Talarico is a politician, not an ethicist or philosopher. He's trying to win a campaign, so that action is perfectly appropriate IMO. There will be enough people tearing down Cornyn's history and actions so this won't matter much.
Yes, we should. But Talarico was speaking to supporters of a vanquished rival he hoped to persuade to his side, not to us, and frankly he’s probably going to need a few Cornyn supporters to peel off and vote for him if he wants to win. I completely agree with you Cornyn is a weak, despicable rump swab, but the day after he goes down in flames might not be the day for Talarico to point that out.
Thanks for the reply. I'd push back on one piece though the "wrong day to point it out" framing assumes there's a right day coming. In my read of the last decade, that day never arrives the persuasion window is always now, and the moral accounting always gets deferred to a more convenient moment that doesn't show up. If we can't say it the day Cornyn loses, then we won't say it in October either. The voters Talarico is taking for granted are noticing that pattern?
Again, I think that’s not really Talarico’s job at the moment. It’s also not as if he is the only one who has the capacity to do a moral accounting of John Cornyn’s public career-in fact, that accounting has already started and it is all over the internet. So I am going to cut the man trying hard to win as a blue candidate in a bright red state some slack here.
Totally fine to disagree here. What I'd say is that the frame I'm reading Talarico through isn't really about Talarico. It's about a pattern that the Trump era has made harder to ignore that the political costs of acknowledging certain voters' material conditions gets treated as prohibitive, and thus, those voters get triaged out of the conversation in the name of winning.
That used to happen quietly. What's changed is that the messengers themselves now say out loud, approvingly, that the silence is strategic. I read that shift as a real breakdown in social trust, not a tactical adjustment, and it makes me read individual instances with sharper attention than I used to. Reasonable people can land in different places on whether that's the right read of this particular case.
You can't change the game, unless you are in the game. I have a friend, also progressive that has a case against Talarico because he is a Christian and talks up his faith. Christians as a general rule are right wing culture warriors, but Talarico, based on his statements is not, he appears to be a Matthew 25 Christian.
Many are upset because he defeated Jasmine Crockett. Jasmine is a genuine progressive and carries the banner under which I march, but I am realistic. In a Crockett v. Paxton race who do you think would win? This Texas remember. Talarico will have an uphill climb, but nothing like Crockett.
Question really is: Would you rather have Democrat Talarico as a senator from Texas or Paxton.
Make your choice.
Talarico, by offering his condolences to Cornyn, and graciously at that, just pulled in quite a few Paxton votes.
It was the politic thing to do, and politics is all about winning, and so far we progressives have been losing
Certainly worth a stew...but in the end, those of us who are Texans must choose between Talarico or virtual Trump look and act alike: Paxton. There is no choice in my opinion. If the democratic party loses the next round of elections, I can kiss my 53 years of Social Security savings (that provides a decent living today) goodbye. And at age 71 (?!), go back to work again after 2 full careers...GINA and Talarico for Texas!
What I fear is that the Democratic party could lose (and I am not a Democrat, I don't identify with anything), because there are too many with myopia, tunnel vision, who demand purity and that their candidate pass a purity test.
I look for a 21st Century FDR. A Brahmin, who betrayed his class, and became an champion of the Vaishyas and Shudras
My guess would be Texas Democrats are pretty hungry for any type of statewide win here, and probably any purity tests on Talarico would come from out of (blue) staters or tedious Bluesky types.
what's funny is you can write a whole piece on this and otherwise intelligent ppl like me will not read it b/c we all know it's just a rhetorical stance to get cornyn votes.
Talarico himself is a bit of a mystery at this point...but he does nothing if not remind me of obama.
"Otherwise intelligent people like me will not read it because we all know" is, with respect, the exact disposition the essay is about. Knowing the move is happening and choosing not to examine it also means that it keeps happening. And it is how the move becomes the party's permanent operating logic. The Obama comparison is worth pressing on too here. His coalition worked because he mobilized the base AND peeled some Republicans. The current strategy has dropped the first half and kept the second. That is the essay's argument in one sentence.
The opening is not just that Paxton is vulnerable. It is that Democrats appear to have a serious candidate positioned to take advantage of that vulnerability.
James Talarico is not the kind of Democrat Republicans would most like to run against. He is young, articulate, fluent in the language of faith and public service, and capable of presenting himself as a mainstream Texas alternative rather than a nationalized caricature of the Democratic Party. He may not yet be a household name nationally, but that may be part of the opportunity. He has room to introduce himself to Texas voters on his own terms.
Against Cornyn, that would have been difficult. Cornyn was a conventional conservative incumbent with deep roots, long experience, and broad familiarity across the state. He may not have inspired much passion, but he did not need to. His political strength was not charisma. It was durability.
I watched Talarico on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night, and I would say that I’ve seldom seen a less animated winning candidate. Paxton is hardly a public speaker of Lincoln or Churchill caliber, but Talarico really seemed to be phoning it in. And I also wonder, given the OP article, whether we are looking at a Sinema/Fetterman/Lieberman/Manchin type of Democrat in genesis. Better than Paxton? Assuredly. But whether that becomes an active supporter of an agenda that takes down the lawlessness and corruption of the Trump party and delivers real consequences to those criminals remains to be seen. Also noted, though, is the reality that Talarico may be the more electable Democrat in a place like Texas, and we have to win to change the game.
Talarico is a politician, not an ethicist or philosopher. He's trying to win a campaign, so that action is perfectly appropriate IMO. There will be enough people tearing down Cornyn's history and actions so this won't matter much.
