I'm relieved that Talarico won. Not because I'm banking on him winning in November, but because I was worried that Crockett's presence on the ballot would drag down Democratic House candidates.
Excellent data on an election that seems not to have been meddled with. However, all polling and data analysis will deflate if the Republicans in Texas or the federal government meddled with the election. They closed down voting places, move them at the last minute, station marines around the outside of all of them, and other shenanigans. If a fair election were held, Democrats will do fine. But these upcoming elections, I fear, will be far from Fair.
>>> "Fourth, an analysis of early vote data suggests the Democratic coalition is starting to look more like Texas itself, bringing in more suburban, rural voters into the coalition."
This is what was exciting to me looking at TX. I happen to think that Democrats are right on a lot of issues, but if the Democrats are only or even mostly a party that appeals to only residents of urban enclaves, they will never get 60 votes in the Senate and they will always face challenges in the electoral college.
I debate a lot with some leftists in my social circle who take up positions like "abolish the senate." Put aside the merits of that for a second, and let's look at what is practical and feasible, let's be pragmatic. Is it easier to (a) find any sort of message that can let you do better in rural counties or (b) institute constitutional reforms that you can't do anyway because you can't win rural counties?
I don't even think Dem's need to *win* in places like West TX and the panhandle. They just need to cut into the Republican party's Saddam Hussein, Putin-esque numbers there.
Republicans don't just need to win rural counties to keep statewide and national power, they need to dunk on Democrats like the Harlem Globe Trotters dunking on the Washington Generals in these counties. These are low population density areas, so to equal or exceed urban voter turnout which favors Dems, Republicans need those 85%+ margins in God's country. If Dem's could even get to a point where they are only losing 60%-40% or 55%-45% in rural counties the world would be their political oyster.
Like I said, I specified my social circle. But I think if you talk to more leftists, someone will eventually say we ought to abolish the Senate. The pragmatic conclusion remains the same regardless of the desired reform. Get more senators first under the current system. Then reform the senate (however desired)
Random reddit posts as examples of "liberals" saying things is...unpersuasive. I'm with Sko....not reasonable Democrat has suggested abolishing the Senate.
>Me: "I debate a lot with some leftists in my social circle who take up positions like 'abolish the senate.'"
If I were to diagram this out -
(1) "I debate" --> as in, I related my own personal experience to you.
(2) "some leftists" --> as in, not all leftists or even many leftists.
(3) "in my social circle" --> as in, again, within the immediate context of people I talk to, and again, not all leftists.
To which Sko replies:
>Sko: "I have never heard a leftist say 'We must abolish the Senate'"
Sko is not really responding to me and what I said. Sko is sharing their own personal experience, i.e., Sko hasn't heard about this idea within Sko's own circles.
Now perhaps I misinterpreted (if so, my bad!) but in case the implication of Sko's comment was that "no leftists" advocate for abolishing the senate, we can spend 2 seconds on google to find some reddit threads of that very topic of conversation. So clearly "some leftists" do advocate for this position, just not the one's Sko is familiar with.
You then respond: > "[no] reasonable Democrat has suggested abolishing the Senate." So, to be clear, you are not exactly responding to me or to Sko, either. We were talking about leftists; you are now talking about "reasonable democrats."
"Leftists" are not necessarily all "reasonable" "democrats", right? Some leftists might be, some leftists might not be.
Appreciate the longer post and you are correct that I didn't respond to your comment.
Anyway, how many of these people do you think know how we would go about "abolishing the Senate" without massive changes to the Constitution? Which could potentially result in other unwanted changes.
So, possible but with caveats on a Talarico win. Sounds reasonable. In an overtly religious, conservative state like TX, James Talarico seems tailor-made for this race. Dems need to put the primary behind them now, and unite, because this will be a truly ugly campaign from the Rs, especially if Paxton wins the run-off. Republicans likely didn't expect to be defending a senate seat in Texas. As a North Carolinian, I'll be glad to see some of the heat diverted away from this state.
I am glad Talarico won; he's a better candidate for the state of Texas, since he's white and a seminary student. I love it when he uses the Bible against MAGA ignoramuses.
I also LOVE Jasmine Crockett and hope she becomes our first female president. My favorite fantasy would watching her take the oath of office while Donald Trump watches the ceremony from his prison cell, foaming at the mouth.
