Once again you folks at Texans for Truth are saying the hard things out loud. Thank you please keep it up, hopefully the rage merchants will eventually give up or be run out of the party on
You corrected the word count but ignored the body count. Classic.
And regarding your "statistical analysis":
Asking 150 people in your own social circle isn't a "Survey"; that is Selection Bias.
A professional poll uses randomized sampling to model the electorate. You used anecdotal gossip to model your own confirmation bias. The fact that you think those are the same thing explains why your side keeps getting blindsided by election results. You aren't analyzing the data; you're just laundering your own opinions and calling it "science."
But the real "tell" is your sign-off.
You write 2,600 words (thank you for the correction) preaching about "Civility," "Maturity," and "Adult Leadership," and then you end the debate with "Smell you later."
I couldn't have scripted a better ending to prove my point.
You aren't a serious operative. You aren't an expert. You’re just a petty, anonymous amateur playing dress-up as a journalist.
Do you know how we contacted those 150 people? You don't. Seems like you don't want civility, but obedience to the extremist fringe of the party. If our articles strike a nerve with you then that should be a red flag for you. That old saying, "if you don't know who the idiot in the group is then it's probably you." Later clown.
You call this an "After Action Report," but it reads like a "Confession."
You spend 1,000 words blaming the SD-9 loss on "candidate quality," but you bury the lede: 21,749 Republicans stayed home. When your preferred candidate (Huffman) lost round one, the "Adults in the Room" didn't unify the party. They took their ball and went home. The consultant class decided they would rather hand a Texas Senate seat to a Democrat than help a Grassroots Conservative win.
But the most revealing line in this entire essay is your claim that activists want candidates who are "easier to steer."
That is pure psychological projection.
The Establishment model depends on candidates who are steerable. You recruit "blank slate" candidates who don't know the House Rules, don't read the budget, and rely on consultants to tell them how to vote. You love "steerable" members because they are profitable clients.
The reason you hate candidates like Wambsganss isn't because they are weak; it's because they are Unsteerable. They answer to the voters, not the lobby. You couldn't control her, you couldn't bill her, and you couldn't steer her, so you let the seat flip blue rather than lose your grip on the wheel.
And for all your high-minded lecturing on "Civility" and "building coalitions," you just couldn't help yourself, could you? You call a local activist "Shrek" in the middle of an essay about "restoring decency."
The mask is off. You aren't a serious analyst worried about the party's future. You are a petty, vindictive insider who is laughing while the ship sinks, just happy that the "wrong people" are drowning first.
You accuse activists of running a "Business Model." At least they volunteer. You’re the one billing hourly to spin a loss into a lecture. Post your client list.
Patrick, David, Wes or whoever you really are, your analysis is laughable at best if you would just talk to the actual voters in the area. We spoke to around 150 people in the area through the men and women in our group and what we found out is that in their opinion Leigh was a vile human being. She was rude and not civil and when John Huffman reached out to bridge the divide, she scoffed at him. This isn't our opinion, this is the opinion of those long time Republican voters in the district. We are sorry that you can't comprehend that. Your saying the Leigh isn't steerable is comical. She absolutely does not listen to the voters because if she did then she would have seen a mass of them who were not happy with how they are being treated As to the Shrek comment, if that hit a little to close to home, then maybe you should take a look in the mirror and take some humble pie. That section was about telling the world the stupidity of the extreme party wing group folks that think they run the party by intimidation and bravado, but we looked at the data from this last weekend and those attacks didn't win. There will never be anything wrong with calling out those bad actors in the party that spread lies and stupidity. Common sense is going to win over time and hopefully you can come to yours and actually do the research necessary to have an accurate addition to the article. We won't hold our breath.
You guessed three names, and you missed on all three. But keep guessing—it reveals how terrified you are of transparency.
Let’s look at your "Research." You admit your analysis is based on speaking to "around 150 people."
In a Senate District of nearly one million residents, you built a thesis on a sample size of 0.01%. That isn't data; that is gossip. I cited 21,749 missing Republican votes—hard data from the Secretary of State. You are bringing anecdotes to a math fight.
