Seeing election yard signs in the neighborhood (Abbott, Hays: transplants, tax return)

[jiping]

Originally Posted by Katana49

I'm not talking about Beto or Cruz, I said the GOP and Dems. The GOP spent a ton more across TX than Democrats did. Read to the end.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/10/polit...ate/index.html

Take a look at this map as well, showing how much the GOP raised across TX. You can zoom in and see different zip codes, but 75024 for example, was one of the biggest for the GOP. For barely eking out a win vs Beto, Cruz was a pretty bad investment.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/polit...sis/index.html

If money -- and, per above, we are likely talking about spending north of $10 million -- has to be diverted to save Cruz, it means that same money has to be diverted from pickup opportunities. And that means the chances of Republicans capitalizing on those pickup opportunities shrinks -- perhaps marginally, perhaps in a more major way.
Cruz's inability to put O'Rourke away matters then not just in Texas but in West Virginia, Missouri and Indiana too.

The CNN report you quoted proves my point that "nationwide Beto is taking too much oxygen".
Democrats are betting a lot of resources on Beto, not only money but also endless news coverage and celebrity support. At the end, not only do they narrowly lose TX senate, they also narrowly lose Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and maybe Arizona, which could have been defended if enough resources are diverted to these states.

It might be encouraging for TX dem to see a tight senate race, and it helps other local candidates, but all these come with a steep price.

[dreaminofvickery]

Originally Posted by EDS_

More than 200K votes for those paying attention.

Yes, I think it is currently at around 213K with a very small percentage of counties not having reported yet.

Here are the exact numbers:

https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/texas/

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by jiping

The CNN report you quoted proves my point that "nationwide Beto is taking too much oxygen".
Democrats are betting a lot of resources on Beto, not only money but also endless news coverage and celebrity support. At the end, not only do they narrowly lose TX senate, they also narrowly lose Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and maybe Arizona, which could have been defended if enough resources are diverted to these states.

It might be encouraging for TX dem to see a tight senate race, and it helps other local candidates, but all these come with a steep price.

Yes... but in TX, the price was far steeper for Republicans.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by Katana49

I'm not talking about Beto or Cruz, I said the GOP and Dems.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/polit...sis/index.html

Well, I WAS talking about O'Rourke and Cruz.

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Well, I WAS talking about O'Rourke and Cruz.

So you quoted me, then said something that had nothing to do with what you quoted. Ok then.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Katana49

Yes... but in TX, the price was far steeper for Republicans.

How so?

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by EDS_

How so?

Four of the GOP's top 10 biggest donor zip codes across all of America were in TX from my earlier link. In what is normally a Republican stronghold easily, Cruz had to spend millions of dollars in addition to having Trump come down and stump for him, as well as all the PACs spending money on anti Beto campaigns.

In spite of all the money and effort spent to defeat Beto, Cruz barely pulled off a victory. In fact, I would even go so far to say that had Donald Trump not come to TX to support him, he would have lost.

All that time, effort, and money had to be spent on a state that is historically 60-40, 55-45 for the GOP. They've never had to spend this much to defend TX, which gave them more money and resources to focus on more competitive states in previous elections. Even with all that, Democrats picked up several seats on the national and state level. What was once a reliable, easy victory for the GOP was anything but this year.

[calgirlinnc]

Originally Posted by Katana49

Four of the GOP's top 10 biggest donor zip codes across all of America were in TX from my earlier link. In what is normally a Republican stronghold easily, Cruz had to spend millions of dollars in addition to having Trump come down and stump for him, as well as all the PACs spending money on anti Beto campaigns.

In spite of all the money and effort spent to defeat Beto, Cruz barely pulled off a victory. In fact, I would even go so far to say that had Donald Trump not come to TX to support him, he would have lost.

All that time, effort, and money had to be spent on a state that is historically 60-40, 55-45 for the GOP. They've never had to spend this much to defend TX, which gave them more money and resources to focus on more competitive states in previous elections. Even with all that, Democrats picked up several seats on the national and state level. What was once a reliable, easy victory for the GOP was anything but this year.

A lot of MAGA republicans haven't forgiven Cruz for the stunt he pulled at the 2016 Republican convention.

This says at least as much about Cruz (one of the most divisive senators) as it does about politics in Texas in general.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Katana49

Four of the GOP's top 10 biggest donor zip codes across all of America were in TX from my earlier link. In what is normally a Republican stronghold easily, Cruz had to spend millions of dollars in addition to having Trump come down and stump for him, as well as all the PACs spending money on anti Beto campaigns.

In spite of all the money and effort spent to defeat Beto, Cruz barely pulled off a victory. In fact, I would even go so far to say that had Donald Trump not come to TX to support him, he would have lost.

All that time, effort, and money had to be spent on a state that is historically 60-40, 55-45 for the GOP. They've never had to spend this much to defend TX, which gave them more money and resources to focus on more competitive states in previous elections. Even with all that, Democrats picked up several seats on the national and state level. What was once a reliable, easy victory for the GOP was anything but this year.

1). Sure but Beto raised 2x the money TC did.
2). In an off year election, with TC's high unlikability metrics, with Trumps high unlikability metrics, with Beto receiving endless fawning attention from the local press etc. and he still lost. As a political guy from Austin said last night if Beto had run against Cornyn he would have been crushed. Not beating TC was a big time missed opportunity.
3). And you are completely overlooking the fact that over the last 50ish years during midterm elections the party out of power usually does very well.

Anyone not wearing rose colored glasses would call last night wholly unremarkable for the democrats.

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1). Sure but Beto raised 2x the money TC did.
2). In an off year election, with TC's high unlikability metrics, with Trumps high unlikability metrics, with Beto receiving endless fawning attention from the local press etc. and he still lost. As a political guy from Austin said last night if Beto had run against Cornyn he would have been crushed. Not beating TC was a big time missed opportunity.
3). And you are completely overlooking the fact that over the last 50ish years during midterm elections the party out of power usually does very well.

Anyone not wearing rose colored glasses would call last night wholly unremarkable for the democrats.

1. Think about that. Beto raised more money in TEXAS than his GOP opponent.


2. Voter turnout was up 400% in TX, more than the number of voters in an "on" year election by far.


3. I'm not overlooking anything, that's an obvious point to make, also a completely irrelevant one since this is TX. That's like saying you expect California to turn red in an off year election. It just doesn't happen... but it almost did here.