I don't know that she's presidential material but she's definitely part of the promising "young guard" of the Dems that are providing much needed FIGHT against Republican abuses. Braindead politcos like Shumer and Jefferies are useless. It's the progressives like Sanders, AOC, Crocket, Schiff, Rankin that need to drag Dems kicking and screaming into the fight for our republic.
Because she's intelligent, articulate, and unafraid to tell uncomfortable truths. She challenges MAGA liars with brilliant, lawyerly arguments and exposes their weakness and hypocrisy.
No matter which Democrat wins in 2028, we need to return to being a nation that values empirically-derived facts, truth, integrity, the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law. Without those principles, we cannot be a functioning democracy.
Excellent rundown here. One question on the Paxton "penalty" relative to Cornyn--would this probably be from Republicans staying home, Republicans flipping, or independents flipping to Democratic votes? It strikes me the answer would make a difference. The turnover in the Texas electorate is huge, with 1-1.5 million + new registered voters every four years, but the basic structure of Republicans gaining massive margins in all of the non-urban/non-suburban counties (73-75 percent) generates a 750k-1m vote lead. Any weakening of enthusiasm there or narrowing of that gap probably becomes more decisive for Democratic chances.
One additional thought: given the bitterness of the division between Paxton and Cornyn supporters, Which will only be heightened by The intensity of the runoff, it seems there would be reason to believe that strong partisans of either candidate might just stay home in November... As you say, a marginal impact, but in a close race that could be all it takes. I think the Paxton MAGA "true believers", to continuously label Cornyn a "RINO" ( as has Trump) who cooperates with Democrats are particularly good candidates to stay home, one can imagine that mini cornyn voters stay home rather than vote for a Democrat if they can't vote for Paxton. I don't know if there's data that would support this, but I suspect there might be.
This scenario is similar to the 2012 Senate election in WI between Tammy Baldwin and 4x former governor Tommy Thompson. Thompson had a hard-fought primary that divided the party, dirtied the perception of both candidates, and cost a ton of $. Baldwin avoided the name-calling and drama, then put in the work to meet potential voters and educate herself on their issues. She also had more money that Thompson in the stretch (that's perhaps not as relevant to today's world, when there's always a multi-billionaire who wants to buy a Senator with some couch coins).
Great article, really appreciate your data-driven commentary. Two additional points on how close the election in 2018 was are helpful: out of over 8 million votes cast, Democrats came within 7, 000 -point (spread over nine districts ) of taking the State House. And this with a weak candidate for governor... Had either of the Castro Brothers (who famously I hate to take on a race. They're not sure they will win) been willing to run and lose, still helping to stimulate Hispanic turnout, Beto believes he would have won... And so do most other folks who are familiar with the state. Finally, Cruz did something really smart... He may be an awful guy but he's not stupid... He realized that to beat Beto, he had to focus intensely on rural areas and boost turnout, which he did. So the 2.6% margin for Cruz was almost certainly one Democrats could have overcome with either the Castro Brothers running for governor... And even failing that, they'd have taken the state house and had equal control over redistricting. Obviously that enthusiasm faded after 2018, but Donald Trump and Stephen Miller are helping to bring it back.
The Texas Senate election shouldn’t be close. Republicans have embraced the same America First playbook that swept Warren G. Harding into office in 1920 and culminated in the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs: the original America First Policy-Induced Political Extinction Event (PIPEE™). Republicans lost 52 House seats and 8 Senate seats in 1930, then another 101 House seats, 12 Senate seats, and the presidency in 1932. Republicans did not regain Congress until 1946 and the presidency until Ike in 1952.
I'm relieved that Talarico won. Not because I'm banking on him winning in November, but because I was worried that Crockett's presence on the ballot would drag down Democratic House candidates.
It would be extremely funny, and not that surprising, if Trump decided not to endorse Cornyn after all.
There’s a special election for TX state senate on May 2. It will be another data point.
Reminds me of the movie, Red, White, and Royal Blue. Get registered and voting!!!!
The Talarico-Crockett primary is a direct indictment of your previous article that Democrats need an anti-moderate fighter.
