This is really helpful, Dan, thank you. (I say that as a former Texan-turned Minnesotan. It’s so hard when there are two excellent candidates, and the intra-party fight is damaging. IYKYK.)
Would you please consider making this one available to share without the paywall? It’s a message a lot of candidates & voters need to hear. Thanks for all your good work. 🙏💙
Find some other platform, and tell us all about how to use/share it? (But don't leave this one.) Or start a second substack where folks can get the free option, and only put what you need to there at times?
My guess: Crockett gets the nomination, loses narrowly to Ken Paxton, then she goes on to work for some Democratic PAC or think tank that teaches other Dems how to also lose.
I’ve been watching the Texas race from NJ with increasing frustration. It seems to me that the strategic approach is to back Talarico, whether or not you share his religious faith, but I fear Democrats will instead go for the candidate who makes them feel good in the moment … and then lose. Hope I’m wrong.
Great post, Dan. I hope whoever loses the TX primary puts their ego aside and fully backs the winner. Here in NJ CD-11, we have seen that with all except LaTesha Way, endorsing Analilia Mejia. Mejia is a Democratic Socialist who won the Democratic primary in a moderate, affluent suburban district to replace Mikie Sherrill. Only time will tell who is the bigger enemy: Republicans or each other. 🤞
I think there actually is a good case for mobilization in Texas — Trump’s approval rating among eligible voters in Texas is well, well below his approval rating among 2024 voters. I think if you were to look at Texas-based data as opposed to national data you’d see this clearly (yougov has this data state by state).
But the problem is that Crockett isn’t really running a campaign that is or will mobilize these voters. She’s not taking an organizing approach like Obama did in 08, or Platner is doing in Maine. She’s running a big media campaign that isn’t doing the work on the ground to register voters and maintain engagement with them
I am tired of this notion that seems to underpin so many of these articles that finding and promoting a centrist platform somehow involves compromising one’s principles. Part of the problem is the very word “moderation” what seems to indicate compromise. But politics doesn’t have to be a passive compromise; it can be an active synthesis. Indeed the center is not some wishy washy place to lose your principles - the center is a place where one can go to fight and win. I see Talarico making a principled attempt to listen and to find consensus but I don’t see him compromising his principles.
I think Dan's take on electability is the framing I agree with the most, that the left - right spectrum is outdated and that inside / outside politics matters more. And in 2024 a lot of people who don't pay attention to politics voted for Trump because he was an outsider, vs a left - right sort of thing. So left leaning outsiders could win big in 2026 and 2028 because they're fighting both Republicans and a decaying Democratic leadership.
What bothers me is that there is an entire industry (Searchlight, Ezra Klein, Yglesias, Shor,) whose entire mission is to promote the idea that electability = moderation. These guys go searching for data that already fits their priority, and they're no different than Republican pollsters saying that Trump has a mandate.
Why do the takes of the centrist industrial complex carry more weight than other progressive voices, and why have the Pod Save crew gotten more cozy with this group of insiders?
nomineThe moderation = electability pushers are more dangerous in a lot of ways than most groups affirmatively pushing conservatism. What's worse, they've successfully put out the message that moderation ≠ ideology to liberal politicians and pundits. I've heard over and over on here and elsewhere that people don't vote for ideological reasons, but are seeking a candidate with moderating positions and good message. For a while, I was asking Dan weekly how progressives can alter the median positions of our elected officials. Basically asking: if progressives are being asked to vote for Democrats as the only real "left wing" option, how can we make the deepest blue states the most represtatice of the left. When I didn't hear back crickets, it was responses to other questioners that amounted to, you can't. The moderate Democrat has been the nominee for every election in my memory, and by all the people pushing my governor (Gavin "there is no genocide" Newsom) as the only reasonable choice for the PRIMARY, they seem poised to do it again. It's been settling in that while ive voted in every election I was eligible for, neither parties have ever run a nominee in any state or nation wide race I could affirmatively champion.
