TX-SEN: True to Form

[Doimper]

My post was a thinly-veiled attempt to distract from Cruz's impending 40-point landslide. Thanks for the assist, Calthrina.

[Calthrina950]

My post was a thinly-veiled attempt to distract from Cruz's impending 40-point landslide. Thanks for the assist, Calthrina.

I still have no idea what you sought to accomplish with it. But then again, I don't understand the behavior of half the people on this website.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

My post was a thinly-veiled attempt to distract from Cruz's impending 40-point landslide. Thanks for the assist, Calthrina.

I still have no idea what you sought to accomplish with it. But then again, I don't understand the behavior of half the people on this website.

It's called humor. You should try it sometime.

[Calthrina950]

My post was a thinly-veiled attempt to distract from Cruz's impending 40-point landslide. Thanks for the assist, Calthrina.

I still have no idea what you sought to accomplish with it. But then again, I don't understand the behavior of half the people on this website.

It's called humor. You should try it sometime.

Really? That is some comment coming from you.

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

Really? That is some comment coming from you.

Stop with the ad hominem attacks against my friend Jalaketu West. The comment is valid or invalid regardless of whether it came from him or her ("coming from you") or from anyone else, and you should direct your response at the argument, not the person.

[Calthrina950]

Really? That is some comment coming from you.

Stop with the ad hominem attacks against my friend Jalaketu West. The comment is valid or invalid regardless of whether it came from him or her ("coming from you") or from anyone else, and you should direct your response at the argument, not the person.

Jalaketu West has said a number of objectionable things to me previously. At any rate, this thread should not be derailed any further then it already has been.

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

Jalaketu West has said a number of objectionable things to me previously. At any rate, this thread should not be derailed any further then it already has been.

Whether or not Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West has said objectionable things to you previously is irrelevant to the intellectual argument advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West. That argument was namely that the purpose Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor." Now, let's be clear. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West's argument that the purpose Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor" is either a valid argument or an invalid argument, but its validity or invalidity does not depend upon the fact that Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu was the person who put forth the argument into a public forum for our mutual due consideration and debate. Determining the validity of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalekatu West's argument, rather, requires making an extensive and detailed list of the points that are pro and the points that are con. You must consider both sides of the argument in weighing the quality of the claim, and then think "on the one hand x, but on the other hand y."

In addition to this argument, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West also deigned to make a suggestion that you yourself might consider trying to engage in the behavior known as "humor" some time. Of course, it goes without saying that in order to do such a thing you would also need to formulate a list of the arguments in favor and opposed to engaging in such a behavior. Now, let's be clear once again. The suggestion advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West could be either a good suggestion or a bad suggestion, but the quality of the suggestion doesn't depend upon whether it was made by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jaleketu West, or alternatively by Donald Trump or Barack Obama (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, are Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered Users). Whoever made the suggestion, it is either a good one or a bad one on its own actual merits, wouldn't you say?

I hope that this post has been edifying and makes it easier to understand how to proceed in analyzing arguments on an online bulletin board such as the Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Congressional Elections sub-forum.

[IceSpear]

^lmao

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Jalaketu West has said a number of objectionable things to me previously. At any rate, this thread should not be derailed any further then it already has been.

Whether or not Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West has said objectionable things to you previously is irrelevant to the intellectual argument advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West. That argument was namely that the purpose Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor." Now, let's be clear. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West's argument that the purpose Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor" is either a valid argument or an invalid argument, but its validity or invalidity does not depend upon the fact that Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu was the person who put forth the argument into a public forum for our mutual due consideration and debate. Determining the validity of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalekatu West's argument, rather, requires making an extensive and detailed list of the points that are pro and the points that are con. You must consider both sides of the argument in weighing the quality of the claim, and then think "on the one hand x, but on the other hand y."

