- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
James Talarico won the Democratic nomination for a US Senate seat in Texas on Tuesday, capping a remarkable rise from state lawmaker and seminary student to the party’s standard-bearer in one of the key races of the 2026 midterm cycle.
With his blend of faith-based populism, bipartisan appeal and generational energy, Talarico defeated Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, a firebrand beloved by the party’s base but who struggled to dispel concerns that she could defeat a Republican in a state that has not elected a Democrat statewide in more than 30 years.
A jubilant Talarico told supporters in Austin before the race was called: “We are not just trying to win an election. We are trying to fundamentally change our politics. And it’s working.”
I hope that I am wrong about this, but I am not optimistic about Talarico.
He said all the right things to position himself as not just a progressive candidate, but as a christian candidate. White, male, middle aged, handsome, well spoken, seemingly levelheaded, and gives off strong Mr. Rogers vibes. Those things make him comparatively more palatable than most other democratic candidates, especially in Texas.
However, the democrats have had more than a handful of bad actors and turncoats in recent years. Candidates that talk the blue talk and walk the blue walk, but once they take office they quickly turn face. Sinema, Fetterman, Gillibrand, Robin Webb; not an exhaustive list of democrats that turned their backs to the rhetoric and policies that got them elected, but their the ones that spring to my mind first. Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi, and a host of others could be rightly accused of actively aiding the republican-led undermining of the rule of law (and civil rights) while in office.
The Streisand effect has a long history of backfiring on public officials, so much so that it’s not too far of a stretch to wonder if the administration banked on the FCC debacle to elevate Talarico. To be clear, I’m not entirely pessimistic about Talarico; I want to believe that there are still good people who want to get into public service for the right reasons. I’m just not optimistic because he’s almost too good. Running a sleeper candidate against one of the stronger progressive voices in congress (who frequently and loudly called out the GOP’s bullshit) is exactly the kind of thing that the far-right think tanks would do.
Follow the money. I think Talarico is at least trying to run a small donor funded campaign. Crockett was taking Israel’s money and kicking unfavorable media out of her campaign events and denying it afterwards. I don’t really believe in the existence of “blue maga” – I think it’s like searching for the “leader” of “antifa” – but she’s one of the closer things I’ve seen to it.
I mean, Crockett has literally voted for funding Israel. Her average voting record is par with Hakeem Jeffries. She’s mean to people I do not like, but she has consistently been a showman. I’ll take someone who pledges to not vote for funding genocidal ethnostates over someone who votes for them any day.
Appearances can be deceiving. From what I’ve read, Talarico seems the more progressive of the two. If he wins, we’ll find out–the system is entrenched and hard to buck for anyone, until enough more progressive members are there to form a coalition with some power.
But I have no doubt that no matter what, he’ll be vastly better than if the R wins. I’m much more worried about Platner turning out to be a Fetterman/Sinema than I am about Talarico.
If you were worried about a turncoat, I’d argue Crockett had much worse vibes. Israeli apologist, surveillance state supporter, pretty cynical in her position on immigration, and deeply self-promotional in a Stacey Abrahams way.
Also, her UAF fixation is… not great.
Talarico has his problems (took a big chunk of cash from the casino industry, for instance). But his politics at least seems more populist.
Idk if that’s going to matter. Odds of winning a statewide office in Texas as a Democrat have been dogshit for thirty years.
But if I’ve got to live with a mushy liberal Dem as a Texas senator, I’m happier with him than the alternative.
More dems voted in the primary than republicans. Beto lost to Cruz by only like 2 points or something as well. I’m cautiously optimistic
way too close, and republicans almost always win the next time if the previous one is razor thin margins for democrats.
Honest question but why would taking casino money be a problem. Unless you’re a religious nut with a gambling addiction it’s not really a bad thing. Lots of jobs associated with casinos that will explode the local economy.
I’m religious, but that’s not why I have an issue with gambling. To quote people I mildly disagree with on a different issue, I believe that gambling should be “safe, legal, and rare”. I’m anti prohibition of most vices, but I think gambling has an atrocious social risk profile, and since its only benefits seem to have been taking some of white people’s money back to native tribes, it should have been left for reservations.
Cause the casino was Miriam Adelson’s, and she’s one of Trump’s biggest backers.
That’s really bad. Any Israel connection is going to drive his chances
Crockett took Israeli blood money so fuck her.