It's interesting to look at the national election history over the last 20 years.
Listed below is the departure from the generic race. Example: 2006 Kay Hutchinson won by 25 1/2 points, in a year where the D won the House vote by 8 points...so Texas was R+33.
2006 Senate: R+33
2008 Senate: R+23, Prez R+22
2012 Senate: R+18, Prez R+20
2014 Senate: R+21
2016 Prez: R+11
2018 Senate R+11
2020 Senate R+13, Prez R+9
2024 Senate R+6, Prez R+10
These numbers have steadily become less red. Now, will the trend continue? It depends greatly on the Hispanic vote. In 2024, Latinos in Texas went R+10. Lots were made of their flip red, and the Pubs in Texas redistricted based on it. But was that a mirage? Latino men in particular didn't like Harris, but the overall trend does not match.
In 2020, Latinos made up 23% of the electorate and were D+16.
2022 governor race: Latinos 21%, D+16
2018 senate: Latinos 26%, D+29
2016 latinos 24%, D+27
Clearly there is also a long-term trend for Latinos to the Pubs. However, 2024 surely seems like an outlier.
My prediction of the needed national Dem advantage for the seat to flip:
I just voted in that primary, and for Cornyn/Crenshaw and a lot of “none of the above.” Paxton is so clearly bent, I can’t figure how deeply anchored anyone’s priors could be to brush aside all of the muck Paxton is and has been in.
Reason for posting: Turnout. I got there in the mid-morning, in the most R-leaning “not rural” district in the US, and it was basically empty. The people working the polls said it had been quiet “but more people are coming, it’ll be busy soon.” Maybe, maybe not. Posting from somewhere over Kamchatka now, headed back to my second home in Asia.
If the GOP contest goes to a runoff but Talarico-Crockett gets settled next Tuesday, a full third of the eight months between primary and general will be the dems nominee in general election mode while Paxton-Cornyn keeps slugging it out. Seems potentially impactful.
I feel like the same question of the Democrats needs to be asked. Can they blow it by not going with a candidate whose theory of the case is to turnout voters and win over former Trump voters. If republicans do get Hunt or Paxton, this race is much closer and winnable compared to if Democrats pick a turn out only candidate (I think it’s a pretty clear myth that if Democrats just turn out enough people then they’ll win, Trump in the general has helped disprove that theory).
Because Texas has an open primary season, Democrat voters can cross-over and vote in the Republican primary. There's a chance that if Crockett had stayed out of the race, Democrats in relatively large numbers might've crossed over to vote against Paxton. But, because she made the D primary competitive, she may have inadvertently helped Paxton.
Funny to see this comment, because it's exactly calling out my spouse and me. Usually at least one of us will take an R ballot to vote against Paxton (most recently when he was primaried by George P Bush), but this year we'll both take D ballots to vote for Talarico.
I'll bite... what's the joke? I mean, I'm aware of the Democratic-Republican party founded by Jefferson. But, I've never really considered it an ancestor of today's Republicans, and either way I don't get the joke.
Some deep-pocketed, republican, dark-money PAC is running ads that say "Ken Paxton is weird" and then runs through his weirdnesses (as described is this article). I'm hoping that the Crockett and/or Talarico campaigns have noticed this. When I say "deep-pocketed", I mean it. The first time I saw the ad was _during the Super Bowl_
I'm expecting to see this on every ad: «I'm Jasmine Talarico and not only do I approve this message, but I think Ken Paxton is weird, too».
Or: «It turns out that, like a stopped clock, Republicans can be right occasionally: Ken Paxton is weird»
I'm sorry but I'm giving up on your footnotes. It's too much of a headache to cycle to the end of the article to read the footnote and then find where I was again to continue reading
For those who don't know, Texas has two weeks of early voting, and a small amount of mail-ins for people with a good reason. As of yesterday, 5 days into early voting, a total of 552,000 had voted in the Dem primary, and 521,000 had voted in the GOP primary.
In the 10 largest counties, excluding Fort Bend (which is not reporting for some reason), the Dems had 364,000, while the GOP had 209,000. This means in the remaining counties the Dems had 188,000 votes, while the GOP had 312,000.
So of the vote totals of the first five days, it's D+3 overall.
66% of the Dem vote comes from the larger counties, while 40% of the Pub vote does.
For reference, in the 2024 senate race, the GOP got 2.63 million votes in these 9 counties (43% of their total), while the Dems got 3.27 million (65% of their total). The Dems won these counties by 11 points; the Pubs won the rest of the state 3.36 million to 1.74 million (R+30).
So far in early voting, the Dems are winning the largest 9 by 28 points, and the Pubs are winning the rest by 25.
In Dallas county (where I live) yesterday's Dallas Morning News had "first five days" voting totals for the county: 70k Dems, 23k Repubs. The republican totals were about 50% higher that 2024, while the Dem numbers are about triple their numbers two years ago.
