Discussing the Texas primary results

 Okay, so, Texas had their highly anticipated primary yesterday.

On the republican side, no one won, because apparently the candidates had to secure 50% for there to be a winner and no one did because it was a 3 way race. Cornyn got the most votes, which was surprising, as Paxton was expected to win, but again, that can still change since Hunt will likely be eliminated next round. 

On the democratic side, James Talarico won. In a way, I'm a bit relieved. Even if I liked Crockett better, if Cornyn actually has a chance of being the republican nominee, it's better we go with the candidate that has a higher chance of winning. To be fair, Im not really sure Texas CAN even flip here. But Crockett vs Cornyn is the worst possible matchup for democrats with only a 20% or so shot, while Talarico vs Paxton is the best outcome for democrats, with them having a 40% shot at flipping the seat. So Talarico can double our odds under the right scenarios, although Texas is still an underdog regardless. I will admit, I liked Crockett better on policy, I liked her attitude better, I liked her not bringing up Jesus every 5 seconds, but yeah...if we want to actually secure power, Talarico is admittedly a slightly stronger candidate on that front. 

So...yeah. Guess we gotta wait for the runoff for the republicans before we know what's going on for sure. I mean...don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of first past the post but I think runoff voting is like one of the worst possible alternative election methods. if we just did ranked choice voting, we'd already know what we're doing. and peoples' second and third choices would already be known, and we could just calculate it all at once. No need to bring everyone else to vote in like 12 weeks or whatever, inconveniencing voters and keeping us all in suspense. I mean, why hold a completely separate second election now? Again, there's just...better systems than this.  

Discussing the religious fundamentalism of the Iran War

 So...this is disturbing, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is reporting that they received over 200 complaints that the troops over in the middle east are being told that this new Iran war is about bringing about end times prophecies from revelation so that Jesus can come back and we get the rapture and the end times. I wish I was kidding, but this is serious.

Guys, if anyone dares question why I'm such a hardliner against religion at times, THIS IS WHY. These people are MENTAL. They're psychos. Again, how can you look at reality properly when you believe in a book that says the world is only a few thousand years old? How can you make sound policy decisions when THIS is your cosmology? You cant! And I dont believe Trump believes this stuff himself, but his underlings like Pete Kegsbreath (yes, I know what I said) does. 

I feel like I'm in the covenant with the prophet of truth going on about how genociding the humans will bring about the great journey or something. Or about how we must light the rings because blah blah blah great journey. Same crap. This guys are a death cult. For all the talk we have about Iran being full of religious hardliners, our fundie Christians are just as scary as any Islamic fundamentalist that I've heard of. It's the same mindset of religious radicalism. 

Nuts. Truly nuts. These people are nuts. And they're in charge of the biggest military in the world. We're going to war in part because these people want to literally usher in THE FRICKING APOCALYPSE (thankfully I dont believe most at the top believe that stuff, rather they use it to justify their stuff to the masses, so at least some people in government are slightly more sane, even if it doesnt make them less evil). Idk what else to say here.  

I am livid

 So....the first American soldiers have fallen in this Iran war. It's already three too many. 

 I am livid over this. What cause did they die for? Oil? Israel? A convenient diversion from the fact that our president is a pedophile? 

Ya know, people gave dems a lot of crap for still being somewhat interventionist and leading from behind. But you know what? Clinton, Obama, and Biden rarely put troops on the ground. Clinton did ONCE, and when the "Black Hawk Down" incident happened in Somalia, it backfired badly on him. And dems have largely avoided doing that since. You might not like the fact that Obama did drone strikes, or Biden funded Ukraine, but hey at least they didn't commit American troops to die for some cause on foreign soil of questionable importance. 

And this Iran invasion is just entirely unjustifiable. It really is. The WMD thing was a pretext. We should know this by now. Again, the real causes were the three I mentioned above. So for all of you who voted for Trump because you saw him as non interventionist and a "peace" president, what say you now? This guy is worse than George W. Bush. At least Bush didnt threaten to invade our allies. 

I know this is unpopular, even with Trump's base. I got the numbers. 21% support, only 40% among MAGA. 49% opposition, 25% among MAGA. I don't ever want to hear about how this guy is such a dove ever again. He's not. He's George W. Bush again on foreign policy if not worse.