Another Texas voter here. One thing not brought up is religion. Talarico makes religion an underpinning of his viewpoint. Crockett, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't. Not saying she isnt religious, just isnt a campaign focus. For Talarico, this has the opportunity to bring in Republicans who profess to be religious but then vote for the likes of Trump and Paxton.
Telarico is using the fact that he is a Presbyterian seminarian as a get to the general election free card. I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state and wince at using one's religious training and beliefs as a reason to be chosen. It seems to advocate that the only candidate who can represent the people best is one who uses religion as a calling card to the higher ambition of politics makes me uncomfortable. Speaker Johnson comes to mind, as do several other politicians in MAGA party who examples of that reasoning. There is the history of politicians who attended seminary. Josef Stalin being the most easily identifiable. Rep. Crockett was gerrymandered out of her district because she was so effective. But, it's Texas, being Black and female is almost an automatic two strikes against her. As Gov Richards said, for women in politics, it's like dancing, she has to do everything that the men do, only backwards and in heels. So one of the two Joans of Arc in the House has a harder battle.
I worry we will see the same fight in MN between Craig and Flanagan. This time they have a real opponent in the ESPN lady. Flanagan has so much Walz baggage by association. I’m hoping they can keep it positive but Flanagan has already made some misleading attacks. At least Klobuchar is a heavy favorite and big fundraiser.
I won’t pretend to understand Texas voters (Ken Paxton, really?!) but I agree that both persuasion and turning out non voters should be the goal of all Democratic candidates across the country.
My opinion is that getting republican voters to vote dem is extremely difficult. Unlike too many democratic voters a large majority will vote R regardless of who is on the ballot.
I think crafting a message that can persuade the ‘never trumpers’, independents/swing voters and to turn out non and new voters is possible considering the ‘affordability crisis’ and the regimes gross cruelty and corruption all go hand in hand. Someone should be able to come up with something that can break through the noise.
Also, the dem infighting has got to stop! We’re running out of time to be able to save what’s left of democracy.
What do you say about Crockett being painted as an AIPAC funded shill for Israel, and pro-genocide? That's what I'm hearing from the leftwing community around me. "Talarico isn't great on Gaza, but he's not bought and sold by AIPAC, like Crockett" is the prevailing notion on the left, imo.
Great article Dan. Right on point. Both candidates would make great Senators. I wish Crockett had not entered the race, as this is exactly what happens, they tear each other down. As I understand it, if Jasmine does not win the primary, then she also loses her seat in Congress next January, because it will be too late to run for her seat in Congress again, apparently the date to commit has passed. That would be a big loss. Hopefully they will come together after the election and beat the republican candidate. I can’t imagine anything more awful than Paxton in the Senate.
She still could have run in her seat.. it was still a Democrat district.. and I believe the district she lives in was also Democrat. She can jump into the senate race too, but gerrymandering didn’t force the situation.
I’m really curious about the effect of negative ads on a candidate’s supporters. I’m in NC04, where there is a similarly contentious primary on March 3, between sitting congresswoman Valerie Foushee & Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam. There’s lots of negative ads on both sides, and I know folks who say “I’m not voting for her because of her negative ads against the other candidate.”
What’s your sense of that, Dan? Do negative ads hurt a candidate’s supporters?
Romantic Progressives look for a lover, Realist Progressives look for a spouse. But either candidate faces non-voters who are Just Not That Into Them. So Texas Dems can take their pick: romantic disappointment or the same old same old. This year President Caligula makes the same old look romantic and were I a Texan that is how I would vote.
This is really helpful, Dan, thank you. (I say that as a former Texan-turned Minnesotan. It’s so hard when there are two excellent candidates, and the intra-party fight is damaging. IYKYK.)
Would you please consider making this one available to share without the paywall? It’s a message a lot of candidates & voters need to hear. Thanks for all your good work. 🙏💙
Here's the link to a version without the pay wall https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/the-texas-primary-electability-and
Thank you!!!!
Agree with Susan. I would love to be able to share this.