I appreciate this reply! We should hold our politicians to high standards too!
Yes, we should. But Talarico was speaking to supporters of a vanquished rival he hoped to persuade to his side, not to us, and frankly he’s probably going to need a few Cornyn supporters to peel off and vote for him if he wants to win. I completely agree with you Cornyn is a weak, despicable rump swab, but the day after he goes down in flames might not be the day for Talarico to point that out.
Thanks for the reply. I'd push back on one piece though the "wrong day to point it out" framing assumes there's a right day coming. In my read of the last decade, that day never arrives the persuasion window is always now, and the moral accounting always gets deferred to a more convenient moment that doesn't show up. If we can't say it the day Cornyn loses, then we won't say it in October either. The voters Talarico is taking for granted are noticing that pattern?
Again, I think that’s not really Talarico’s job at the moment. It’s also not as if he is the only one who has the capacity to do a moral accounting of John Cornyn’s public career-in fact, that accounting has already started and it is all over the internet. So I am going to cut the man trying hard to win as a blue candidate in a bright red state some slack here.
But, I’m fine with disagreeing on this.
Totally fine to disagree here. What I'd say is that the frame I'm reading Talarico through isn't really about Talarico. It's about a pattern that the Trump era has made harder to ignore that the political costs of acknowledging certain voters' material conditions gets treated as prohibitive, and thus, those voters get triaged out of the conversation in the name of winning.
That used to happen quietly. What's changed is that the messengers themselves now say out loud, approvingly, that the silence is strategic. I read that shift as a real breakdown in social trust, not a tactical adjustment, and it makes me read individual instances with sharper attention than I used to. Reasonable people can land in different places on whether that's the right read of this particular case.
I do agree with you about that in a broad sense. But I don't think you chose a particularly salient example to highlight that here.
You can't change the game, unless you are in the game. I have a friend, also progressive that has a case against Talarico because he is a Christian and talks up his faith. Christians as a general rule are right wing culture warriors, but Talarico, based on his statements is not, he appears to be a Matthew 25 Christian.
Many are upset because he defeated Jasmine Crockett. Jasmine is a genuine progressive and carries the banner under which I march, but I am realistic. In a Crockett v. Paxton race who do you think would win? This Texas remember. Talarico will have an uphill climb, but nothing like Crockett.
Question really is: Would you rather have Democrat Talarico as a senator from Texas or Paxton.
Make your choice.
Talarico, by offering his condolences to Cornyn, and graciously at that, just pulled in quite a few Paxton votes.
It was the politic thing to do, and politics is all about winning, and so far we progressives have been losing
Certainly worth a stew...but in the end, those of us who are Texans must choose between Talarico or virtual Trump look and act alike: Paxton. There is no choice in my opinion. If the democratic party loses the next round of elections, I can kiss my 53 years of Social Security savings (that provides a decent living today) goodbye. And at age 71 (?!), go back to work again after 2 full careers...GINA and Talarico for Texas!
What I fear is that the Democratic party could lose (and I am not a Democrat, I don't identify with anything), because there are too many with myopia, tunnel vision, who demand purity and that their candidate pass a purity test.
I look for a 21st Century FDR. A Brahmin, who betrayed his class, and became an champion of the Vaishyas and Shudras
My guess would be Texas Democrats are pretty hungry for any type of statewide win here, and probably any purity tests on Talarico would come from out of (blue) staters or tedious Bluesky types.
what's funny is you can write a whole piece on this and otherwise intelligent ppl like me will not read it b/c we all know it's just a rhetorical stance to get cornyn votes.
Talarico himself is a bit of a mystery at this point...but he does nothing if not remind me of obama.
"Otherwise intelligent people like me will not read it because we all know" is, with respect, the exact disposition the essay is about. Knowing the move is happening and choosing not to examine it also means that it keeps happening. And it is how the move becomes the party's permanent operating logic. The Obama comparison is worth pressing on too here. His coalition worked because he mobilized the base AND peeled some Republicans. The current strategy has dropped the first half and kept the second. That is the essay's argument in one sentence.
The opening is not just that Paxton is vulnerable. It is that Democrats appear to have a serious candidate positioned to take advantage of that vulnerability.
James Talarico is not the kind of Democrat Republicans would most like to run against. He is young, articulate, fluent in the language of faith and public service, and capable of presenting himself as a mainstream Texas alternative rather than a nationalized caricature of the Democratic Party. He may not yet be a household name nationally, but that may be part of the opportunity. He has room to introduce himself to Texas voters on his own terms.
Against Cornyn, that would have been difficult. Cornyn was a conventional conservative incumbent with deep roots, long experience, and broad familiarity across the state. He may not have inspired much passion, but he did not need to. His political strength was not charisma. It was durability.
Paxton is different.
https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/paxton-win-in-texas-gives-dems-the
Talerico may not have taken AIPAC money... but he did take donations from a white supremist supporter... I see no difference...
I watched Talarico on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night, and I would say that I’ve seldom seen a less animated winning candidate. Paxton is hardly a public speaker of Lincoln or Churchill caliber, but Talarico really seemed to be phoning it in. And I also wonder, given the OP article, whether we are looking at a Sinema/Fetterman/Lieberman/Manchin type of Democrat in genesis. Better than Paxton? Assuredly. But whether that becomes an active supporter of an agenda that takes down the lawlessness and corruption of the Trump party and delivers real consequences to those criminals remains to be seen. Also noted, though, is the reality that Talarico may be the more electable Democrat in a place like Texas, and we have to win to change the game.