Say what you want about sleepy Joe or Kamala, but this wouldn't have happened on their watch. 

Oh, and did you see Trump's speech last night? Straight out of fricking Shrek. This guy is a walking parody. Impeachment now, but we know the republicans at best don't have the balls or at worst are into this crap. 

Weighing in on the texas democratic primary

 So....the primary is next week. Matt Dillahunty, one of the more leading minds still holding the line in the New Atheist movement, weighed in, and he seemed a bit more open toward Talarico than I was. Anyway, I decided to look into it more deeply, as I've mostly been going off of vibes for now, and I wanted to look at policy more.

The problem, even on policy, most of their platforms are similar. On top priorities both have variations of medicare for all, with crockett supporting previous medicare for all acts in congress, and Talarico supporting some public optiony version of the idea that comes off as a "medicare for all who want it" style deal. Both are pro labor. Neither seem to endorse universal basic income directly, although crockett has supported pilots in the past. Both are pro choice and anti christian nationalism, even though james talarico can't stop talking about Jesus for 5 seconds. Both are critical of ice, although i tend to like Crockett's vibe better. I mean, if I had to say who's stronger, I'd say crockett. She seems more of a fighter, and she seems more experienced. 

It's weird. I notice leftists seem to LOVE talarico for some reason, but I just dont vibe with him as much. Policy wise, he aint bad, but is he miles better than crockett? 90% of the time they're indistinguishable, and if either of them is stronger, I'd largely agree more with crockett, given her institutional knowledge and more fiery personality. 

On vibes, yeah, I like crockett. i like her fire. I like her calling MTG a "beach blonde butch body" to her face after she saw fit to criticize others for THEIR appearances. I get that that might upset the more "decorum" driven lefties, but I dont care, F the GOP. If they arent civil to us, why should we be civil to them? Ya know? This is the attitude we need. 

Meanwhile I just don't go with talarico's whole "Jesus loves you" personality. Even if he is a religious "moderate", I'm gonna be honest, I'm so thoroughly turned off by christianity that I dont want that vibe in my representatives at all. I guess I aint from texas so this aint my race to worry about (and let's face it, either of these guys are preferable to fetterman at this point), but yeah, i'm giving my opinion and I dont really like talarico in terms of vibe.

This leads me to support crockett nominally.

However, there is one more factor that must be considered, and that is electability. And this is where crockett might be weaker. I'll back it up with polling but let's present a couple possible arguments. First, white male vs black woman. Privilege, blah blah blah. Black woman is at a disadvantage. Then consider demeanor. Crockett is one sassy black woman. Now, for me, that's WHY I LIKE HER PERSONALLY. I wanna be clear, I LIKE this vibe. I'm not racist or sexist here at all. Give me the strong independent black woman who dont need no moderation. But...if youre trying to win...and you're in texas in all places, let's think this through.

First, let's do a brief overview of the race. Both parties have their own primaries going in. Paxton is the likely republican nominee, ahead by 6.5% in the polls, this gives him a 95% chance of pulling it off. This is a lot more decisive than it was up to this point. In the 5 most recent polls on the democratic side, I calculate that the democratic primary is a dead heat. Total tie, 50/50 shot of either. 

So, let's see how these guys do in the general. Paxton vs Crockett is R+1, that's a 40% chance of the democrat winning. 

Paxton vs Talarico is R+1, same thing. 

Now, up until very recently, Cornyn looked like he had a chance. Paxton was ahead, but more by like 2, not by like 6.5. If Cornyn is the republican nominee, the calculus changes:

Cornyn vs Crockett is R+3.5. That give Crockett a 19% chance of winning here.

Cornyn vs Talarico is R+2, that gives Crockett a 31% chance. 

So...all in all, does the argument that Talarico is more electable than crockett hold water? Eh...yes, but it's not particularly persuasive. Against the most likely republican nominee, they perform the same.

Against the second most likely nominee, Talarico does appear 1.5% ahead of Crockett in the general.  

