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.