I am ttying to do that, but Substack is having a gltch that won't let me do it
Find some other platform, and tell us all about how to use/share it? (But don't leave this one.) Or start a second substack where folks can get the free option, and only put what you need to there at times?
My guess: Crockett gets the nomination, loses narrowly to Ken Paxton, then she goes on to work for some Democratic PAC or think tank that teaches other Dems how to also lose.
LOL. That is one of the funniest things I've read this week. TY!
Thank you, Dan!!! As a Texan, this race has been brutal. You hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph.
I hope we could all let this go after next week and rally around the primary winner. That’s my plan.
I’ve been watching the Texas race from NJ with increasing frustration. It seems to me that the strategic approach is to back Talarico, whether or not you share his religious faith, but I fear Democrats will instead go for the candidate who makes them feel good in the moment … and then lose. Hope I’m wrong.
Great post, Dan. I hope whoever loses the TX primary puts their ego aside and fully backs the winner. Here in NJ CD-11, we have seen that with all except LaTesha Way, endorsing Analilia Mejia. Mejia is a Democratic Socialist who won the Democratic primary in a moderate, affluent suburban district to replace Mikie Sherrill. Only time will tell who is the bigger enemy: Republicans or each other. 🤞
YES. One part of the answer is for our two good candidates to stop going after each other. People are so sick of that too. It helps nothing.
I think there actually is a good case for mobilization in Texas — Trump’s approval rating among eligible voters in Texas is well, well below his approval rating among 2024 voters. I think if you were to look at Texas-based data as opposed to national data you’d see this clearly (yougov has this data state by state).
But the problem is that Crockett isn’t really running a campaign that is or will mobilize these voters. She’s not taking an organizing approach like Obama did in 08, or Platner is doing in Maine. She’s running a big media campaign that isn’t doing the work on the ground to register voters and maintain engagement with them
I am tired of this notion that seems to underpin so many of these articles that finding and promoting a centrist platform somehow involves compromising one’s principles. Part of the problem is the very word “moderation” what seems to indicate compromise. But politics doesn’t have to be a passive compromise; it can be an active synthesis. Indeed the center is not some wishy washy place to lose your principles - the center is a place where one can go to fight and win. I see Talarico making a principled attempt to listen and to find consensus but I don’t see him compromising his principles.
I think Dan's take on electability is the framing I agree with the most, that the left - right spectrum is outdated and that inside / outside politics matters more. And in 2024 a lot of people who don't pay attention to politics voted for Trump because he was an outsider, vs a left - right sort of thing. So left leaning outsiders could win big in 2026 and 2028 because they're fighting both Republicans and a decaying Democratic leadership.
What bothers me is that there is an entire industry (Searchlight, Ezra Klein, Yglesias, Shor,) whose entire mission is to promote the idea that electability = moderation. These guys go searching for data that already fits their priority, and they're no different than Republican pollsters saying that Trump has a mandate.
Why do the takes of the centrist industrial complex carry more weight than other progressive voices, and why have the Pod Save crew gotten more cozy with this group of insiders?
nomineThe moderation = electability pushers are more dangerous in a lot of ways than most groups affirmatively pushing conservatism. What's worse, they've successfully put out the message that moderation ≠ ideology to liberal politicians and pundits. I've heard over and over on here and elsewhere that people don't vote for ideological reasons, but are seeking a candidate with moderating positions and good message. For a while, I was asking Dan weekly how progressives can alter the median positions of our elected officials. Basically asking: if progressives are being asked to vote for Democrats as the only real "left wing" option, how can we make the deepest blue states the most represtatice of the left. When I didn't hear back crickets, it was responses to other questioners that amounted to, you can't. The moderate Democrat has been the nominee for every election in my memory, and by all the people pushing my governor (Gavin "there is no genocide" Newsom) as the only reasonable choice for the PRIMARY, they seem poised to do it again. It's been settling in that while ive voted in every election I was eligible for, neither parties have ever run a nominee in any state or nation wide race I could affirmatively champion.