In trying to suck up to Trump, the county republican party thoroughly messed up voting. There are two results from that: 1) this year there are separate lines and voting machines for each party and 2) there's an excellent chance that the actually election day voting will be completely FOOBAR (it may be wide-spread fear of that that's encouraging the early vote). I have not heard anyone say anything nice about that (and there are letters to the editor complaining)
We voted today, the democrats side was busy, the other side, very sparse.
Good topic, candidate quality in this case. My very first thought reading this was of the Obama election that led to his becoming senator with no political history to speak of. As I recall without checking again, his blue-eyed opponent's sealed divorce records suddenly and magically got unsealed, when what to our wondering eyes did appear but the fact that his wife divorced him because he'd been shopping her around in a sex club for "swingers."
Well, even in Illinois that was going too far, so Obama won.
This Paxton with his sex and money scandals sounds very unattractive to me; I often think pols must suppose women don't actually vote, the way they choose some candidates. But we vote more than men do and there are more of us than men. However, if I were in Texas and had to choose between Paxton and (whatever) Democrat, this would be one of the races I'd not vote on.
Texas voters who vote in the DEMOCRATIC primary next week, what would be their status for the REPUBLICAN runoff in May? Can Texans vote both parties' primaries if one's the primary proper and the other one's the runoff?
In Texas, you "register as a Democrat/Republican" every two years by voting in the appropriate primary. The ballot has a statement to that effect.
Once you vote (in the primary or in the runoff), you are considered "registered".
Texas also has local conventions (one per congressional district) and a state convention. You must be registered appropriately (i.e. voted in the primary or run-off) to attend. If you didn't vote, you need to physically sign something that registers you with the party.
The thought has occurred that MAGA is at the point where Paxton's scandals give him an outlaw persona and make him a mini-Trump in their eyes. The Conryn campaign obviously doesn't agree if they're hammering the scandals in their negative advertising. Does anyone else wonder if they are right?
It's interesting to look at the national election history over the last 20 years.
Listed below is the departure from the generic race. Example: 2006 Kay Hutchinson won by 25 1/2 points, in a year where the D won the House vote by 8 points...so Texas was R+33.
2006 Senate: R+33
2008 Senate: R+23, Prez R+22
2012 Senate: R+18, Prez R+20
2014 Senate: R+21
2016 Prez: R+11
2018 Senate R+11
2020 Senate R+13, Prez R+9
2024 Senate R+6, Prez R+10
These numbers have steadily become less red. Now, will the trend continue? It depends greatly on the Hispanic vote. In 2024, Latinos in Texas went R+10. Lots were made of their flip red, and the Pubs in Texas redistricted based on it. But was that a mirage? Latino men in particular didn't like Harris, but the overall trend does not match.
In 2020, Latinos made up 23% of the electorate and were D+16.
2022 governor race: Latinos 21%, D+16
2018 senate: Latinos 26%, D+29
2016 latinos 24%, D+27
Clearly there is also a long-term trend for Latinos to the Pubs. However, 2024 surely seems like an outlier.
My prediction of the needed national Dem advantage for the seat to flip:
Cornyn v Talarico: D+9
Cornyn v Crockett: D+13
Paxton v Talarico: D+6
Paxton v Crockett: D+9
Your Texas 2020 and 2024 numbers are off.
2020:
Sen: R+9.6, Pres: R+5.6
2024:
Sen: R+8.5, Pres: R+13.7
I just voted in that primary, and for Cornyn/Crenshaw and a lot of “none of the above.” Paxton is so clearly bent, I can’t figure how deeply anchored anyone’s priors could be to brush aside all of the muck Paxton is and has been in.
Reason for posting: Turnout. I got there in the mid-morning, in the most R-leaning “not rural” district in the US, and it was basically empty. The people working the polls said it had been quiet “but more people are coming, it’ll be busy soon.” Maybe, maybe not. Posting from somewhere over Kamchatka now, headed back to my second home in Asia.
If the GOP contest goes to a runoff but Talarico-Crockett gets settled next Tuesday, a full third of the eight months between primary and general will be the dems nominee in general election mode while Paxton-Cornyn keeps slugging it out. Seems potentially impactful.
I feel like the same question of the Democrats needs to be asked. Can they blow it by not going with a candidate whose theory of the case is to turnout voters and win over former Trump voters. If republicans do get Hunt or Paxton, this race is much closer and winnable compared to if Democrats pick a turn out only candidate (I think it’s a pretty clear myth that if Democrats just turn out enough people then they’ll win, Trump in the general has helped disprove that theory).
Because Texas has an open primary season, Democrat voters can cross-over and vote in the Republican primary. There's a chance that if Crockett had stayed out of the race, Democrats in relatively large numbers might've crossed over to vote against Paxton. But, because she made the D primary competitive, she may have inadvertently helped Paxton.
Funny to see this comment, because it's exactly calling out my spouse and me. Usually at least one of us will take an R ballot to vote against Paxton (most recently when he was primaried by George P Bush), but this year we'll both take D ballots to vote for Talarico.
