-
Posts
13681 -
Joined
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Huckleberry
-
-
Hmm. Still playing with numbers and I noticed something. Conventional wisdom, at least nationally speaking, is that the GOP does better in Presidential election years. However, in Texas that isn't necessarily true. The Democrats had Presidential dips only in 2004 (GWB reelection) and 2008 (Obama versus McCain). Generally speaking, though, Democrats actually do better in those elections than in midterms in Texas.
Anyway, still just sharing data and this one actually went counter to my instincts so thought I'd post it.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
I have very different political views than bad_teammate. We both happen to agree Trump is terrible. That may be the extent of our agreement. The problem is that certain people view anyone who disagrees with Trump as a "liberal."
List of people who all have expressed the same political views and therefore must all be liberals:
Joe Biden
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
Hillary Clinton
Ted Cruz
Jeff Flake
John Kasich
John McCain
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Bernie Sanders
Ben Sasse
Elizabeth WarrenALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME POLITICAL VIEWS!!!*
* - That Donald Trump is a jackass
-
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Let’s not rush to judgement on Jeff Flake.
Okay, now that's funny. At least you have some self-awareness.
-
2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:
Go fuck yourself
They never learn, don't bother.
-
So Sinema is hoping for a 2,800 or so vote boost from there.
-
7 minutes ago, immortal13 said:
You're naive as hell to think people don't make up shit like this to post on message boards. I was just asking for a little proof, which of course, I did not get.
6 minutes ago, immortal13 said:You sound really tough
2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:Looks pretty chunky. Nttawwt
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
3% is too high. It's closer to 2% (but see my numbers below...maybe I'm wrong). Here's the way I looked at the current spread:
When the GOP runs a strong candidate, and the Dems run a shitty one, the spread is around 12% (see Abbott v. Valdez).
When the GOP runs a shitty/unlikable candidate, and the Dems run a good one (or even a "good enough" one), the spread is around 3% to 4% (See Cruz (2.8%), Patrick (4.1%), Paxton (3.2%)).
When it's a generic GOP candidate vs. a generic Dem candidate (the example I use is Supreme Court races, because nobody knows ANYTHING about those folks other than the letter next to their name), its 6% to 7%. SO, in a high-turnout election, the current generic R to D gap in Texas is around 7%. Last election, the gap in SCOTX races was 13% to 16% (wow, that surprises me - and WOW, it was even bigger in 2014 -- the gap was 21%-24% for R v. D SCOTX seats). The presidential gap -- with two loathsome candidates, was 9% in favor of the R.
So, has Texas gone from "generic" +9 down to +7 (if we compare the top-ballot races)? Or has it gone from generic +13-16% down to +7%? Is the movement 2% between cycles? Or is it higher? Shit, this is interesting.
GOP does better in Presidential years. I see a genuine chance for Democrats to catch up in the 2022 midterms but fall behind in 2024. In reality off the top of my head I'd say it's a possibility the state is GOP in 2020, straight purple in 2022, GOP in 2024, straight purple for all elections after that.
-
1
-
-
State House went from 95/55 to 83/67.
Additionally, there are 6 Republicans who won by less than 3 percent versus 2 Democrats who did so. The 2 Democrats who did so flipped previously Republican seats, of course.
I'm just glad we're heading into an era where both sides have a reason to put up good candidates. Fuck having worthless candidates like Valdez, Paxton, Patrick, etc.
-
Well that and the part where millions of voters are dumb enough to think "but he would never do it again."
-
17 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:
I’ve yet to see you call a male poster fat or ugly. I’ve yet to see you call a male fan of another school weird for posting here.
To be fair, he calls his brother Fat Bastard.
-
Regarding 2020 and the midwest votes, I think it's basically a certainty that the tariffs are pulled back in the summer of 2020 and victory is declared in the trade war with China.
The victory part will be 100% bullshit, of course, but that's the obvious political play.
-
Looked up some stuff just to see the variation. Keep in mind that there were uncontested races in places, the more local the race type the more uncontested races of course. I got data from here.
Total votes per party in Texas U.S. Senate election:
Republican - 4,241,098 (50.9%)
Democrat - 4,019,058 (48.3%)
Others - 65,178 (0.8%)Total votes per party in Texas U.S. House elections:
Republican - 4,117,820 (50.5%)
Democrat - 3,828,052 (46.9%)
Others - 213,973 (2.6%)Total votes per party in Texas State House elections:
Republican - 4,043,115 (52.5%)
Democrat - 3,585,231 (46.5%)
Others - 76,664 (1.0%)-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, AtticusFinch said:
Because I dont give a shit about the election and I'm not reading about it. I've been down this road. Just because a lawsuit is filed, doesnt make it legitimate. Its tiring and full of exaggerations and misinformation. I'll read about it when the facts are sorted. I have other priorities.