But thank you for the admission regarding Huffman. You say he "reached out" and she "scoffed."
There it is.
You accuse the Grassroots of demanding "Purity Tests," but you just admitted to enforcing the deadliest one of all.
The Establishment's purity test isn't about ideology; it's about Submission. You demanded the nominee submit to the loser's terms. When she refused to kiss the ring, your machine stood down and let the Democrat win.
That isn't "Unity." That is a Protection Racket: "Obey us, or we burn the district."
As for the "Shrek" comment: You just doubled down on a physical insult immediately after writing a 1,000-word sermon on "Civility." The irony is dead, and you killed it. You aren't the "Adult in the Room"; you are just a bully with a Substack and a typo problem.
Actually it was around 2600 words. If we aren't mistaken, sample sizes are what all surveys use to come up with statistical analysis. Obviously you didn't comprehend what we wrote and only perused the article to find things you think you can turn into outrage. You are obviously someone we had to call out before for being an extremist in the party so we will guess you're mad that someone figured you out. Smell you later.
Not at all. We are just playing with this guy due to his constant outrage. It’s very obvious he is one of the people we talk about bringing the party down the wrong path. We need more common sense, not being dragged to the extreme by these fringe party groups. They have a habit of putting their own activists up for election, but they are empty. They also keep push the county parties to endorse local races that are meant to be nonpartisan. This has been met with such a vast amount of push back that statistically speaking when a county party endorses a candidate in these races they only win at a 20-25% clip, but it doesn’t build upon any wins they do make, they start over every year. It’s literally the definition of insanity.
I 100% agree. I was referring to (his) comment about you being “terrified of transparency”… from an anonymous account. And if he is who I suspect he is, he uses MANY anonymous/fake profiles to spread his message of hate.
Keep fighting the good fight. The Normies are waking up.
In the summer of 2015 my Staunch Republican co-workers literally laughed in my face at lunch when I told them Trump would win next year.
"He's a gat-dam New York Democrat!!" they said.
"Well, he will win because he's saying what actual Conservatives want to hear". I replied.
Again who’s this BS “finder”? It seems they are the biggest BS GIVER out there
Once again you folks at Texans for Truth are saying the hard things out loud. Thank you please keep it up, hopefully the rage merchants will eventually give up or be run out of the party on
a rail
You corrected the word count but ignored the body count. Classic.
And regarding your "statistical analysis":
Asking 150 people in your own social circle isn't a "Survey"; that is Selection Bias.
A professional poll uses randomized sampling to model the electorate. You used anecdotal gossip to model your own confirmation bias. The fact that you think those are the same thing explains why your side keeps getting blindsided by election results. You aren't analyzing the data; you're just laundering your own opinions and calling it "science."
But the real "tell" is your sign-off.
You write 2,600 words (thank you for the correction) preaching about "Civility," "Maturity," and "Adult Leadership," and then you end the debate with "Smell you later."
I couldn't have scripted a better ending to prove my point.
You aren't a serious operative. You aren't an expert. You’re just a petty, anonymous amateur playing dress-up as a journalist.
Do you know how we contacted those 150 people? You don't. Seems like you don't want civility, but obedience to the extremist fringe of the party. If our articles strike a nerve with you then that should be a red flag for you. That old saying, "if you don't know who the idiot in the group is then it's probably you." Later clown.
You call this an "After Action Report," but it reads like a "Confession."
You spend 1,000 words blaming the SD-9 loss on "candidate quality," but you bury the lede: 21,749 Republicans stayed home. When your preferred candidate (Huffman) lost round one, the "Adults in the Room" didn't unify the party. They took their ball and went home. The consultant class decided they would rather hand a Texas Senate seat to a Democrat than help a Grassroots Conservative win.
But the most revealing line in this entire essay is your claim that activists want candidates who are "easier to steer."
That is pure psychological projection.
The Establishment model depends on candidates who are steerable. You recruit "blank slate" candidates who don't know the House Rules, don't read the budget, and rely on consultants to tell them how to vote. You love "steerable" members because they are profitable clients.