Samesies
Could the Republican blow the Texas Senste Race?
Only a party descended from the Democratic-Republican Party could mess that up.
...
For those of you who don't get the joke, thats a yes.
I'll bite... what's the joke? I mean, I'm aware of the Democratic-Republican party founded by Jefferson. But, I've never really considered it an ancestor of today's Republicans, and either way I don't get the joke.
Some deep-pocketed, republican, dark-money PAC is running ads that say "Ken Paxton is weird" and then runs through his weirdnesses (as described is this article). I'm hoping that the Crockett and/or Talarico campaigns have noticed this. When I say "deep-pocketed", I mean it. The first time I saw the ad was _during the Super Bowl_
I'm expecting to see this on every ad: «I'm Jasmine Talarico and not only do I approve this message, but I think Ken Paxton is weird, too».
Or: «It turns out that, like a stopped clock, Republicans can be right occasionally: Ken Paxton is weird»
I'm sorry but I'm giving up on your footnotes. It's too much of a headache to cycle to the end of the article to read the footnote and then find where I was again to continue reading
Read the article online (e.g. https://www.natesilver.net/p/could-republicans-blow-the-texas) with a desktop computer rather than as an email or on a mobile device. The footnotes pop up when you hover over the number.
Oh I'll try that. The email version is really frustrating for the footnotes
For those who don't know, Texas has two weeks of early voting, and a small amount of mail-ins for people with a good reason. As of yesterday, 5 days into early voting, a total of 552,000 had voted in the Dem primary, and 521,000 had voted in the GOP primary.
In the 10 largest counties, excluding Fort Bend (which is not reporting for some reason), the Dems had 364,000, while the GOP had 209,000. This means in the remaining counties the Dems had 188,000 votes, while the GOP had 312,000.
So of the vote totals of the first five days, it's D+3 overall.
66% of the Dem vote comes from the larger counties, while 40% of the Pub vote does.
For reference, in the 2024 senate race, the GOP got 2.63 million votes in these 9 counties (43% of their total), while the Dems got 3.27 million (65% of their total). The Dems won these counties by 11 points; the Pubs won the rest of the state 3.36 million to 1.74 million (R+30).
So far in early voting, the Dems are winning the largest 9 by 28 points, and the Pubs are winning the rest by 25.
In Dallas county (where I live) yesterday's Dallas Morning News had "first five days" voting totals for the county: 70k Dems, 23k Repubs. The republican totals were about 50% higher that 2024, while the Dem numbers are about triple their numbers two years ago.
In trying to suck up to Trump, the county republican party thoroughly messed up voting. There are two results from that: 1) this year there are separate lines and voting machines for each party and 2) there's an excellent chance that the actually election day voting will be completely FOOBAR (it may be wide-spread fear of that that's encouraging the early vote). I have not heard anyone say anything nice about that (and there are letters to the editor complaining)
We voted today, the democrats side was busy, the other side, very sparse.
Pedantic note- Isn't FUBAR? Acronym for F'ed Up Beyond All Recognition.
And then there are the Foo Fighters ----- The UFO ones.
This feels a bit like a rehash of many, many previous cycles with Dems saying no but, really...it could be this year.
Good topic, candidate quality in this case. My very first thought reading this was of the Obama election that led to his becoming senator with no political history to speak of. As I recall without checking again, his blue-eyed opponent's sealed divorce records suddenly and magically got unsealed, when what to our wondering eyes did appear but the fact that his wife divorced him because he'd been shopping her around in a sex club for "swingers."
Well, even in Illinois that was going too far, so Obama won.
This Paxton with his sex and money scandals sounds very unattractive to me; I often think pols must suppose women don't actually vote, the way they choose some candidates. But we vote more than men do and there are more of us than men. However, if I were in Texas and had to choose between Paxton and (whatever) Democrat, this would be one of the races I'd not vote on.
Oh hey, been wondering:
Texas voters who vote in the DEMOCRATIC primary next week, what would be their status for the REPUBLICAN runoff in May? Can Texans vote both parties' primaries if one's the primary proper and the other one's the runoff?
In Texas, you "register as a Democrat/Republican" every two years by voting in the appropriate primary. The ballot has a statement to that effect.
Once you vote (in the primary or in the runoff), you are considered "registered".
Texas also has local conventions (one per congressional district) and a state convention. You must be registered appropriately (i.e. voted in the primary or run-off) to attend. If you didn't vote, you need to physically sign something that registers you with the party.
So, no cross-over voting like you describe
Beautiful, thank you! And that's as it should be.
The thought has occurred that MAGA is at the point where Paxton's scandals give him an outlaw persona and make him a mini-Trump in their eyes. The Conryn campaign obviously doesn't agree if they're hammering the scandals in their negative advertising. Does anyone else wonder if they are right?
Good point, but I'd say no. Trump is a force of nature; Paxton is just a debauched crook.
Great post, McKown.
Thank you, love when Eli posts an article for me to read in the morning while sipping my coffee