Excellent data on an election that seems not to have been meddled with. However, all polling and data analysis will deflate if the Republicans in Texas or the federal government meddled with the election. They closed down voting places, move them at the last minute, station marines around the outside of all of them, and other shenanigans. If a fair election were held, Democrats will do fine. But these upcoming elections, I fear, will be far from Fair.
>>> "Fourth, an analysis of early vote data suggests the Democratic coalition is starting to look more like Texas itself, bringing in more suburban, rural voters into the coalition."
This is what was exciting to me looking at TX. I happen to think that Democrats are right on a lot of issues, but if the Democrats are only or even mostly a party that appeals to only residents of urban enclaves, they will never get 60 votes in the Senate and they will always face challenges in the electoral college.
I debate a lot with some leftists in my social circle who take up positions like "abolish the senate." Put aside the merits of that for a second, and let's look at what is practical and feasible, let's be pragmatic. Is it easier to (a) find any sort of message that can let you do better in rural counties or (b) institute constitutional reforms that you can't do anyway because you can't win rural counties?
I don't even think Dem's need to *win* in places like West TX and the panhandle. They just need to cut into the Republican party's Saddam Hussein, Putin-esque numbers there.
Republicans don't just need to win rural counties to keep statewide and national power, they need to dunk on Democrats like the Harlem Globe Trotters dunking on the Washington Generals in these counties. These are low population density areas, so to equal or exceed urban voter turnout which favors Dems, Republicans need those 85%+ margins in God's country. If Dem's could even get to a point where they are only losing 60%-40% or 55%-45% in rural counties the world would be their political oyster.
I have never heard a leftist say "We must abolish the Senate".
What they are saying is we must abolish the filibuster.
Like I said, I specified my social circle. But I think if you talk to more leftists, someone will eventually say we ought to abolish the Senate. The pragmatic conclusion remains the same regardless of the desired reform. Get more senators first under the current system. Then reform the senate (however desired)
https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialDemocracy/comments/1gechrc/should_we_abolish_the_us_senate/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1n4hcje/what_are_your_thoughts_on_abolishing_the_senate/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ezraklein/comments/1mq84l0/abolish_the_senate_end_the_electoral_college_pack/
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/14a8iy7/should_the_senate_be_abolished_reformed_or_left/
Random reddit posts as examples of "liberals" saying things is...unpersuasive. I'm with Sko....not reasonable Democrat has suggested abolishing the Senate.
As a reminder, this is statement I made:
>Me: "I debate a lot with some leftists in my social circle who take up positions like 'abolish the senate.'"
If I were to diagram this out -
(1) "I debate" --> as in, I related my own personal experience to you.
(2) "some leftists" --> as in, not all leftists or even many leftists.
(3) "in my social circle" --> as in, again, within the immediate context of people I talk to, and again, not all leftists.
To which Sko replies:
>Sko: "I have never heard a leftist say 'We must abolish the Senate'"
Sko is not really responding to me and what I said. Sko is sharing their own personal experience, i.e., Sko hasn't heard about this idea within Sko's own circles.
Now perhaps I misinterpreted (if so, my bad!) but in case the implication of Sko's comment was that "no leftists" advocate for abolishing the senate, we can spend 2 seconds on google to find some reddit threads of that very topic of conversation. So clearly "some leftists" do advocate for this position, just not the one's Sko is familiar with.
As another quick example, here is the Democratic Socialists of America circa 2014 advocating for abolishing the senate: https://www.dsausa.org/blog/abolish_the_senate/.
You then respond: > "[no] reasonable Democrat has suggested abolishing the Senate." So, to be clear, you are not exactly responding to me or to Sko, either. We were talking about leftists; you are now talking about "reasonable democrats."
"Leftists" are not necessarily all "reasonable" "democrats", right? Some leftists might be, some leftists might not be.
Appreciate the longer post and you are correct that I didn't respond to your comment.
Anyway, how many of these people do you think know how we would go about "abolishing the Senate" without massive changes to the Constitution? Which could potentially result in other unwanted changes.
The sample is ridiculously small and anonymous.
So, possible but with caveats on a Talarico win. Sounds reasonable. In an overtly religious, conservative state like TX, James Talarico seems tailor-made for this race. Dems need to put the primary behind them now, and unite, because this will be a truly ugly campaign from the Rs, especially if Paxton wins the run-off. Republicans likely didn't expect to be defending a senate seat in Texas. As a North Carolinian, I'll be glad to see some of the heat diverted away from this state.
