What we can and can't learn from the Texas Democratic primary
On the urge to view this race through a "Tea Party of the Left" lens
It would be easy to read too much into the results of just one Senate primary. So let’s get started.
State Rep. James Talarico has likely won the Senate Democratic primary in Texas, edging out Rep. Jasmine Crockett by a handful of points. For many observers, this is evidence of a more moderate Democratic candidate withstanding a challenge from a populist progressive to his left, and perhaps evidence that fears/hopes of a “Tea Party of the left” may be overhyped in 2026.
But as often happens when you look closely at a race, it’s not quite so simple as that, for a number of reasons.
First, as Nate Cohn noted, the candidates’ ideological positions don’t exactly line up as left vs. center. Crockett’s voting patterns are more closely aligned with the House’s Democratic leadership than with the progressive extremes, and a number of progressive groups and leaders weren’t backing her. Talarico’s stances aren’t that different from hers, and he’s definitely to her left on the issue of Israel and Gaza, obviously a hot-button topic in Democratic politics.
Also, the divide among Democrats right now isn’t exactly center vs. left, but is more about tone and approach to politics. Crockett is something of a bomb-thrower. She’s willing to throw some elbows against Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others, and make some off-the-cuff attacks she later recants or revises. Talarico has a much milder style, and speaks more often about winning over moderates and Republicans with a “politics of love.”
There’s also the important fact that neither of them is the incumbent in this race. Insurgencies are generally directed against sitting officeholders, and while both hold district offices, they are running statewide among a population that doesn’t know them that well or hold them responsible for the conditions of the country.
But it’s interesting that the primary has been cast in this insurgency vs. establishment framework at all. In many ways, this contest has been fought on the classic Democratic battleground of electability. And as with most arguments over electability, you don’t have to scratch very hard to find beliefs about race and gender at the core.
Talarico is a white man studying theology; he very loudly professes a deep faith in a version of Christianity we don’t often hear in U.S. politics, one that focuses on Christ’s admonitions to care for the poor and immigrants rather than on rolling back abortion and gay rights. His is a campaign focused on winning over centrist voters, particularly Christians, who might otherwise vote Republican. Stated more cynically, he is a liberal’s idea of what a conservative wants to hear.
Crockett, meanwhile, is a Black woman with a provocative public speaking style. Her campaign seems less focused on winning over moderates and more focused on activating communities of color who might otherwise not vote at all.
Who was the more electable candidate? Who knows? But one thing often lost in such arguments is that the received wisdom about electability is woefully out of date. I refer you to that wonderful recent article by Adam Bonica and Jake Grumbach pointing out that moderates don’t really do better in general elections than leftists do, although that was true years ago. Tacking to the center doesn’t guarantee a higher voter share, especially when voters are more interested, as G. Elliott Morris notes, in strength than in moderation.
We’ll get to see how Talarico’s message holds up against a Republican in a year where Republicans are deeply unpopular but in a state where Democrats almost never win statewide. But we’ll have to wait until the end of May to find out which Republican he’s running against: an incumbent who’s got iffy cred among the Trump crowd or a challenger who is deeply scandal-tainted. And electability concerns may not mean any more on the Republican side than they do on the Democratic one.
I'm positively giddy about the prospect of Paxton and Cornyn wasting colossal amounts of money on nasty attack ads against eachother while Talarico is just doing his thing.
I live in a heavily Democratic part of Dallas. Driving around, I noticed that a street with one Crockett sign usually had two or three others. Then, a few streets over, you'd see a couple of Talaricos and no Crocketts. The demographics in these neighborhoods are virtually identical - young middle and upper-middle class families, with a smattering of old folks like me. The sign distribution most likely reflected which campaigns sent volunteers to the neighborhood first, not a strong preference for either candidate. (I should also add that there weren't very many signs - but you can bet we'll be forested with Talarico signs by November. And every door will be knocked at least once and our inboxes will be flooded with desperate cries for help.)
Personally, I didn't have a strong preference. Trying to decide which candidate would be more "electable" in the general seemed futile - the most electable candidate would be determined by which candidate got the most votes in the primary. And, being old and a political junkie, I no longer have any patience for anyone - right, left or center - who tries to predict what politics will appeal to "swing" voters. Apparently there are a lot of pundits who either don't know what the "pundit's fallacy" is, or think they're somehow immune.