So to sum up:
You intentionally avoid reading the news or in any way attempting to obtain information, then use the fact you haven't seen any information to argue that the information must not exist but you'll be willing to admit you're wrong when you see the information that you refuse to pursue.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
-
6
-
-
Fake laws
-
-
23 minutes ago, retread said:
*& me
(actually would prefer "me & @MajorCBS")
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, AtticusFinch said:
I find this claim on its face bs if there is other corroborating information on the form. I'm happy to be wrong and condemn the act if true but a lot of these claims are made for political purposes. I've worked for a city. BS claims are made for political purposes all the time. More often than not, they are not legitimate.
I wonder how you missed all the stories, court rulings, and other evidence that exactly this is happening. A true mystery.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, TexasEd said:
It's called marginal cost
You seem like you'll like this post:
-
Yes, someone like Cornyn only gets defeated if the electorate is massively tilted the other direction. A good analogy for what it would take to beat him is looking at Ed Emmett in Harris County. Emmett lost by 1% because Harris County was about D+11% overall in the election.
-
538 forecast the day before the election was an average expected value of D+36 in the House and R+2 in the Senate. Right now the updated numbers are D+37 and R+2.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lobo said:
I would certainly much prefer Robert O'Rourke over Donald J. Trump for President. But I think about Noriega back in 2008.
Spends 4.0mm to get 3.4mm votes. About $1.20/vote. With very little fanfare, though admittedly he rides the fervor of Obama.
Robert O'Rourke spends 70.0mm to get just over 4.0mm votes. About $17.50/vote with a massive national focus on him with regard to traditional media and social media.
All that extra money for a mid-term race and he falls behind a shitty Ted Cruz. Barely covers more ground, in a state that's only gotten more purple since Noriega.
Think about what Noriega did in a very "red state" period for Texas and how Beto only marginally improved upon with a magnitude more of resources. It's odd to me.
I don't know another O'Rourke campaign could even dent Trump's machine. I'm starting to think Bloomberg all the way.
That analysis is lacking, though, because it does not apply the concept of marginal wins (marginal votes in our case). There is a floor to the vote for any candidate in an election. Perhaps the trickiest part of the analysis is identifying that floor, of course, but then we can look at the cost per marginal win while keeping in mind that each marginal win/vote is more expensive than the last. Warning: spoilered data nerd longcat ahead.
tl;dr O'Rourke cost of marginal vote was $108.42, Noriega cost of marginal vote was $82.29 and after considering the analysis assumptions and the increasing cost of each marginal vote this is a negligible difference
An initial estimate for vote floor for any candidate would be the straight ticket votes for their party in the election. There are a couple of problems with trying to use that in our case. The first is that I don't have those statewide numbers for either race, the second is that it fails to take into account the GOTV successes or failures of the specific candidate. The former issue is one that we can't work around while the second issue rears its ugly head even in our workaround.
The workaround is to use the lowest vote total for a member of the candidate's party in a similar scope race (meaning statewide versus statewide) in that election. In 2008 the lowest vote total that a Democrat received in a Texas statewide race was 3,340,754 (JR Molina, Supreme Court Place 4). In 2018 the equivalent number was 3,524,025 (Lupe Valdez, Governor). So in this initial and rudimentary analysis, O'Rourke received 494,814 marginal votes compared to Noriega's 48,611 in 2008.
But what about the GOTV value of expenditures? Obviously they exist or campaigns wouldn't consistently spend them in that manner. Accounting for that is especially important when looking at high profile top of the ballot races because these are the ones where the efforts can drag along lower profile races. This means that in our case O'Rourke is negatively affected in our initial analysis by the fact that his expenditures and efforts actually increased the floor that we are comparing him to. Conversely, Noriega received an assist that likely wasn't his doing because Obama actually dragged Noriega's personal floor higher. This second impact is admittedly much smaller, of course, because Obama likewise increased the overall floor that Molina is being compared to in 2008 so we will not ding him for that. With this assumption openly declared, that O'Rourke was the key GOTV achiever in 2018 and Noriega was not but rather Obama was in 2008, let's analyze how much GOTV credit O'Rourke should receive.
