Texas State Senate special election

[imported_tajmahal]

Scared, huh? Beto has it all- message, energy, momentum & a very appealing sincerity. OTOH, Cruz has the most punchable face in Texas & seems to be sweating profusely. In his place, I would be, too.

Not scared at all, it will be Cruz by about 10 points is my bet. Higher if the Democrats keeps threatening Texan Senators and their wives.

 

[zinfamous]

Me too, but they're not Texans or his constituents. If you think this news will help Francis O'Rourke in Texas, you'd be wrong.

Really? Everyone that has ever worked with Raphael the Canadian or shared any enclosed space with him for the better part of 5 minutes absolutely hates the guy. He is pretty much the walking, permanent representation of the Uncanny Valley. Just creeps all metabolising humans the fuck out.

Weird that this isn't as obvious to you as it is to the rest of the human species.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Really? Everyone that has ever worked with Raphael the Canadian or shared any enclosed space with him for the better part of 5 minutes absolutely hates the guy. He is pretty much the walking, permanent representation of the Uncanny Valley. Just creeps all metabolising humans the fuck out.

Weird that this isn't as obvious to you as it is to the rest of the human species.

He's the elected Senator of Texas and came the closest to beating out Trump for the Presidential nomination. My bet is that you're speaking for the progressive socialists of Berkeley.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Didn't see this posted. Does this mean anything in regards to the upcoming blue wave, or is this an outlier?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...e-in-district-held-by-democrats-for-139-years

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/20...-seven-generations-flips-underdog-republican/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-wins-texas-district-held-034945513.html

 

[thilanliyan]

I don't think the blue wave is an inevitability. It will not be easy for Democrats.

 

[thilanliyan]

I don't think the blue wave is an inevitability. It will not be easy for Democrats.

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't see this posted. Does this mean anything in regards to the upcoming blue wave, or is this an outlier?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...e-in-district-held-by-democrats-for-139-years

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/20...-seven-generations-flips-underdog-republican/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-wins-texas-district-held-034945513.html

The previous incumbent was convicted of eleven felonies. I'll let you decide how much it means for the average race.

 

[Commodus]

It's a Texas district. I wouldn't exactly put much stock in that as sign of broader Trump support. The greater concern is in more contentious parts of the US.

Also, do you actually visit news sites that aren't hyper-conservative, or do you break out in hives if you're exposed to outlets that aren't Republican spin machines?

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's a Texas district. I wouldn't exactly put much stock in that as sign of broader Trump support. The greater concern is in more contentious parts of the US.

Also, do you actually visit news sites that aren't hyper-conservative, or do you break out in hives if you're exposed to outlets that aren't Republican spin machines?

139 years of blue and you wouldn't put much stock into that as a sign of broader Trump support? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I watch John Oliver pretty regularly. I used to also watch Bill Maher frequently until he wished for the economy to crash so Trump wouldn't look as fantastic as he does today. Once he started putting agenda before America I had to give him a break.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The previous incumbent was convicted of eleven felonies. I'll let you decide how much it means for the average race.

Seven generations were blue, they couldn't find an appealing Democrat to run in such a district? I admit that the previous incumbent's crimes can weigh into things, but this was a blue stronghold and they couldn't hold on. I think it has something to do with the Trump effect. I guess we'll see in a little more than a month.

 

[fskimospy]

139 years of blue and you wouldn't put much stock into that as a sign of broader Trump support? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I watch John Oliver pretty regularly. I used to also watch Bill Maher frequently until he wished for the economy to crash so Trump wouldn't look as fantastic as he does today. Once he started putting agenda before America I had to give him a break.

You're cherry picking results in order to make yourself feel better. If you were attempting to create a predictive model as to what will happen in November this event would get very little weight.

If you actually care what results mean for November just go over to 538. It may distress you by taking you out of your bubble but you'll get credible, objective analysis. Right now, despite the huge obstacles presented by gerrymandering and geographic concentration they give the democrats about a 75% chance of taking the House. And to be clear, any circumstances where the Democrats take either house of Congress should be considered a huge blue wave. For example, the huge 'red wave' in 2010 was about a 7 point victory for the GOP.