I am glad Talarico won; he's a better candidate for the state of Texas, since he's white and a seminary student. I love it when he uses the Bible against MAGA ignoramuses.
I also LOVE Jasmine Crockett and hope she becomes our first female president. My favorite fantasy would watching her take the oath of office while Donald Trump watches the ceremony from his prison cell, foaming at the mouth.
Why do you think Crockett is presidential material? I'm not seeing it. What sort of administration do you see her putting together?
I don't know that she's presidential material but she's definitely part of the promising "young guard" of the Dems that are providing much needed FIGHT against Republican abuses. Braindead politcos like Shumer and Jefferies are useless. It's the progressives like Sanders, AOC, Crocket, Schiff, Rankin that need to drag Dems kicking and screaming into the fight for our republic.
Because she's intelligent, articulate, and unafraid to tell uncomfortable truths. She challenges MAGA liars with brilliant, lawyerly arguments and exposes their weakness and hypocrisy.
No matter which Democrat wins in 2028, we need to return to being a nation that values empirically-derived facts, truth, integrity, the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law. Without those principles, we cannot be a functioning democracy.
Excellent rundown here. One question on the Paxton "penalty" relative to Cornyn--would this probably be from Republicans staying home, Republicans flipping, or independents flipping to Democratic votes? It strikes me the answer would make a difference. The turnover in the Texas electorate is huge, with 1-1.5 million + new registered voters every four years, but the basic structure of Republicans gaining massive margins in all of the non-urban/non-suburban counties (73-75 percent) generates a 750k-1m vote lead. Any weakening of enthusiasm there or narrowing of that gap probably becomes more decisive for Democratic chances.
One additional thought: given the bitterness of the division between Paxton and Cornyn supporters, Which will only be heightened by The intensity of the runoff, it seems there would be reason to believe that strong partisans of either candidate might just stay home in November... As you say, a marginal impact, but in a close race that could be all it takes. I think the Paxton MAGA "true believers", to continuously label Cornyn a "RINO" ( as has Trump) who cooperates with Democrats are particularly good candidates to stay home, one can imagine that mini cornyn voters stay home rather than vote for a Democrat if they can't vote for Paxton. I don't know if there's data that would support this, but I suspect there might be.
This scenario is similar to the 2012 Senate election in WI between Tammy Baldwin and 4x former governor Tommy Thompson. Thompson had a hard-fought primary that divided the party, dirtied the perception of both candidates, and cost a ton of $. Baldwin avoided the name-calling and drama, then put in the work to meet potential voters and educate herself on their issues. She also had more money that Thompson in the stretch (that's perhaps not as relevant to today's world, when there's always a multi-billionaire who wants to buy a Senator with some couch coins).
Great article, really appreciate your data-driven commentary. Two additional points on how close the election in 2018 was are helpful: out of over 8 million votes cast, Democrats came within 7, 000 -point (spread over nine districts ) of taking the State House. And this with a weak candidate for governor... Had either of the Castro Brothers (who famously I hate to take on a race. They're not sure they will win) been willing to run and lose, still helping to stimulate Hispanic turnout, Beto believes he would have won... And so do most other folks who are familiar with the state. Finally, Cruz did something really smart... He may be an awful guy but he's not stupid... He realized that to beat Beto, he had to focus intensely on rural areas and boost turnout, which he did. So the 2.6% margin for Cruz was almost certainly one Democrats could have overcome with either the Castro Brothers running for governor... And even failing that, they'd have taken the state house and had equal control over redistricting. Obviously that enthusiasm faded after 2018, but Donald Trump and Stephen Miller are helping to bring it back.
The Texas Senate election shouldn’t be close. Republicans have embraced the same America First playbook that swept Warren G. Harding into office in 1920 and culminated in the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs: the original America First Policy-Induced Political Extinction Event (PIPEE™). Republicans lost 52 House seats and 8 Senate seats in 1930, then another 101 House seats, 12 Senate seats, and the presidency in 1932. Republicans did not regain Congress until 1946 and the presidency until Ike in 1952.
Elliot- your data driven journalism, your political science background is reaching out to save democracy. I applaud warmly Paul.
Fascinating analysis. Thanks
I hope it's on target.