In addition to this argument, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West also deigned to make a suggestion that you yourself might consider trying to engage in the behavior known as "humor" some time. Of course, it goes without saying that in order to do such a thing you would also need to formulate a list of the arguments in favor and opposed to engaging in such a behavior. Now, let's be clear once again. The suggestion advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West could be either a good suggestion or a bad suggestion, but the quality of the suggestion doesn't depend upon whether it was made by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jaleketu West, or alternatively by Donald Trump or Barack Obama (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, are Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered Users). Whoever made the suggestion, it is either a good one or a bad one on its own actual merits, wouldn't you say?

I hope that this post has been edifying and makes it easier to understand how to proceed in analyzing arguments on an online bulletin board such as the Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Congressional Elections sub-forum.

[Antonio the Sixth]

^lmao

[Doimper]

^lmao

[politicallefty]

Relatedly, just before the election in 2004, Kos said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How did that turn out?

Republicans win. Coburn 52.77% - Carson 41.24%

Yeah, "one hell of a candidate" Brad Carson. He was probably running a "stellar campaign" like Beto O'Rourke.

Real close, an 11.5 point race. A literal coin flip leaning Dem.

To be fair, virtually no one expected GWB to have the Senate coattails he did in 2004. Democrats were basically wiped out in the strong Bush states. Even Republicans that year thought the best they could do was 54 seats. As I'm sure you're aware, they ended up getting to 55. Democrats did think they could win the Senate if things went right. In the last few days, the undecideds went Republican and Bush won reelection and got a +4 net gain in the Senate.

But let's be fair here, Oklahoma 2004 is not Texas 2018. GWB was winning Oklahoma 66-34, while the Senate race was 53-41. And also what you failed to mention was that what was basically the Green Party candidate pulled almost 6%. Hillary held Trump to single-digits in Texas, a far more manageable number (even considering how heavily OK could split tickets back then). It's still probably a Lean R race, but make no mistake that Ted Cruz is in very serious trouble. The trajectory this election for Texas Republicans is not good.

[Use Your Illusion]

Jalaketu West has said a number of objectionable things to me previously. At any rate, this thread should not be derailed any further then it already has been.

Whether or not Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West has said objectionable things to you previously is irrelevant to the intellectual argument advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West. That argument was namely that the purpose Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor." Now, let's be clear. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West's argument that the purpose Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor" is either a valid argument or an invalid argument, but its validity or invalidity does not depend upon the fact that Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu was the person who put forth the argument into a public forum for our mutual due consideration and debate. Determining the validity of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalekatu West's argument, rather, requires making an extensive and detailed list of the points that are pro and the points that are con. You must consider both sides of the argument in weighing the quality of the claim, and then think "on the one hand x, but on the other hand y."

In addition to this argument, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West also deigned to make a suggestion that you yourself might consider trying to engage in the behavior known as "humor" some time. Of course, it goes without saying that in order to do such a thing you would also need to formulate a list of the arguments in favor and opposed to engaging in such a behavior. Now, let's be clear once again. The suggestion advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West could be either a good suggestion or a bad suggestion, but the quality of the suggestion doesn't depend upon whether it was made by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jaleketu West, or alternatively by Donald Trump or Barack Obama (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, are Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered Users). Whoever made the suggestion, it is either a good one or a bad one on its own actual merits, wouldn't you say?

I hope that this post has been edifying and makes it easier to understand how to proceed in analyzing arguments on an online bulletin board such as the Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Congressional Elections sub-forum.

I struggled with this like a school aged child learning to read. Roaring LOLZ and cheezburgers to you. We need to frame this quote for all posterity

[KingSweden]

Jalaketu West has said a number of objectionable things to me previously. At any rate, this thread should not be derailed any further then it already has been.

Whether or not Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West has said objectionable things to you previously is irrelevant to the intellectual argument advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West. That argument was namely that the purpose Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor." Now, let's be clear. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West's argument that the purpose Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism was trying to achieve with Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Doctor Imperialism's post was to achieve the behavior known as "humor" is either a valid argument or an invalid argument, but its validity or invalidity does not depend upon the fact that Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu was the person who put forth the argument into a public forum for our mutual due consideration and debate. Determining the validity of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalekatu West's argument, rather, requires making an extensive and detailed list of the points that are pro and the points that are con. You must consider both sides of the argument in weighing the quality of the claim, and then think "on the one hand x, but on the other hand y."

