Brenda, it would depend, but if the 1M TX figure you cited indicates actual responses (not NoResponse/NotHome) then you've sampled more than 10% of TX 2018 turnout. That would give your results obvious face validity. /1
However, there are some caveats, including: How closely do the demographics of precincts sampled match the voting population, ie, is there a significant over-/under-representation somewhere? This could happen unintentionally, eg, by excess week day vs weekend canvassing. /2
Aug 17, 2019 • 8 tweets • 5 min read
@EricaGrieder@HoustonChron Erica, regarding the point you raised regarding whether O'Rourke for POTUS instead of Senate makes strategic sense:
The number of 2016 Senate races where there was a split between the POTUS and the Senate winners was ZERO. That's right, 0 of 34. /1@EricaGrieder@HoustonChron That 0 for 34 continues a downward trend dating to 1988.
O'Rourke is thus strategically correct on the office to seek because it is highly unlikely that *any* Sen candidate, O'Rourke included, beats Cornyn if Trump wins the state. /2
Atwater, interviewed by A. Lemis:
"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger'. By 1968 you can't say 'nigger'—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff."
@paplanner13@Will_Bunch@GOP Atwater interview, continued: "You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this', is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger'. So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone."
