Jump to content

sushihorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    2944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by sushihorn

  1. 20 minutes ago, MidTexHorn said:

    I don't know a single liberal that likes Facebook. It is rapidly becoming the home of grandma, crazy Aunt Ethel and all of my old family friends who are busy outing themselves as Trumpkins and vaguely racist.

    I suppose it still serves a purpose from an advertising perspective that can't be totally ignored, but I think it's on a pretty steep downward spiral.

    It's the new AOL.

  2. 43 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    It's not bad though.  Beto is up here .19m.  But it is only 23% of registered voters.  Counting 23% of registered voters in the other counties, Cruz would be up .5m.   Net is 310,000 votes in favor of Cruz statewide if everything is the same as Trump/Hillary.  

     

    Assuming all of the other counties vote at their Trump/Hillary levels, it looks like Beto needs to win 60.2% of the votes in the above listed counties.  Right now NGE has him at 53.9%

    Sounds about right.  The top 15 counties gave Hillary a 500k margin in 2016.  She lost the rest of the state by 1.3 million.

  3. 57 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    The southern counties had low, low numbers for Sunday.  Cameron reporting in with only 400 votes yesterday.   Harris creeping closer up to the average after a strong weekend.

    FYI, assuming these counties voted Cruz/Beto in the exact percentages as Trump/Hillary, Beto is currently only up 1.31m to 1.12m.  That isn't enough to overcome the remaining heavily red smaller counties which went Trump/Hillary at ~68% / 27%.  Trump won those counties by ~1.3m.   I fully realized the turnout and voting percentages will not duplicate 2016.  This is for discussion only.

    If you look at the top 30 counties you'll see a lot of heavily white, non-metro counties with very low turnout on Sunday and probably for similar reasons.  Lubbock 0.70%, Randall (Amarillo) 0.82%, Brazos (Collie Station) 0.68%.

  4. 22 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

    But how does that account for ~ 20 pt drop in voter turnout?

    I half speculated that it had something to do w/ Texas' very quick transition from the Democratic party to Repulican party dominance.... but that can't explain it all, right

    Your arguement is that without a true organized Democratic party that there was not enough of a ground game to turnout voters in the late 90's? 
     

    I think that's a factor.  Competitive governor's race in 1994 and a blowout in 1998 (more than 2:1 GWB) saw the total number of votes cast fall by 15%. 

    But the bigger factor was the radical increase in voter registration.  33.5% increase in registered voters from 1994 to 1998.  The registered voter pool is the denominator on which turnout is calculated.  By expanding the pool so much, it was guaranteed to include a lot more people with a lower propensity to vote.  By 2002, the total votes cast in the governor's race was back above 1994 but the denominator was 50% bigger.  And I have no idea why voter registration went up so much during that period since Texas' population was expanding a little less than 2% annually.

  5. 1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

    I'd really like to see historical data on this. We are seeing up to 10% (Travis) being new voters with no history at all. If that was a typical trend, you'd expect our voter base to completely cycle every 10 years or so. There is no way that happens. 

    Travis Co is growing 3% annually.  It's addition more then turnover.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Is that really true? Because we know that 18-year-olds don't vote. And I certainly don't think newly minted ones make up 4% of the electorate. 

    That's fair.  They do turn out at a lower rate than older people.  Let's say half as likely.  That's still a significant chunk of the new voters.  Dallas Co grew 1.5% per year since 2010 and many counties grew faster than that.  Those 2 factors should be a large majority of the effect.

  7. 18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Yeah, the big counties were showing an average of 7 to 8% with no previous history. That exceeds population growth since 2016 for those counties by quite a bit. 

    Not sure how meaningful that is.  Even if the population were completely static and had 100% turnout every year, you'd still have 4% with no voting history every cycle from 2 years of people turning 18. 

  8. 5 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

    Do you guys think this huge spike in statewide turnout will bring any tangible benefits to the Dems?

    fletcher vs culberson = Harris county ?  Win?

