for Crockett? Really, Wasserman? Really?

This isn't going to get settled for some time and while i am not the expert Wasserman has always been considered to be, I think he is very premature in making this absolute statement. Not to mention most of that vote already counted is EARLY vote--not election day voting. I am no expert, but I think Wasserman is taking a reputational risk right now.

It's likely over.

I am shocked at you DemocratSinceBirth. Even if it ends up that way...

I would add I was about to post "i Have Seen Enough" when I saw this thread. I'm disapointed.

I hope he wins in, because as much as I like how Crockett represents her district and our Democratic values, a black woman is not going to win a general statewide election in Texas.

when 50% of votes are outstanding from the opponent's strongest areas (at the time of this posting--and that is only early voting!!!!) Not to mention the suggestion it is all over because the "betting markets say so." The latter really pisses me off... even if they end up being correct. i guess we don't vote anymore. Just see what these damned betting markets "think."

I don’t vote in Texas, and I don't have a side in this race. But from what I’ve seen of Texas voters the past couple decades, a black woman stands little to no chance of flipping the Texas Senate seat blue in November.

the largest population center that favors one of the candidates when the vote is this close (59% based still on low counts of same day votes) as many on this thread are doing. Given the court stay, it is unlikely to be settled until tomorrow.

And no, the comment about the betting markets was based on another post in this thread.

As to Dallas, it has an estimated 61 percent in. Using the number of votes in to estimate the number out and then estimating the number of votes she would net over Talaricro, it is much lower than the current margin. There are also Talarico's areas that are out, including Austin.

Note this assumes the votes outstanding in each district look like those already counted. There is often a difference between day of voting and early voting.

This is going to be lawsuit city, given it is now coming out that the R planned manipulation from a county-wide election to precinct based was accompanied by invalid/incorrect precinct maps and erroneous information on the voter websites. That this overwhelmingly impacts Dallas County is the issue. This is going to be a total clusterfuck and all the projected breakdown of votes remaining, votes, counted, votes predicted, votes assumed most likely won't change that until the courts decide what to do with this mess. Can the State Supreme Court just rule they don't give a damn and throw out the votes placed between 7-9PM and ignore everything else? Well, it is Texas, so yes.

that the margin without including Dallas is sufficiently big enough that it is greater than the highest estimate of the number of people who tried to vote in Dallas in the Democratic primary times the net percent she got.

However, the Democratic party should call for counting all votes cast. This would not help with people who went out to vote, but couldn't due to the mess the Republicans caused

to hash out a solution that would pin this all on the R's where it belongs, continue the lawsuit against the corrupted process, but allow for a decision that names a Dem candidate and likewise allows all to come together to beat the R in the General.

Maybe that is naive, but I would hope...

No reason to get sand in your socks. All the votes should be counted, of course, but there is nothing wrong with making an educated guess as to the outcome. If they are wrong, they’ll have egg on their face.

What an inciteful comment. Did anyone here not know that prognosticators are either right or wrong? My heavens!

Oh, and "sand in my socks" is most certainly not an issue for me but thank you for your concern.

However, on MSNOW, an additional concern is that almost all election day voting has not been counted. However, the early voting occured at the time when Crockett was polling better. In the last week or so, Talarico has been polling better.

At this point, Talarico is several points ahead even after the Dallas early vote dropped. I think what Wasserman is seeing is that in what is in, Talarico is over preforming while Crockett is under preforming in some areas.

I assume that he is using a model that projected the number of voters in each county and likely estimates of what percent each will get. As data comes in, the estimates of both the number of votes and the percents for each are adjusted and aggregated over all the counties. The model probably has the ability to look at the likely range for each of these variables. He makes the call when the model shows that it is very high probability that he can correctly call the race.

Looking at the numbers on the NYT site which has detailed results, without doing any math, it does look like Talarico will win.

Doing this in "usual" elections is one thing. Where there are major issues/irregularities/lawsuits even before the vote is counted risks destroying that carefully honed reputation Wasserman has depended on for decades. Plus, short-circuiting the process with these incredibly early projections only adds to the bullshit conspiracy theories MAGA keeps projecting and gives them "ammo" to continue their stunts.

Crockett isn't winning in her strongholds like she needs to to beat Talarico's performance in the south. Enough of Houston is in and she isn't going to get enough votes in Dallas to close the gap.

...

I like both candidates. That isn't the issue, but the silliness on display here about the vote and what does and does not constitute a "predictable" (much less validated) win is embarrassing here tonight.

and Crockett is still losing by 70k+ votes. That's with a lot of Talarico country left to count.

There isn't enough left in Houston and Dallas for her to win, it's over.

ignorance of the process. I don't have a strong desire for one to win over the other, though I want the best chance to win in the General. But, I do believe in counting the vote and not "deciding" before the courts have finished weighing in on an ongoing process challenge. Nor do I believe in pointing to the betting markets for deciding as some here apparently do.

For example, in her stronghold of Dallas county, she is at 61% in the early vote. Her benchmark for the county is 70. Same day vote would have to be massively different to make that up.

that we need to let it play out.

The fact that the R's made this change from county-wide elections to precinct-based but now it has come out that there were not even accurate precinct maps nor information for voters to follow to find their precinct is going to be one hell of an issue. That this is overwhelmingly an issue in Dallas County is going to make all the best projections (speaking to YOU, Wasserman) court challenge-dependent (a lawsuit already filed) really premature.

I doubt anyone will be calling it until the court has ruled, but I think it is already pretty clear that even if all the votes cast in Dallas county are counted that it will not give her enough to make much of a dent in Talarico's lead, particularly with him over-performing benchmarks in county after county, and her under-performing.

I suspect that even if you assume turnout was suppressed by a large percentage in Dallas County, she is just not getting a large enough proportion of the vote there to make a difference in the outcome. And if my suspicion is correct, that is a good thing because there will be no question of the election having been "stolen" from her.

Then not so silly, eh?

I merely want the election to play out. Wasserman may be right, he might be wrong, but his adamant statement was issued hours ago BEFORE all these issues popped up which may well NOT be quick to be resolved, the state of Texas' Supreme Court's current and future rulings notwithstanding. At a minimum we won't know until tomorrow.

So, I am reminded of that famous (somewhat nonsensical) quote David Letterman made about making assumptions: "When you make assumptions you make an ass out of Uma Thurman" (UMA standing in for the more famous, You and ME).

Projections are a thing. People make them. You seem to be taking this very personally and attacking people for no good reason.

all that surprising either way. I have no "dog" in this fight other than wanting whoever wins to be best suited to defeat the R--whoever it ends up being. I think Talarico may well be that person. I just want the election to play out and actual votes to be counted so that we don't have all the usual tinfoil CT from MAGA. If that makes me "butthurt," so be it.

Talarico had been campaigning hard for some time.....Crockett should have sat this one out.

You never know. I have no "dog" in this fight, but let's let the process play out.

She's at 61% in the early vote in Dallas county. Her benchmark was 70%.

She has also under-performed in a number of other places.

The same day vote would have to be massively different for Crocket to pull it out.

With 68% of the vote in, 1,600,499 votes for Republicans have been cast and....for the Democratic candidates.....1,650,688.

At this point, MORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS HAVE TURNED OUT THAN Republican voters. In a mid-term primary. IN TEXAS.

Edit: And, yes, I recommended my own comment on purpose!