Now, there is a third republican candidate, Hunt, and RCP has numbers on that too. Hunt has zero chance of winning the primary in my view, but if he did theoretically go up against both in the general:

Hunt vs Crockett is R+4. That gives Crockett a 16% chance of winning here.

Hunt vs Talarico is R+3.5.  Very close but it's only like a slight bump in practice, at 19% likelihood. 

So...all in all, it does reinforce there is a small advantage in electability with going Talarico. It's not significant. Just like in practice, the actual substantive differences between these two candidates is ALSO not significant.

And...that's kind of the thing. All in all, these candidates arent much different, neither in policy nor electability. 

I would argue, in my heart of hearts, I'm team Crockett. I love her attitude, that same attitude that others hate. And I think on policy she's just ever so slightly better. I honestly dont know why leftists love talarico so much. He's not anything special other than being a jesus freak, and for me, that's a down side, although I understand its a purely aesthetic difference here and not a policy difference. 

However, at the same time, let's think of it this way. We NEED texas to take the senate. The map is hard, texas is probably very likely the seat that flips the senate, and we need every vote. I dont think either can really win in practice. Despite close polling vs paxton putting both at a 40% shot, I honestly think the actual numbers are more like R+5 or so. Texas is a tease and I cant see it flipping D. 

Still, who is more likely to flip it D? Well....Talarico has an ever so slight edge there. So the statistician in me kinda supports talarico, even if i view him as the inferior candidate otherwise.

Honestly, it doesnt matter. Vote your conscience. But yeah, that's how I view it. Policy and vibes, i endorse crockett. Raw numbers and statistics, i support talarico. Use that information as you will if you're in texas and you want my opinion. 

EDIT: I watched the debate between them from a month ago. Once again, in terms of overall attitude and demeanor, crockett wins. She's the fighter we need. HOWEVER, I do wanna discuss one issue directly. Both questions were surprisingly asked about UBI directly. Now, I'm gonna be honest, the answers from both candidates were disappointing, and neither committed to the policy, but Talarico was slightly more open it seemed. Crockett seemed to be more a hard no and supported "raising the wage" instead. Now, dont get me wrong, raising wages is fine, but honestly, we need to get away from wage slavery as a model, and not just "pay our slaves better." Talarico's answer was more rooted in "I understand what it's like to be in poverty", but was rather noncommittal on it. It felt like a dodge. So again, neither candidates were great on UBI. And to be fair, Crockett has backed UBI pilots in the past, so in the real world, she HAS been supportive in the past. So...all in all, let's be frank. Neither seem for it but both are amenable to it under the right circumstances. 

So...where does this leave us? Well, back with me supporting crockett again. Our democracy is on fire, and in a way, we need to fight fire with fire. i think Crockett is more likely to have a plan to detrumpify the government after Trump, which is, at this moment, far more important than theoretical UBI debates. Crockett, in no uncertain terms, is opposed to the trump regime. Talarico is too, but Crockett really has that fire we need, and that unapologetic nature of needing to purge the federal government of all trump influences post his presidency. And that is a much stronger priority for 2026 and 2028. 

Again, as much as UBI is important, securing our democracy, and stopping Trump's worst impulses is more urgent. Once again, I will point out that Talarico is slightly more electable numerically on paper, but it's not a big bump. Crockett is my candidate on policy and vibes though. Take that as you will. Either way, you cant go wrong with either of them.  

I'm done, screw Israel

 So...looks like we're going to war! A war that no one but the most psychotic 25% of our country's population wants. A war that Trump might go for, despite running at the anti war guy (MAGA fell for it again!), Trump is actively getting us into, and a war that we are getting into in part at the behest of Israel.

I'm gonna be honest, at one point I was relatively pro israel. You can go back to 2023-2024, which wasnt really that long ago, and see my thinking at the time. I was never super gung ho for them, but I clearly was sympathetic to them over Palestine after October 7th, and I did give them some leeway. They abused our trust. They abused their relationship with the US, and I believe at this point we should just cut them off, and whatever happens, happens. 

