate bill.  This is what I saw for the Cruz bill:

• Double the number of federal immigration judges, from 375 to 750.
  
• Authorize new temporary shelters with accommodations to keep families together.
  
• Mandate that familes must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children.
  
• Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases.

These are all reasonable IMO

...wow, they are. I can't believe I'm saying this, but good on Cruz if he's serious about this.

[Mr. Smith]

Seems more like a means to co-opt anything O'Rourke could tangibly use against him.

[TheSaint250]

Good for Cruz.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Ted mother****ing Cruz having his principles in the right place here, even if its for opportunistic reasons, truly demonstrates just how evil Trump's administration and this policy are.

[Doimper]

Flawless Rockstar Kennedy has Cruz running scared.