Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2026, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)
but maybe there are.
I found the take interesting. Basically, his argument is that Talarico and Crockett are essentially the same candidate, other than pigment. And he goes from there to argue that Tararico can't win without bringing in a bunch of MAGA people, but Crockett somehow could win without that? That doesn't really connect.
But I'm not sure that he is completely wrong. If we change the argument a little to say that Talarico doesn't need to win any drop-dead racist MAGA votes, and isn't trying. But Talarico is trying to appeal to thinking non-racist Christians, who tend to be Republican, especially in the plantation states. Indeed, Talarico might be able to get 2% more votes from "Christians who aren't really racists but don't want to vote for a black person or woman because, well, you know, Christianity."
I can give that argument the benefit of the doubt. But his punch line is, (my paraphrase) "If Talarico wins some of this white Christian vote, he will lose more black votes than he gains." That had better not be the case. If so, then either of them would lose the Texas Senate race once again.
I have always been a big admirer of Crockett, even to the point that I think I have a crush on her. But trying to be objective (And I should mention I am an atheist), I believe Talarico is just about as optimal a candidate as we will find to get past the 45-48% barrier we always seem to face in Texas.
= new reply since forum marked as read