Another Texas voter here. One thing not brought up is religion. Talarico makes religion an underpinning of his viewpoint. Crockett, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't. Not saying she isnt religious, just isnt a campaign focus. For Talarico, this has the opportunity to bring in Republicans who profess to be religious but then vote for the likes of Trump and Paxton.
Telarico is using the fact that he is a Presbyterian seminarian as a get to the general election free card. I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state and wince at using one's religious training and beliefs as a reason to be chosen. It seems to advocate that the only candidate who can represent the people best is one who uses religion as a calling card to the higher ambition of politics makes me uncomfortable. Speaker Johnson comes to mind, as do several other politicians in MAGA party who examples of that reasoning. There is the history of politicians who attended seminary. Josef Stalin being the most easily identifiable. Rep. Crockett was gerrymandered out of her district because she was so effective. But, it's Texas, being Black and female is almost an automatic two strikes against her. As Gov Richards said, for women in politics, it's like dancing, she has to do everything that the men do, only backwards and in heels. So one of the two Joans of Arc in the House has a harder battle.
The party MUST get behind 100% either one. Whoever wins the primary must get all of our support.
I worry we will see the same fight in MN between Craig and Flanagan. This time they have a real opponent in the ESPN lady. Flanagan has so much Walz baggage by association. I’m hoping they can keep it positive but Flanagan has already made some misleading attacks. At least Klobuchar is a heavy favorite and big fundraiser.
I won’t pretend to understand Texas voters (Ken Paxton, really?!) but I agree that both persuasion and turning out non voters should be the goal of all Democratic candidates across the country.
My opinion is that getting republican voters to vote dem is extremely difficult. Unlike too many democratic voters a large majority will vote R regardless of who is on the ballot.
I think crafting a message that can persuade the ‘never trumpers’, independents/swing voters and to turn out non and new voters is possible considering the ‘affordability crisis’ and the regimes gross cruelty and corruption all go hand in hand. Someone should be able to come up with something that can break through the noise.
Also, the dem infighting has got to stop! We’re running out of time to be able to save what’s left of democracy.
If we can't persuade Trump voters to change their mind we will never win a true governing majority, It's hard, but its necessary
I think Trump is working hard on doing just this, though we have to as well.
I agree and I think they have a golden opportunity to win back swing voters that went for Trump.
What do you say about Crockett being painted as an AIPAC funded shill for Israel, and pro-genocide? That's what I'm hearing from the leftwing community around me. "Talarico isn't great on Gaza, but he's not bought and sold by AIPAC, like Crockett" is the prevailing notion on the left, imo.
Great article Dan. Right on point. Both candidates would make great Senators. I wish Crockett had not entered the race, as this is exactly what happens, they tear each other down. As I understand it, if Jasmine does not win the primary, then she also loses her seat in Congress next January, because it will be too late to run for her seat in Congress again, apparently the date to commit has passed. That would be a big loss. Hopefully they will come together after the election and beat the republican candidate. I can’t imagine anything more awful than Paxton in the Senate.
She was redistricted out.
She still could have run in her seat.. it was still a Democrat district.. and I believe the district she lives in was also Democrat. She can jump into the senate race too, but gerrymandering didn’t force the situation.
I’m really curious about the effect of negative ads on a candidate’s supporters. I’m in NC04, where there is a similarly contentious primary on March 3, between sitting congresswoman Valerie Foushee & Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam. There’s lots of negative ads on both sides, and I know folks who say “I’m not voting for her because of her negative ads against the other candidate.”
What’s your sense of that, Dan? Do negative ads hurt a candidate’s supporters?
Also, care to weigh in on the NC04 race?! (Here’s one article on one negative ad, and honestly, neither candidate looks good in this story: https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2026/02/city-allam-foushee-defamatory-campaign-ad)
Romantic Progressives look for a lover, Realist Progressives look for a spouse. But either candidate faces non-voters who are Just Not That Into Them. So Texas Dems can take their pick: romantic disappointment or the same old same old. This year President Caligula makes the same old look romantic and were I a Texan that is how I would vote.