 

[fskimospy]

Seven generations were blue, they couldn't find an appealing Democrat to run in such a district? I admit that the previous incumbent's crimes can weigh into things, but this was a blue stronghold and they couldn't hold on. I think it has something to do with the Trump effect. I guess we'll see in a little more than a month.

If you believe seats flipping in special elections is a sign of the Trump effect, that effect is extremely, extremely bad for the GOP as far more seats have flipped from red to blue than the other way around. By your own logic Trump is an anchor that's drowning the GOP. (let me guess though, the other special elections don't count because reasons)

Honestly, this logic is probably accurate as Trump is quite unpopular. If you went on economic fundamentals alone he should be quite popular but his conduct has been so reprehensible that he's torpedoing his own party's chances.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you believe seats flipping in special elections is a sign of the Trump effect, that effect is extremely, extremely bad for the GOP as far more seats have flipped from red to blue than the other way around. By your own logic Trump is an anchor that's drowning the GOP. (let me guess though, the other special elections don't count because reasons)

Honestly, this logic is probably accurate as Trump is quite unpopular. If you went on economic fundamentals alone he should be quite popular but his conduct has been so reprehensible that he's torpedoing his own party's chances.

75% chance of a blue wave. Got it. 🙂

 

[fskimospy]

75% chance of a blue wave. Got it. 🙂

Well it's probably going to be a blue wave regardless, the only question is if it can overcome institutional obstacles that work to ensure that Democrats don't get a majority in the House even if they get far more votes. It seems to be a near certainty that Democrats will win by a margin at least close to the 2010 'red wave', the only difference is that a +7 result for Republicans gives them a 50+ seat majority and a +7 result for Democrats gives them potentially a minority still.

It's what conservatives have tried to do for years now to insulate themselves from the will of the voters.

 

[Commodus]

139 years of blue and you wouldn't put much stock into that as a sign of broader Trump support? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I watch John Oliver pretty regularly. I used to also watch Bill Maher frequently until he wished for the economy to crash so Trump wouldn't look as fantastic as he does today. Once he started putting agenda before America I had to give him a break.

It's a Texas district, and as was pointed out earlier, the incumbent was convicted of 11 felonies. The Democrat taking the incumbent's place would need Obama-level (or at least Beto-level) charisma and skill to keep that district blue.

John Oliver and Bill Maher aren't news. I repeat: John Oliver and Bill Maher aren't news. They may base their commentary and comedy on facts (unlike Hannity et. al. at Fox), but it's just that -- commentary and comedy. Try watching NBC, CBS and similar outlets... you'd be surprised at the sheer amount of information Fox News is hiding from you. It's actually not surprising that you'd confuse Oliver and Maher for news, since Fox has groomed you to think that opinion pieces count as reporting.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well it's probably going to be a blue wave regardless, the only question is if it can overcome institutional obstacles that work to ensure that Democrats don't get a majority in the House even if they get far more votes. It seems to be a near certainty that Democrats will win by a margin at least close to the 2010 'red wave', the only difference is that a +7 result for Republicans gives them a 50+ seat majority and a +7 result for Democrats gives them potentially a minority still.

It's what conservatives have tried to do for years now to insulate themselves from the will of the voters.

Pretty ironic considering the Republicans begrudgingly listened to their voting base and chose Trump as their candidate while the Democrats ignored their base and stacked the cards against Bernie as his popularity grew so the puppet they wanted could be put in office... but then the voters spoke again and democracy threw a monkey wrench into the works for the Democrats.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's a Texas district, and as was pointed out earlier, the incumbent was convicted of 11 felonies. The Democrat taking the incumbent's place would need Obama-level (or at least Beto-level) charisma and skill to keep that district blue.

John Oliver and Bill Maher aren't news. I repeat: John Oliver and Bill Maher aren't news. They may base their commentary and comedy on facts (unlike Hannity et. al. at Fox), but it's just that -- commentary and comedy. Try watching NBC, CBS and similar outlets... you'd be surprised at the sheer amount of information Fox News is hiding from you.