My first quick and dirty effort to weed out this credit will be to look for a similar state to Texas in a similar election historically. For the election, we are looking for a midterm election with complete Republican control of Washington. Because we are comparing Texas to this other state, the fact that 2018 saw a huge national turnout surge is a controlled variable that affects both increases. Another variable will be the population change between elections and we will control for that with a simple multiplication step. The year we will compare to is 2006. I selected two "similar" states in Florida and Arizona. Obviously Texas is a fairly unique creature, and in fact at first I decided to simply use national numbers after not identifying similar enough states but those results didn't work because the increased turnout in 2018 might be concentrated instead of evenly distributed as well as the fact that reliable overall national numbers are not yet available. I also used House elections instead of Senate elections due to a more distributed look at the state instead of specific candidates In 2006 there were 627,259 Democratic votes in House elections in Arizona and 1,559,968 such votes in Florida. In 2018 there have been 1,149,620 and 3,086,391 respectively (note that I am using projected final numbers based on current vote ratios for Arizona which has not yet reported final numbers). That represents an average voter turnout increase of 90.6% across the two states. However, if we account for population increases in the two states (which we will also do for Texas), then the average increase expected with zero population change would be 61.9%.
The population increase in Texas between 2006 and 2018 was 22.9%. That means that we should expect a Democrat increase of 99.0% in Texas between 2006 in order to meet the average across Arizona and Florida. The 2006 floor for Democrats was 1,310,337 (Chris Bell, Governor), however we have to throw that out because of the unique race for Governor that year. Next up is Radnofsky's total of 1,555,202. That means the expected floor for 2018 should be 3,095,325 if Texas Democrat increase between 2006 and 2018 matched Arizona and Florida. The actual number from above was 3,340,754. So the initial GOTV credit for O'Rourke would be 245,429, but we are not done with that number yet.
In 2006 the average spread between Republicans and Democrats in statewide races (pulling out the gubernatorial race because of the previously referenced effect of Friedman, Strayhorn, etc.) was 16.7%. We're going to use this comparison to attempt to account for the changes in Texas demographics and voting tendencies based on factors outside the candidate's influence. In 2016 that figure was 14.1%. Apply another slight change based on that simple trendline and we arrive at an expected difference of 13.6% for this year. In order to be conservative in our analysis let's theorize that the 3.1% change is all in gained Democrat voters. Therefore we adjust our expected floor from 3,095,325 to 3,189,934 which drops our O'Rourke GOTV credit to 150,220 votes. If I were to actually do a full analysis I would also note that Cruz isn't popular, relatively speaking, for a Texas GOP incumbent but I've already spent too much time on this to add that factor. Besides, a lot of that is taken into account by using the 2016 election, and anti-Trump sentiment, in previous comparative steps. Additionally this entire step is double counting changes in the electorate since we're already comparing to Florida and Arizona, so we are once again minimizing the effect of O'Rourke's campaign here to arrive at a conservative result.
Adding the GOTV credit to the base marginal vote number gives us a total of 645,634 marginal votes "purchased" by O'Rourke's campaign. That gives us final figures of $108.42 in cost per marginal vote for O'Rourke and $82.29 for Noriega. There are two things to keep in mind when looking at this result. The first is that, as mentioned above, we were extremely careful at each step to minimize our calculated O'Rourke effects and even double counted electorate changes against him. The other and perhaps more important factor is the fact that each marginal vote is more expensive than the previous. Essentially, the first voter's mind you change or convince to vote instead of sitting out the election is the easiest. Each additional marginal voter becomes harder and harder to convince. The last marginal vote that Noriega purchased was #48,611 while O'Rourke purchased an additional 597,023 marginal voters, each of which was more expensive than the most expensive Noriega marginal vote. With these two factors in mind, the difference between the two values is negligible and there is nothing to suggest that the O'Rourke campaign was less effective at utilizing their funds than Noriega's.
-
1
-
-
https://harrisvotes.org/ElectionResults/ElectionDay?lang=en-US
Click on the house icon for any race.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:
You should move.
1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:You live in Cypress I assume. You should move
You're both correct. But I can't, sometimes life sucks for a while.
Just now, JustBecause said:Okay. What’s your point? The approximately 10% difference between the voting amounts?
My point is posting data. That's what this thread is about, if you're looking for mindless shitposting head to a different thread, there are several to choose from.
-
Not actually that important, but looked up my precinct (NW Houston suburbs)
2016:
Trump 73.7%, Clinton 25.0%, Johnson 0.9%, Stein 0.4%
2018:
Cruz 63.9%, O'Rourke 35.3%, Dikeman 0.8%
Cruz vs Beto
in Cloak Room
Posted