Seeing election yard signs in the neighborhood (Frisco, Howe: new home, buy)

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by biafra4life

I'm with EDS on this. I don't think Dems realize that Cruz was in a weakened state for this election. Despite all the outward cooing, he and Trump are not friends. And Cruz is heavily disliked by his own fellow party members. Many held their noses and voted for him. If there was anyone ripe for a take down, this was the guy and this was the time to do it. Beto had the money, he had the press, he had the Trump association angle to hit Cruz with, yet he still lost. I'm sorry but the Dems let a major opportunity slip. And that is reflected by the fact that the Republicans not only retained the Senate, but actually strengthened their numbers, so much for the blue wave.

The thing is this: I really hate Ted, he's very unlikable and an embarrassment to our state, but after I read Beto's platform, I decided he was too far left for me and held my nose and voted for Cruz. Had Beto been an actual moderate, I probably would have voted for him.

What I'm wondering though is this: had Beto run as a moderate, would he have gotten all the support and donations he got? The Democratic party seems to be shifting more to the left instead of the center nationally, would a moderate democrat gotten all the hype? I kind of doubt it. So in that case he would probably lose too, because he wouldn't fire up the far left base as much.

[RJ312]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

The thing is this: I really hate Ted, he's very unlikable and an embarrassment to our state, but after I read Beto's platform, I decided he was too far left for me and held my nose and voted for Cruz. Had Beto been an actual moderate, I probably would have voted for him.

What I'm wondering though is this: had Beto run as a moderate, would he have gotten all the support and donations he got? The Democratic party seems to be shifting more to the left instead of the center nationally, would a moderate democrat gotten all the hype? I kind of doubt it. So in that case he would probably lose too, because he wouldn't fire up the far left base as much.

No. Moderate does not work anymore. Both sides are moving further towards their individual sides. This is a time of great divisiveness.

[yjc281]

Originally Posted by serger

Interesting


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...exit-poll-says

The exit poll was conducted by the current standard bearer of fake news.
I would not trust this source even though I "could" potentially vote for either sides in the next election.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by jgn2013

I actually think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The Cruz/Beto race was probably the upper limit of what a Dem can do in a statewide race but the gubernatorial election is almost the opposite. I live in Dallas and never saw a single Lupe Valdez ad. Every single day for the last month or two, I saw AT LEAST 2 or 3 Greg Abbot campaign ads. He never even had to attack her in his ads because she had zero profile.

A "Beto-ish" candidate in the governor's race would probably cut that margin of victory in half. Looked at the demographics of voters on CNN. Whites and blacks vote in proportion to their state population but Latinos still seem to lag behind. The last grid I saw (might be different now) had Latinos representing about 25% of those that voted even though their statewide population is closer to 40%. Immigration status and the younger age of that population probably makes a difference but there's a lot of votes that no one has been able to pull out.

Looked over at the Georgia race for governor. It looks like in most parts of the country, including GA, education seems to be the primary difference among white voters. College educated whites (especially under age 50) voted for Abrams. In Texas, whites with college degrees still vote overwhelmingly GOP but with less propensity than non-college educated voters. Dems problem is that working-class white/rural voters in TX aren't really swing voters like they are in a lot of other states like West Virginia, Ohio etc. Here, a candidate can win 35 to 40% of the big cities and then run up 80/20 margins in the smallest 200 counties.

If it is somewhere in the middle it is still very skewed toward the governor's numbers. Each of us can think of several examples of someone conservative who just couldn't stomach Cruz and pulled the lever for Beto but probably voted straight ticket R the rest of the way. I can think of very few reasons for the opposite scenario, where a voter went all D but chose Abbot as Governor. Valdez votes almost certainly came from straight line D voters. And many of those were drawn to the race because of a charismatic guy like Beto with all of the Hollywood buzz about him. Without him, Valdez's numbers are not as close as they were.

My take of course....

[stan4]

Originally Posted by RJ312

No. Moderate does not work anymore. Both sides are moving further towards their individual sides. This is a time of great divisiveness.

Actually, nationwide, independents, moderates, and suburban women swung blue for this election cycle.

I did not like Beto's kooky radical views, but I also hate Ted Cruz (seems like a sociopath). I cannot begin to understand how anyone had an easy time choosing.

Feel like a lot of people picked Beto just not to vote for Cruz.

I dunno.

Republicans have got to clean up their massive image and bible-thumping problem or more and more people are going to go left with their votes. Upsetting.

[RJ312]

Originally Posted by stan4

Actually, nationwide, independents, moderates, and suburban women swung blue for this election cycle.

I did not like Beto's kooky radical views, but I also hate Ted Cruz (seems like a sociopath). I cannot begin to understand how anyone had an easy time choosing.

Feel like a lot of people picked Beto just not to vote for Cruz.

I dunno.

Republicans have got to clean up their massive image and bible-thumping problem or more and more people are going to go left with their votes. Upsetting.

