So...Jasmine Crockett seems unwilling to endorse James Talerico, and I have some thoughts on this. As you guys know, I supported Crockett for this specific primary, as I thought her aggressive attitude is what we needed to counter Trump and Trumpism. I also aint necessarily too hot on James Talerico and his very overt Christianity, being a formerly Christian secular humanist. I also aint big on "blue no matter who", as you guys know. I was one of the OG bernie or busters in 2016.
However, let's be frank. I wasn't on board with party unity because of deep philosophical principles, significant policy differences from the democratic party, and the feeling that I was being explicitly mistreated by the democratic party. And I think it's fine, in theory at least, to refuse to endorse a democrat if there are significant sincerely held differences between candidates. I would be more likely to hold my nose in THIS environment, but yeah, I can at least understand an argument for it. And yes, this includes the free palestine kiddies. I might criticize the actual ideas, but if you legit dont fit in the democratic party, or its culture, or accept its ideologies and policies, I can see an argument for it for refusing to endorse an opponent.
However....let's be honest, was there a HUGE difference in policy between the two? I really didnt notice a ton. I liked Crockett better primarily because Talerico's religion was a turnoff and I liked Crockett's confrontational attitude toward Trump. But policy wise? They seemed pretty similar. Progressives seem to like Talerico more for some reason and he's seen as further left, but honestly? I'm not really seeing it. Again, could be my anti religion stance, but yeah. He seemed to frame progressive ideas from a relatively conservative framing and I found it a turnoff.
Of course, this is TEXAS. It's literally THE "Yeehaw" state. I'm not gonna expect a member of the atheist community of Austin to win there any time soon, as based as those guys are in my view. It's a heavily religious state, I can see an argument for a religious candidate who can actually speak that language convincingly to win over Christian voters, and even more so, look at my electoral prediction today, HE CAN WIN! Talerico is actually leading there, and has a 60% shot at taking the seat. IN FRICKING TEXAS! So yeah, endorse that crap. We need to take the senate, the people chose Talerico over Crockett, and honestly, Crockett needs to get over herself. She's acting really petty here. REALLY petty. And over what? What does she offer here that Talerico can't deliver? It isn't much. It was mostly what flavor of center left lane of democrat you want. Do you want white Christian McMorrow or sassy black woman McMorrow? That's what it came down to. Theyre not functionally that much different in practice.
So yeah, I kinda have to condemn Crockett for being such a sore loser. Again, if she offered something, as in, genuinely offered something that Talerico wasnt delivering on, I could see the argument. But she isn't. She's just being petty. So...yeah, Texans, support James Talerico. He's a decent enough candidate for texas, the differences I have with him arent deal breakers, if anything, if I could theoretically vote for this guy, well....so can you. I arguably have greater differences between myself and him than Crockett does, given Crockett is another bog standard middle of the road semi progressive democrat. Do the right thing guys, there's absolutely NO reason for this to be this contentious.
No comments:
Post a Comment