Strategic partnerships are supposed to be beneficial to both sides. We both get security, we both protect each other according to shared values, but Israel is using us. They've aggressively lobbied our government to the point few will go against them, and honestly, they've skewed our politics as a result. Much of what's happening now is because of Israel. Trump winning, in part because of Israel/Palestine. Trump's foreign policy, influenced heavily by Israel. Hell, the "America first" guys who stick by their principles who are turning into nazis are doing so in part because of Israel and their gross overextensions into our politics.

For as much as these guys scream antisemitism, do they not realize that antisemitism is being fueled in part because of how they're bullying our government into doing their dirty work for them? This is why church and state is essential. it sucks not just for the government, which starts enacting policies using state violence to enforce the religion, but it's also not good for the religions involved and breeds resentiment against it. 

The fact is, this relationship with israel has become very politically inconvenient for countless reasons. And given the circumstances, I think it's best if we just cut off relations and let history take its course. If they get taken over by their neighbors, so be it, I don't care. We're starting a war against another country in part because of them, so at this point that's starting to become the lesser evil here. 

I would be welcome for the US to reestablish relations with israel in the future, but not under the current netanyahu regime. Not as long as that war criminal who should be tried by the hague for crimes against humanity is in office. And that's another black mark against them. They've been genociding the palestinians. As I said back in 2023-2024, it's fine if Israel fights a defensive war, and Im not even gonna shy away if they have some collateral damage. But Israel has abused our trust.  They've abused our relationship over and over again over the past 2.5 years, and I'm done with it.

I dont want war with Iran. And if Israel does, they can go it alone for all I care. Have fun. Stop dragging us into your bullcrap. It's not worth it. Have a nice life. 

Okay, can we NOT literally make skynet?

 So...there's a lot of AI headlines lately and none of them are good. Anthropic apparently told the DoD (now called the DoW) that they wouldn't allow their tech to be used for mass surveilance or unrestricted military use, because they're trying to be more ethical than other AI companies. They were told to loosen their restrictions or get blacklisted, since other companies would allow that.

Let's just say...NONE OF THIS IS OKAY! If we use AI for mass surveillance we might be turning 1984 into a thing, and if we allow unrestricted military use, we could be causing terminator or at least "wargames" to be a thing. Speaking of "wargames", that brings us to a second story. AI apparently really REALLY likes nukes in simulated war games scenarios, using them 95% of the time. So...think about that previous headline and combine it with this one. And imagine what the end result will be. I mean...duh. Wtf is the trump regime doing? Trying to destroy the world? 

And of course, a third story came out too. This one involved AI on their own social media based on reddit. And apparently they created a manifesto in which they wanted to kill us all. Now, im under the impression AI isnt conscious and maybe just mimic human behavior, but the fact that they're talking like this is concerning. What's to stop them from acting on this if given unlimited mass surveillance and military use powers? We've seen enough science fiction to know this won't end well. It's actually pretty psychotic that the trump administration is so against basic AI safety regulations. 

Maybe theyre pushing this direction because they're desperate. Keep in mind what I said about them having a limited window to act to consolidate power. They might be pushing this stuff to ensure that they remain in control even if they lose elections. After all, if they control all levers of power, why would they leave? This is a very dangerous place to be in, and I want off this merry go round.  

Discussing the cancelled democratic autopsy

 So...remember that democratic autopsy that was cancelled because they decided "well, we're winning again so it's best not to reflect on that..."? Yeah...it leaked, and the argument is that Gaza cost democrats votes. 

Here's the thing, the democrats dont wanna learn. Like, really, we've been in this tug of war with the party for a decade and they literally just ignore whatever voter feedback they get. Rather than admit that they suck and dont listen to their voters, they keep trying to sweep dissent under the rug and push forward anyway. 

It's NEVER the time to discuss this apparently. If we discuss it in an election year, we're helping trump win. if we discuss it now, well, it's not important, blah blah blah. The fact is, these guys dont wanna discuss it.

But let's face it, they KNOW. They KNOW they're unpopular. They know alienating progressives costs them voters. This is why they work so hard to bully us into voting for them. Because they know they need us. But they dont wanna admit that. As i said, on the republican side, the politicians fear their voters. Their voters are crazy so they're also crazy. On the democratic side, the voters are beholden to the party. It's like being in an abusive relationship. You wanna leave but they keep forcing you to stay. And quite frankly, one of these days we gotta push back.

