Lots of people in Texas are feeling cocky right about now, and so a word of advice:
Credit the Democrats this much: Given a chance to enjoy the emotional satisfaction of rallying behind a charismatic insult artist in the person of Jasmine Crockett, Texas Democrats instead chose James Talarico, a soft-spoken seminarian who is less exciting but arguably more in line with the actual (dumb and destructive) policy preferences of the progressive base. Talarico’s moderation is one of style, not one of substance: On the issues, he is more Bernie Sanders than Bill Clinton. I am not sure that being a more genteel left-winger actually makes Talarico a stronger candidate in Texas—granted, I am not in the target demographic, but I thought Crockett to be the more appealing of the two Democrats. But Democrats were at least trying to use their heads.
Republicans, for their part, continue to practice politics as a form of ritual humiliation for the remains of the old guard, compelling Sen. John Cornyn to stand as an equal to Ken Paxton, the morally depraved and intellectually vacant grotesque who currently serves as attorney general of Texas. Sen. Cornyn barely topped Paxton in the three-man primary and now must face him again in a runoff.
Some Democrats have in mind the success Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer and his allies had—and continue to have—meddling in Republican primary elections to elevate extremists and kooks (more extreme and kookier than the Republican average, I mean) on the grounds that such nut-cutlets are easier to beat in general elections, and quietly are talking up the idea of working to help secure the GOP nomination for Paxton.
That would be both immoral and foolish. Immoral because advancing the political career of such a man as Paxton is immoral per se as well as dishonorable as a matter of electoral norms, and foolish because Paxton probably would beat Talarico in a general election. Yes, Talarico presumably would have a better chance against Paxton than against Cornyn, but not a good one. At the moment, it is not likely that Talarico would defeat either Republican in the general or that any other plausible Democrat would beat any other plausible Republican in a statewide election in Texas this November.
Such Machiavellian stuff is likely to be a minor factor at most. But, still: Be careful what you wish for.
There are reasons for Democrats to hope that this might be their year in Texas, including big primary turnout numbers that suggest an engaged Democratic electorate. And there are a few voters and donors who support Cornyn who would not transfer their support to Paxton—but probably not very many. In 2026, Republicans do not vote Republican because they love the Republican candidate but because they hate the Democrats categorically. The same holds true across the aisle: Negative partisanship is the third-strongest force in American politics, coming in behind only inertia and stupidity.
Texas Democrats are Texans—and Americans—as well as Democrats, and it would be marginally better for them and for their country for Talarico to lose to Cornyn rather than to Paxton. Of course, Talarico and his partisans do not wish to believe that he will lose to either man, and they might—might—be right. But probably not.
A Democratic victory in the Texas race, though unlikely, would be salubrious for the country in at least two ways: For one thing, one fewer Republican in the Senate means one fewer enabler of Donald Trump, and John Cornyn, for all his supposed independence and reservations, is as broken and gormless a Trump lackey as J.D. Vance or Ted Cruz; for another, the shock of such a loss might—might—be sufficiently painful so as to rouse the Republican Party to begin the process of liberating itself from the pit of venality and moral filth into which it dove so carelessly in 2016.
Negative partisanship is the third-strongest force in American politics, coming in behind only inertia and stupidity.
Texas Democrats should show some humility, considering how much they have to be humble about. They ought to remind themselves that, even in Texas, they do not understand Republicans very well. Many have suggested that Talarico’s fluffy Jesus talk will help him out in the sticks with the snake-handling rustics and such, but they are dead wrong about that. Talarico’s liberal Presbyterianism and the progressive politics that supposedly flows from it is more hateful to right-wing evangelicals than atheism or religious indifference. The children of Martin Luther will march hand in hand with the pope himself before they line up with a liberal mainline Protestant. Even conservative evangelicals who point out that there is much in authentic Christianity that is entirely incompatible with Trumpism end up excommunicated: Ask David French about that some time.
The line between politics and idolatry is pretty fuzzy where the contemporary Christian right is concerned. Talarico’s gentler affect may or may not help him with certain voters, but his religious opinions and religious rhetoric are not going to win over Trump adherents, who believe that their man in Washington is the reincarnation of Cyrus the Great.
My own view was that this is an era of politics as entertainment, and consequently Jasmine Crockett probably could have been the stronger general-election candidate; her lack of a highly effective campaign organization, which probably cost her the primary, could have been remedied by the national Democratic apparatus in very short order had she become the nominee. Like Democrats quietly (or openly) pushing for Paxton, those Republicans who supported Crockett were being a good deal less clever than they think. The Republican is not likely to lose in November, but there is no law of the universe mandating that Texas, once an impregnable Democratic stronghold, must be Republican forever. Things change, and there is a reason that there is a little town up in Lubbock County called New Deal.
I would end with “Let the best man win!” but saving this ailing republic is going to take a good deal more than that—starting with better men.