    Allred vs sessions = Dallas county ?  Win?

    jones vs Hurd= Repubs are spending there again. Competitive now?

    getting even one seat in Texas would boost the Dems chances of taking the house by a bit.

    We are still well below the 2016 turnout levels.  Unless we get above that, I expect most of the above normal turnout to be people who voted in 2016 but who normally wouldn't vote in a mid-year election.

  9. 23 minutes ago, staboner said:

    i think we have something far worse - limited choice creating odd bedfellows and making for one (of our two parties in control) to take on the personality, needs and world view of radicals. they might not be legitimatized like in Germany, but they are acting and influencing our politics and culture.

    Germany would be better to have our system - it could crush their inbreds

    US would be better to have Germany's system - would could isolate our inbreds better and remove the indirect power they have now

    my two cents

    The US first past the post system forces anyone who wants to win to build broad coalitions.  Germany has proportional representation.  Any group that can get 5% of the vote can get seats in the Bundestag.  The extreme version of this is Israel where there isn't a 5% threshold.  Take a look at how much influence this gives small, sometimes extreme parties.  The middle is so divided that the loons have real influence and get to play kingmaker at times.

  10. 12 hours ago, bernorange said:

    How will AfD's success affect the way Germany/(the EU) deals with Italy?  

    It's going to get ugly when the debt crisis reemerges.  Under current conditions, another bailout would be politically costly and might make AfD the majority party in the East.  Really tough sell to bail out the PIIGS again when the eastern states remain so poor and behind the rest of Germany.

  11. 11 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

    Is Merkel going to have to form a coalition with AfD? That's what it feels like.

    She'll do whatever she has to in order to hold on to power.  She already has her Grand Coalition with the Social Democrats and it's killing both parties.  In the unlikely even that AfD can top 20% nationally I wouldn't bet against Merkel working with them.  Politicans' promises are worth their weight in gold.

  12. A little hyperbole is fine.  But how do you expect to win if you refuse to actually analyze the opponent and substitute a caricature instead?  That kind of talks turns out the base but the contempt drives White and male voters away.  Men are half the electorate and whites are over 70%.  Did anyone notice that 1 in 8 Black men voted for Trump in 2016?  Has anyone considered the possibility that Kanye might be part of something larger?

    Sun Tzu said "Know your enemy and yourself and in a hundred battles you need not fear the outcome."  Neither party seems to be doing a good job of analyzing the other or itself right now.

    • Like 4
  13. 17 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

    I think Nate’s overarching point was that polls already account for it and people use it to see what they want to see. Also I think he’s grouchy about laypeople using high turnouts to declare polls and models meaningless or flawed.

    The internals and crosstabs tell me that some polls are flawed.  And a lot of experts are insulted by the very idea of being questioned by laymen and just dismiss questions.  I feel very confident the data going into his models is flawed to a significant degree.  So the models could be perfect and the output off considerably.

  14. 5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    I just looked at the wicki for Alternative for Germany (Deutschland), so I know just the bare minimum. What makes you so sure there is nothing like them in the US? Honest question.

    The US has taken in nearly a million legal immigrants a year.  It's been doing so for decades with little controversy.  The fight in this country is over illegal immigration.  AfD opposes ALL immigration.  Germany is the financial hub of the EU.  Without German subsidies the Eurozone would have failed by 2012 and the EU would have collapsed in a way to make Brexit look like a pillow fight.  AfD opposes any repeat of supporting other EU members.

    AfD nearly crossed the 5% threshold for Bundestag representation in the year they were formed.  They became a major force when Merkel let in large numbers of Arab refugees. They are now a huge force in the East and have double digit support in the West.  In fact they are a threat to take control in half the states in the East, where they have 20%+ support.  The closest analogy I can find in recent US politics would be the Dixiecrats but with much more serious implications because of the economic and monetary ties of the EU and Eurozone.

    • Like 3
  15. 10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    I think we're in unknown territory with whether this is more like 2014 or 2016.  Obviously the numbers will be much higher than 2014 but it's not as high as 2016 either.  Still it's fun to look into the numbers. 

