James Talrico won the Democratic primary and will be running against a Republican for Texas Senator.
The Bulwark published a thought piece the other day wondering if Talrico might serve as a sort of Trojan Horse in the citadel of Christo-fascism.
The article is behind a pay wall but here’s a fair-use quote providing the crux of the argument:
Talrico is a former pastor in the liberal Christian tradition. Part of how he won the primary was to appeal to the religious sensibilities of Hispanics.
My own assessment is that the author’s hope is misplaced and we would be better off, at least in the long run (and maybe in the short run) making entirely areligious political arguments. I was rooting for Jasmine Crocket in this primary, personally. But then I don’t live in the Bible Belt South, and most certainly not in Texas.
I think this election speaks to the need to reverse Citizens-United.
Candidate
Total Estimated Spend (Direct + PAC)
Total Primary Votes
Estimated Cost Per Vote
James Talarico
~$23,000,000
~845,000
$27.22
Jasmine Crockett
~$4,800,000
~733,000
$6.55
Talarico had more time in Texas state politics than Crockett. He was also the white guy who could attract more crossover republican voters than Crockett. He also polled higher with Hispanics than Crockett, which makes him a stronger candidate in the general election.
Honestly, I’m going to miss Crockett. She was a fighter. Nida Allam was another fighter who lost their primary bid in NC.
My take is the democrats are trying to run the same lame non-confrontational slate that fails to inspire, merely appease. They appear to have one foot eternally nailed to the floor.
The Christian Nationals have a sunk cost in the Republicans and won’t be enticed by Talarico. Talarico is designed to grab the Hispanic, borderline independent and disenfranchised conventional republican vote. Nothing exciting, just Republican Lite.
The Republican side of the race is much more interesting. Incumbent John Cornyn has the RINO label for daring to negotiate with Democrats…and Ken Paxton has enough ethics and corruption baggage to make Trump proud. Those two have a run off election prior to the general election, so it may get more expensive for Republicans to beat Talarico overall.
Texas is going to one of the big money pit elections of 2026 for both sides and will effect strategy across the country for both parties and super PACs.
It all comes down to turnout. The money always plays a role, but if republican voters stay home and democrats can gather a huge turnout it may be a bloodbath.
With Trumps approval ratings swan diving to under 30% and if his war of distraction spirals into a ground conflict the democrats have a fair betting chance to win the senate as well as the house.
Aside from Talarico, the one scenario I see missing from all the discussion is the possibility of the outcome of losing access or use of the data centers in Indonesia from all of this nonsense in Iran…sorry, but I digress…
Talarico and Crockett do not differ significantly on the issues. I think Talarico actually has a chance of winning that Senate seat. I think Crockett would have lost had she been nominated to run. I think flipping the seat from red is extremely important.
They do not differ much on paper but I know which of them I trust more not to triangulate / placate / track toward the center reflexively over time.
More important than flipping the seat is just winning in general, and then sustainably holding those wins. Given what people who are persuadable really want and demonstrably respond to, this is not done by punching right. Talrico is unable to give much in the way of assurances on that score because he’s pandering to the right just by framing things in religious terms.
All that said, if I were in that district I would support him. What’s done is done.
If you are using the standard definition of pandering (“indulging their desires, weaknesses, or unreasonable demands to gain a personal advantage”), I’m interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. Given that he has served in public office for a number of years, do you have any examples of conflicts between what he says and what he does? Personally, I don’t really give two shits if he’s xtian. I care that he supports the separation of religion and government.
I don’t disagree that “sustainably holding wins” is important. I never said it wasn’t. What I said was that flipping the seat is extremely important. Flipping as many seats as possible is critical to We the People’s ability to be in a position to hold the lawless actors in the debacle of our current administration accountable as quickly as possible.
Talarico has an actual chance at taking the seat. Crockett didn’t. As much as I like her as a person and as a lawmaker, the majority of the voting public in Texas would never have elected her as a Senator because she is black, a woman, a Democrat, and what many there would disgustingly consider as “uppity”.
Exactly. Because of the PAC money. Talarico is a safe choice that has broader appeal. The Democrats need fighter after January 2027. Crockett was a fighter and a former prosecutor. Talarico was a pastor…
Again, the democrats bring a happy stick to a gunfight…
And a lawmaker in the Texas House for the last eight years.
I don’t think Talarico is anywhere near perfect. And right now, if it takes PAC money to flip a seat in the U.S. Senate then okay. IMO, it’s FAR more important to get control of this administration out of the hands of the fuck brains who currently have it. Once that’s done, we might have a chance to address things like PACs
Yes it’s the perceived disconnect between electability and what’s needed to facilitate actual change once elected. Talarico is thought to have the former, Crockett had the latter.
The electability question is the crux of it. Dems are eternally tracking to the center out of fear of losing too many conservative votes they’re never going to get anyway, rather than appealing to their actual base, as Crockett did. I have never heard of a conservative yearning to vote for a Dem if they were just a LITTLE bit less commie-pinko, but I run into progressives all the time who can’t hold their nose to vote for down-the-middle focus group candidates but would gladly embrace a fighter like Crockett.
In other words what’s happening as the body politic polarizes is the that GOP has gone all-in on one pole and the Dems have chased an illusory middle ground and should be going for the other pole – the one where, you know, people who vote (and more – canvass, etc for you) exist.
I’d also argue that the reason a lot of independents are so indecisive that they are still making up their minds on election day even when faced with Trump as a choice, has to do with what George Carlin famously talked about – our elections are performative bullshit because nothing ever changes (and, I’d add, unless it’s change for the worse).
As you suggest, absent all the money thrown at Talarico, he would have lost to Crockett, and if they had been equally funded, Talarico would have lost “bigly”.
What we see here IMO is the dynamic that keeps producing mediocre candidates who talk a good game when campaigning and immediately decide that, sadly, in practice nothing can possibly be done once elected since the GOP sabotages everything. These candidates ultimately stand for nothing and fight for nothing and do nothing and we wonder why we can barely eke out an ass-whuppin for Trumpism, extreme though it is.
If by that you mean the combination is particularly bad for a democracy, then I agree.
But if you meant that they are incompatible, I would say that they are a match made in heaven - so to speak. Religious conservatives and political conservatives are one and the same.
Both require a penchant for mythology and delusion. Both promise rewards humans will never realize. Both rely heavily on identity and exceptionalism. They are merely two sides of the same coin.
It depends on your definition of “Christianity”. There is a popular argument out there that “real” Christians believe in things like loving everyone, protecting the disadvantaged / poor / sick, doing good works, ergo, fundamentalists aren’t “real” Christians.
But of course fundamentalists will argue that liberal Christians aren’t “real” Christians because [insert their various absurd arguments here].
I would argue that the intellectual framework that even allows one to take the Bible symbolically / metaphorically / philosophically and to retcon it into something reasonably compatible with modern secular humanism relies, not on the Bible, but on the Enlightenment.
Therefore I’d further argue that “real” Christianity is, in fact, something more like Christian fundamentalism, and it is liberal Christianity that is just putting lipstick on a pig.
Because of this, liberal Christians have to do a lot of heavy lifting to resist the gravitational pull of tribalism, patriarchy and oppressive authoritarian power structures. All fundamentalists have to do is just what humans tend to do naturally when they lead with their reptilian brain.
Indeed in practice, at least in the US, liberal Christians often still participate in various authoritarian / dominance dynamics as they tend to be white elites. It is just dressed up in a surface politeness.
So I would argue that liberal Christians should embrace the Enlightenment as their true source of “spiritual” nourishment and quit thinking that some elevated understanding of blood sacrifice and dominance of the Other is something to cling to.