In addition to this argument, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West also deigned to make a suggestion that you yourself might consider trying to engage in the behavior known as "humor" some time. Of course, it goes without saying that in order to do such a thing you would also need to formulate a list of the arguments in favor and opposed to engaging in such a behavior. Now, let's be clear once again. The suggestion advanced by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jalaketu West could be either a good suggestion or a bad suggestion, but the quality of the suggestion doesn't depend upon whether it was made by Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered User Jaleketu West, or alternatively by Donald Trump or Barack Obama (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, are Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Registered Users). Whoever made the suggestion, it is either a good one or a bad one on its own actual merits, wouldn't you say?

I hope that this post has been edifying and makes it easier to understand how to proceed in analyzing arguments on an online bulletin board such as the Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum Congressional Elections sub-forum.

This post literally made me physically squirm. Well done, good sir

[junior chįmp]

Top Trump Adviser Says Ted Cruz Could Lose Texas Senate Race

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Top Trump Adviser Says Ted Cruz Could Lose Texas Senate Race

[Bidenworth2020]

Top Trump Adviser Says Ted Cruz Could Lose Texas Senate Race

who is this?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Top Trump Adviser Says Ted Cruz Could Lose Texas Senate Race

who is this?

Captain Obvious (from a TV ad campaign).

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Top Trump Adviser Says Ted Cruz Could Lose Texas Senate Race

Cut to prevent excessive longness

who is this?

Captain Obvious of Hotels.com

[KingSweden]

Top Trump Adviser Says Ted Cruz Could Lose Texas Senate Race

When I clicked on the link I did not expect Mulvaney to be making the prediction

[junior chįmp]

Lying Ted meltdown continues

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesoliphant/status/1038549935489253377

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Lying Ted meltdown continues

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesoliphant/status/1038549935489253377

Gee! I wonder why nobody likes him.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Lying Ted meltdown continues

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesoliphant/status/1038549935489253377

I just can't with him anymore, terrible man!

[Indy Texas]

Lying Ted meltdown continues

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesoliphant/status/1038549935489253377

This sounds like something a middle aged white guy would be saying in like 1965.

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

I'm still a Texas skeptic, but I'm wondering what a potential win for O'Rourke would look like. Fortunately, he doesn't need a majority to win. Merely a plurality. My best guess would be something like this:
-60% in Harris County
-66% in Dallas County
-55% in Fort Bend
-plurality wins in Tarrant County and Williamson County
-75% in El Paso
-45% in Collin County
-45% in Denton County
-high mid-single digit wins in Hays, Jefferson, and Nueces County
-30% in Montgomery County (maybe too ambitious?)
-70% in Travis County
-60% in Bexar County
-shave about 5-10% off the Trump-Clinton margins in rural Texas.

That would point to about a 1-2% O'Rourke win

I think you may be overestimating the rural/small town vote he can plausibly get and underestimating what he needs in the urban/suburban counties.

In the rural areas, I would be (pleasantly) surprised if he can do any more than get back to Obama 2012 (particularly given that it is a midterm where non-white turnout is traditionally lower, and most of the votes Obama/Hillary would have gotten in rural areas are from non-whites). Even just getting back to Obama 2012 wouldn't be bad.

For example in Williamson County, although Clinton only got 41%, Trump only got 51%. A decent number of those 3rd party votes would not have gone 3rd party if they thought that TX's electoral votes would be competitive, and the rest of those voters are, I would think, much more winnable in a competitive Senate race than most rural Trump voters. Beto gets close to a plurality win just by winning over the 3rd party voters, so I think that he would want to do better than just a plurality win.