The ultra liberal Washington Post published a piece about how the 2018 midterm was a disappointment for Democrats. They got a majority in the House of Representatives, but they didn't get a significant majority. It was not a Blue Wave. The Republicans make bigger gains in midterms such as 1994, 2010, and 2014 when a president from the Democratic Party party was in office. The Republicans will end up gaining in the Senate. With the Democratic Party having a small majority in the House, and the Republicans having a small majority in the Senate, I don't see much actually getting done during the next 2 years. The article takes a favorable view towards the Republican Party in general.

Locally, the Republican Party should be massively disappointed. Losing House District 32 is a travesty. The Park Cities and Preston Hollow are now represented by a radically liberal socialist. The richest areas of Dallas County are now represented by someone who dislikes the wealthy and favors income re-distribution.

District 32 has a demographics and perception problem for Republicans, and it's going to be difficult for them to reclaim that district as it is currently drawn. I have a feeling that the district as currently drawn, will cease to exist after the 2020 Census. District 32 has the aforementioned wealthy area, but some middle tier neighborhoods in Dallas north of 635 and some dumpy areas in Richardson and Garland. Garland has been in decline since the 1980s and Richardson is experiencing some decline. Maybe this cycle there was less apathy in the dumpier areas. Republicans have not had a convincing message for lower socioeconomic classes, when in fact they should. What have the Democrats done for the impoverished, other than make them dependent upon government handouts? The Republicans could actually message on the idea that they have a plan to take people from lower classes out of poverty. It's hard to compete with free handouts though.

Messaging more on free market economics than social/religious issues is a good idea.

Suburban women are really important for both political parties. Suburban women are more likely to be married, and married women are more likely to vote for candidates with conservative ideologies. Research has shown that single women under 60-65 or so (before widowhood) are much more liberal than married women. Marriage has typically changed women's political ideologies, because there is a segment of women who do not want to see their husbands overtaxed by big government and keep the money in the household, and women with sons often have concerns about their sons' abilities to succeed in a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile towards men. I have a hypothesis that suburban women that vote for candidates with liberal ideologies either are divorcees or are married to weaker men. These men are likely to be weaker in physical fitness and have less traditionally masculine psychological and philosophical perspectives.

[Sunbather]

Originally Posted by RJ312

I have a hypothesis that suburban women that vote for candidates with liberal ideologies either are divorcees or are married to weaker men. These men are likely to be weaker in physical fitness and have less traditionally masculine psychological and philosophical perspectives.

Statements like this make me roll my eyes.

Do men who tend to more more left of center tend to be less 'traditionally masculine' in psychological and philosophical perspectives? Probably, I could buy that. Traditional masculinity has a lot of negatives that come with it in the modern world.

But transitioning that to say that this equates to a weaker man in general (however you're defining that)? And that it can also be attributed to being physically weaker? That's a huge stretch and honestly kind of laughable. And beyond that, who cares? Is there an issue with a man voting who doesn't work out all the time? Is peak fitness valuable in the political arena? It's just a pointless hypothesis that seems a thinly veiled attempt to shame men who don't fit into a 'traditionally masculine' mold.

[MovingtoDFW]

Originally Posted by RJ312

I have a hypothesis that suburban women that vote for candidates with liberal ideologies either are divorcees or are married to weaker men. These men are likely to be weaker in physical fitness and have less traditionally masculine psychological and philosophical perspectives.

Not sure if this is true. Traditionally masculine men will split between conservative and liberal based on higher education levels IMHO (like almost every other demographic).

[Ablebodied]

What have the Democrats done for the impoverished, other than make them dependent upon government handouts?

1. enact and protect pre-existing conditions while republicans try to take it away
2. protect social security which workers paid into and is not a social program but which McConnell said was on republican's radar to dismantle.
3. Medicaid expansion, but Texas republicans said sick Texans can go to the emergency room, leaving millions on the table rather than take care of its poor.
4. Welcome all poor people to work for them and with them instead of filing lawsuits to not have to make them cakes
5. Under Democratic presidents, the incomes of black families grew by an average of $895 a year, but only by $142 a year under Republicans.
Across 26 years of Democratic leadership, unemployment among blacks declined by 7.9%; under 28 years of Republican presidencies, the rate
increased by a net of 13.7%.
6. The data analyzed show the poor fare better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones.
But most poor people know this and that is why they vote democratic, though republicans think they like the color blue so much they ignore their
growling stomachs and simply vote for the color. No, they like eating and for their families to survive. The only poor that don't vote democratic are
poor red state and mainly poor white republicans that continue to want to believe the party cares more about them. The result, a white county in Kentucky is the welfare capital of the country.

[Sunbather]

Originally Posted by MovingtoDFW

Not sure if this is true. Traditionally masculine men will split between conservative and liberal based on higher education levels IMHO (like almost every other demographic).

pretty much exactly. Education, upbringing, life experiences are going to be much better indicators and higher influences on the way people think and vote.