Yea, those guys never talk about current news and events. Really dude?

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty ironic considering the Republicans begrudgingly listened to their voting base and chose Trump as their candidate while the Democrats ignored their base and stacked the cards against Bernie as his popularity grew so the puppet they wanted could be put in office... but then the voters spoke again and democracy threw a monkey wrench into the works for the Democrats.

Clinton won the nomination by millions of votes and it wasn't even close.

Thanks for the good example of Democrats listening to the will of the voters and selecting the person the most Democrats wanted. The US would be better off if we switched to a system where the people the most voters want to have power do in fact have the power.

If the Democrats win by 6 or 7 points and yet don't take the House I'm really looking forward to the convoluted pretzel logic from Republicans about how the american people wanted the Republicans to stay in power.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Pretty ironic considering the Republicans begrudgingly listened to their voting base and chose Trump as their candidate while the Democrats ignored their base and stacked the cards against Bernie as his popularity grew so the puppet they wanted could be put in office... but then the voters spoke again and democracy threw a monkey wrench into the works for the Democrats.

Clinton beat Sanders by 12 points in the vote as well as wining nine more states in the vote. The largest state Sanders won was Michigan. I wish they would have nominated Sanders too but they picked the person more people and states voted for. I know I know, feelings don't care about facts right?

 

[Maxima1]

Clinton won the nomination by millions of votes and it wasn't even close.

Thanks for the good example of Democrats listening to the will of the voters and selecting the person the most Democrats wanted. The US would be better off if we switched to a system where the people the most voters want to have power do in fact have the power.

If the Democrats win by 6 or 7 points and yet don't take the House I'm really looking forward to the convoluted pretzel logic from Republicans about how the american people wanted the Republicans to stay in power.

Yes, the most Democrats in the Democratic primaries. In the general election, that's not necessarily the case. More voters could have wanted Bernie in the general.

 

[fskimospy]

Clinton beat Sanders by 12 points in the vote as well as wining nine more states in the vote. The largest state Sanders won was Michigan. I wish they would have nominated Sanders too but they picked the person more people and states voted for. I know I know, feelings don't care about facts right?

I imagine it's just a bad faith argument on the part of Republicans but some people seem to genuinely (and stupidly) believe that more of the Democratic base wanted Sanders than wanted Clinton. I suspect this is because the circle of people they talk to about this includes very few brown people.

 

[Maxima1]

Clinton beat Sanders by 12 points in the vote as well as wining nine more states in the vote. The largest state Sanders won was Michigan. I wish they would have nominated Sanders too but they picked the person more people and states voted for. I know I know, feelings don't care about facts right?

Support collapses obviously for the candidate that's on a losing trajectory, and Clinton started with many advantages that probably gave her more votes. So closer than you think.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I imagine it's just a bad faith argument on the part of Republicans but some people seem to genuinely (and stupidly) believe that more of the Democratic base wanted Sanders than wanted Clinton. I suspect this is because the circle of people they talk to about this includes very few brown people.

More likely because it's a talking point from all the right wing lunacy Clear Channel vomits out all over the country.

 

[Commodus]

Yea, those guys never talk about current news and events. Really dude?

They are not news programs. They certainly reference the news of the day, but they are ultimately opinion-based entertainment shows. They have important messages; they may shed light on subjects you previously weren't clear about; but you always have to remember that they don't represent the sum total of the news and are offering their own distinct take.

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised that you confuse opinion for news... Fox News spends all its time conditioning viewers to think that op-ed segments like Hannity's count as news. (For reference, I don't think Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow are news anchors, either.)

 

[fskimospy]

More likely because it's a talking point from all the right wing lunacy Clear Channel vomits out all over the country.

Certainly possible. You would think that people would catch on that Republican media always plays the game where they claim that the person who lost the Democratic nomination was the one the people actually wanted. They do it every time. (you can go back and see them yearning for the Great Satan Hillary when Obama won the nomination in 2008)