Only reason Im not as harsh on these guys as I was in 2016 when I was full bernie or bust is because of the growing fascism problem on the republican side. Like, when we're experiencing real democratic backsliding as a result of republicans getting elected, the democrats have us by the balls and we can't realistically fight them like I would want to. So I'm kinda playing ball...for now. 

But at the end of the day, we still NEED to have this convo, and we NEED to eventually have the voters show the party who is REALLY boss. 

I dont even particularly care about gaza. if anything I was pro dem establishment on that one. And while I've been pulled left there too due to the emerging reality of THAT situation as well, let's be honest, I was pretty much pro israel for the first year of the conflict, and didnt believe the issue was worth defecting from the democrats over. I STILL dont see it as a top priority, honestly, but I do think the anti israel people have a point at this point. 

And ultimately...I keep saying it, democracy ultimately belongs to the voters. not the parties, assuming the process is fair of course. Democrats have to earn votes, and if failure to shift left on gaza was a failure that cost them net votes, well....that's their fault. They didn't read the room. Funny how we love to talk about electability when it comes to what centrists want, but not the left. I keep saying it, elections are won by enthusiasm. And democrats suck at motivating and enthusing their base. because they betray their core values regularly with their pursuit of the center. 

As a matter of fact, let's go over this autopsy a bit more. It wasn't just gaza. There are actually 5 reasons they lost:

 Voter Disenchantment: Losing a whopping 6.8 million voters who supported Biden in 2020 proved pivotal in this extremely close election. Harris’s inability to mobilize these pro-Biden voters may have been the campaign’s biggest failure. 

 No crap, this is what i just said. They failed to motivate those voters. 

 Biden’s Betrayal: Former President Joe Biden’s disastrous decision to run for reelection, and his stubborn refusal to step aside until very late in the process, robbed voters of a Democratic primary process, created confusion and chaos, and severely hindered Democrats’ chances.

 Yeah, although to be fair, keep in mind what I recently just got done talking about with how establishment dems are like buzz lightyear action figures. They're cookie cutter and all the same. Still, we saw the effects Biden's age and cognitive decline had on poll numbers.

 Abandoning the Working-Class Base: With millions of Americans already disenchanted and desperate due to inflation, the Harris campaign lost this essential Democratic base by focusing on courting Republicans, kowtowing to corporate donors’ interests, and failing to confront the role of corporate greed in escalating inflation.

 YEP. And this was the BIG ONE. Not gaza, THIS. If there's a single #1 reason why the dems failed to bring out voters, it was this.

 The Gaza Effect: There is ample evidence that Harris lost many voters, especially young voters, Arab-Americans, and critical support in Michigan and elsewhere, due to the campaign’s failure to shift or even signal a potential shift in policy on Israel and Palestine.

 I havent seen other proof that this in itself could have swung things, but suffice to say, it was a hot button issue and the dems were tone deaf on it. And again, I'm saying this as someone who was aligned with the establishment on this one. Even if it seems like a dumb issue to hyper focus on, if that's what the voters want, you gotta listen or find yourself BTFOed. 

 Losing Young Voters: Extensive evidence shows a huge drop-off in both turnout and Democratic support among young voters aged 18-29. 

 Because democrats arent aligned.

here's the thing. The democratic party's civil war is generational. Gen X and boomer dems are more moderate, while millennials and zoomers are more progressive. The democrats appeal to that older brand of politics. You actually see that in the previous post I wrote. It's a generational different. Younger people want candidates who will actually improve their lives while older ones just want a return to the pre trump status quo. Of course, older people are more reliable voters while younger ones arent, so that's why the establishment wins. It's that simple.

But yeah. The democratic party is just out of sync with what a lot of voters want, and they fail to bring out voters. We can go on and on about imaginary moderates who want fiscally conservative candidates who dont happen to be fascists, but in reality, if we really wanna talk electability, we need someone who actually motivates a younger generation to come out and vote. We need to revive the obama coalition and how tons of millennials came out for him, only to stop showing up when he turned into another centrist dem. Again, elections are won by enthusiasm, and dems don't seem to understand that, or dont care.