    I was listening to Nate Silver (538) talk about early voting and its affect on his election models.  He said that he gives them 0 weight when he aggregates polls.  He said the one difference that early voting makes is that if someone tells a pollster that they voted early for X, that person will be given more weight than just labeling them a "likely voter."  but overall he thinks early voting doesn't necessary demonstrate an advantage of one party over another.   He said that he would take bets if someone can take the early voting numbers and predict different results from his models.

     

    The EV turnout so far is 11% smaller than 2016 and more than 100% larger than 2014.  I can't think of any historical model to use for the composition of the electorate other than 2016.  Without an Obama at the top of the ticket, 2008 and 2012 models don't work.  Black and youth turnout reverted to historic norms when he wasn't on the ticket even while he was in office (2010 and 2014).  And they remained in the historic normal range in 2016 also.  It doesn't leave many models to choose from.

  16. ...just look at Germany.  The two parties that have dominated the country since WW2 got hammered in a regional election this weekend.

    https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/merkel-cdu-losses-hesse-election-germany-976187

    Merkel's CDU is still the largest party in Hesse at 27.4% but they lost almost 11 points of support.  That largely went to AfD and the Free Democrat (free market) party.  The Social Democrats also lost 11 points and are now under 20%, tied with the Greens who gained most of those votes. AfD is going to have 15% of the seats in the equivalent of the state legislature.

  17. Harris Co turnout is quite poor compared to the rest of the state.  Measure it straight up, relative to other large counties or relative to itself in 2016 and 2014.  The result is still the same.  On a straight cumulative turnout, Harris is worse than 26 of the other 29 top counties.  Only Bell (transient military), Cameron and Webb were worse. 

  18. 9 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

    I guess this Harris county news is a good thing since Houston is blue now?

    In isolation that might be true.  But other counties are doing much better. Of the top 15 counties, Harris has the 2nd worst performance relative to 2016 at 80.4% through Friday.  The mean is 89.0% and only Hidalgo at 77.4% is worse.  IOW, Harris county will have less impact on the vote this year than in 2016 unless current trends reverse sharply.

  19. 5 hours ago, Message Board User said:

     

    There is a large and increasing divergence between the actual early voting trends and polls being released late in this cycle.  I decided to check the crosstabs on a poll that looked off as a check on the stuff CBS put out today.  Their AZ poll is crap.  Their sample was 5% Black (queston 50).  1% of the registered voters in AZ are black.  Less egregious but with greater impact, the CBS sample is 19% Hispanic and 70% white.  RVs are 16% Hispanic, with a notable propensity for low turnout.  Whites are 76% of the RV with a high turnout propensity.  There's no way the results of the poll will be valid when the sample is so far off the demographics of RVs.

    But what's showing up at the polls is actually much worse than even RV demos would suggest.  Per D-affiliated TargetSmart current EVs are 82% White, 11.6% Hispanic and 0.5% Black.  EV turnout is 825k compared to 2.55 mil total who voted in 2016 and 1.43 mil in 2014.  Don't be surprised when the election results are wildly different from what these polls are telling you.

  20. 1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Friday's numbers have been released:

    BuTyDQW0_o.jpg

    One thing I find interesting but unsure of how to best demonstrate is  consistency over the days.  Some counties are underperforming overall but they're consistently hitting the same numbers whereas some counties started out great but appear to be losing steam.

    For example, Harris had their best day on Friday but basically they have the same number everyday.  Bexar is similar.  Whereas El Paso came out of the gate hot, but Friday was 34% less than Monday.   Some of the high turnout counties may get pulled back into the average by the end of early voting.

     

    I've been using % of 2016 comps on both a cumulative and one day basis.  That's where I saw the sharp drop in El Paso.  117% this year vs day 1 2016.  Then 91% day 2, 90%, 81% and 83% since.  Top 15 counties started out at 98% vs 2016 on day 1 and have gone 94%, 82%, 82%, 86% since.

×
×
  • Create New...