The reason you hate candidates like Wambsganss isn't because they are weak; it's because they are Unsteerable. They answer to the voters, not the lobby. You couldn't control her, you couldn't bill her, and you couldn't steer her, so you let the seat flip blue rather than lose your grip on the wheel.
And for all your high-minded lecturing on "Civility" and "building coalitions," you just couldn't help yourself, could you? You call a local activist "Shrek" in the middle of an essay about "restoring decency."
The mask is off. You aren't a serious analyst worried about the party's future. You are a petty, vindictive insider who is laughing while the ship sinks, just happy that the "wrong people" are drowning first.
You accuse activists of running a "Business Model." At least they volunteer. You’re the one billing hourly to spin a loss into a lecture. Post your client list.
Patrick, David, Wes or whoever you really are, your analysis is laughable at best if you would just talk to the actual voters in the area. We spoke to around 150 people in the area through the men and women in our group and what we found out is that in their opinion Leigh was a vile human being. She was rude and not civil and when John Huffman reached out to bridge the divide, she scoffed at him. This isn't our opinion, this is the opinion of those long time Republican voters in the district. We are sorry that you can't comprehend that. Your saying the Leigh isn't steerable is comical. She absolutely does not listen to the voters because if she did then she would have seen a mass of them who were not happy with how they are being treated As to the Shrek comment, if that hit a little to close to home, then maybe you should take a look in the mirror and take some humble pie. That section was about telling the world the stupidity of the extreme party wing group folks that think they run the party by intimidation and bravado, but we looked at the data from this last weekend and those attacks didn't win. There will never be anything wrong with calling out those bad actors in the party that spread lies and stupidity. Common sense is going to win over time and hopefully you can come to yours and actually do the research necessary to have an accurate addition to the article. We won't hold our breath.
You guessed three names, and you missed on all three. But keep guessing—it reveals how terrified you are of transparency.
Let’s look at your "Research." You admit your analysis is based on speaking to "around 150 people."
In a Senate District of nearly one million residents, you built a thesis on a sample size of 0.01%. That isn't data; that is gossip. I cited 21,749 missing Republican votes—hard data from the Secretary of State. You are bringing anecdotes to a math fight.
But thank you for the admission regarding Huffman. You say he "reached out" and she "scoffed."
There it is.
You accuse the Grassroots of demanding "Purity Tests," but you just admitted to enforcing the deadliest one of all.
The Establishment's purity test isn't about ideology; it's about Submission. You demanded the nominee submit to the loser's terms. When she refused to kiss the ring, your machine stood down and let the Democrat win.
That isn't "Unity." That is a Protection Racket: "Obey us, or we burn the district."
As for the "Shrek" comment: You just doubled down on a physical insult immediately after writing a 1,000-word sermon on "Civility." The irony is dead, and you killed it. You aren't the "Adult in the Room"; you are just a bully with a Substack and a typo problem.
Post your client list or spare us the lecture.
Actually it was around 2600 words. If we aren't mistaken, sample sizes are what all surveys use to come up with statistical analysis. Obviously you didn't comprehend what we wrote and only perused the article to find things you think you can turn into outrage. You are obviously someone we had to call out before for being an extremist in the party so we will guess you're mad that someone figured you out. Smell you later.
Did someone just chastise someone else about “transparency” while bragging about maintaining their anonymous status?
Not at all. We are just playing with this guy due to his constant outrage. It’s very obvious he is one of the people we talk about bringing the party down the wrong path. We need more common sense, not being dragged to the extreme by these fringe party groups. They have a habit of putting their own activists up for election, but they are empty. They also keep push the county parties to endorse local races that are meant to be nonpartisan. This has been met with such a vast amount of push back that statistically speaking when a county party endorses a candidate in these races they only win at a 20-25% clip, but it doesn’t build upon any wins they do make, they start over every year. It’s literally the definition of insanity.
I 100% agree. I was referring to (his) comment about you being “terrified of transparency”… from an anonymous account. And if he is who I suspect he is, he uses MANY anonymous/fake profiles to spread his message of hate.
Keep fighting the good fight. The Normies are waking up.