- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
James Talarico won the Democratic nomination for a US Senate seat in Texas on Tuesday, capping a remarkable rise from state lawmaker and seminary student to the party’s standard-bearer in one of the key races of the 2026 midterm cycle.
With his blend of faith-based populism, bipartisan appeal and generational energy, Talarico defeated Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, a firebrand beloved by the party’s base but who struggled to dispel concerns that she could defeat a Republican in a state that has not elected a Democrat statewide in more than 30 years.
A jubilant Talarico told supporters in Austin before the race was called: “We are not just trying to win an election. We are trying to fundamentally change our politics. And it’s working.”
You must log in or # to comment.
I actually really like everything I’ve seen out of Talarico. Hopefully he can give Christians an off ramp from Christian Nationalism, MAGA and the Republican party.
Hope he can turn Texas blue
Me to. I didn’t vote but, if I were. I would have voted for him.
Another Christian rises to the top. Ugh.
So you blindly think every Christian is bad?
no, 1/2 are bad the other 1/2 are deluded and many both, all believing in “teapots”. What sort of critical thinking can someone that easily deluded bring to the world in these troubled times ?
They might be “decent” (benefit of the doubt) despite being religious but that’s only one criteria needed in a representative.
yes.
I blindly think anyone the FCC tries to cancel is good
Just like they probably think every gun owner is bad, and every SUV / pickup owner, and every business owner, and every landlord, and pretty soon you’ve alienates all your potential allies and the Republicans win again :(
I hope that I am wrong about this, but I am not optimistic about Talarico.
He said all the right things to position himself as not just a progressive candidate, but as a christian candidate. White, male, middle aged, handsome, well spoken, seemingly levelheaded, and gives off strong Mr. Rogers vibes. Those things make him comparatively more palatable than most other democratic candidates, especially in Texas.
However, the democrats have had more than a handful of bad actors and turncoats in recent years. Candidates that talk the blue talk and walk the blue walk, but once they take office they quickly turn face. Sinema, Fetterman, Gillibrand, Robin Webb; not an exhaustive list of democrats that turned their backs to the rhetoric and policies that got them elected, but their the ones that spring to my mind first. Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi, and a host of others could be rightly accused of actively aiding the republican-led undermining of the rule of law (and civil rights) while in office.
The Streisand effect has a long history of backfiring on public officials, so much so that it’s not too far of a stretch to wonder if the administration banked on the FCC debacle to elevate Talarico. To be clear, I’m not entirely pessimistic about Talarico; I want to believe that there are still good people who want to get into public service for the right reasons. I’m just not optimistic because he’s almost too good. Running a sleeper candidate against one of the stronger progressive voices in congress (who frequently and loudly called out the GOP’s bullshit) is exactly the kind of thing that the far-right think tanks would do.
Appearances can be deceiving. From what I’ve read, Talarico seems the more progressive of the two. If he wins, we’ll find out–the system is entrenched and hard to buck for anyone, until enough more progressive members are there to form a coalition with some power.
But I have no doubt that no matter what, he’ll be vastly better than if the R wins. I’m much more worried about Platner turning out to be a Fetterman/Sinema than I am about Talarico.
However, the democrats have had more than a handful of bad actors and turncoats in recent years.
If you were worried about a turncoat, I’d argue Crockett had much worse vibes. Israeli apologist, surveillance state supporter, pretty cynical in her position on immigration, and deeply self-promotional in a Stacey Abrahams way.
Also, her UAF fixation is… not great.
Talarico has his problems (took a big chunk of cash from the casino industry, for instance). But his politics at least seems more populist.
Idk if that’s going to matter. Odds of winning a statewide office in Texas as a Democrat have been dogshit for thirty years.
But if I’ve got to live with a mushy liberal Dem as a Texas senator, I’m happier with him than the alternative.
More dems voted in the primary than republicans. Beto lost to Cruz by only like 2 points or something as well. I’m cautiously optimistic
Honest question but why would taking casino money be a problem. Unless you’re a religious nut with a gambling addiction it’s not really a bad thing. Lots of jobs associated with casinos that will explode the local economy.
why would taking casino money be a problem
Cause the casino was Miriam Adelson’s, and she’s one of Trump’s biggest backers.
That’s really bad. Any Israel connection is going to drive his chances way down. Especially if that ghoul Addleson is involved
Crockett took Israeli blood money so fuck her.
ITT: neoliberal shits trying hard to drive a false narrative cause they are terrified progressive candidates are coming for them. You should be. We are gonna throw you corporate slaves out.
Anyone who thinks Talarico won’t align with the neoliberal shits the moment he steps into office is either very naive or very foolish. His state voting record says he’s more than happy to play ball with the Libs.
That said, way better than a Paxton or Cornyn. I’ll take the liberal Christian over the Christian Fascist any day.
We are gonna throw you corporate slaves out.
Blue MAGA has no place in the future DNC and this scares the shit out of them. White, middle class, “as long as its the Dems doing it, its fine” voters have had their identity catered to for the ENTIRETY of the modern manifestation of the Democratic party.
That period is coming to an end.
The false narrative being that Crockett took AIPAC money? What makes you feel that narrative is false?
I’m about 100% sure you’re reading that comment wrong. Considering Crockett was the more neoliberal candidate and was supported by the corporate DNC. The more progressive candidate who spoke out against corporate money and wants to go after billionaires won.
Ah ok, yeah I definitely misunderstood the comment. Thanks
deleted by creator
I inherently distrust anyone religious, but it’s not really up to me and he seems like a very reasonable pick for Texas. Plus, y’all actually got a real primary! That’s rare!
With the comments talking about Crockett taking the same mistakes as Harris, it reminded me of when Harris, a DA at the time, ran for Senate here in CA. We didn’t really get serious opposition in that primary, even though the next highest was the house member (?) representing Santa Ana. She… uh… dabbed during a debate. It was a desperate move in a race drowning in money and favoritism for Harris. Harris won the primary by like, 30+ points iirc.
Now things don’t look like they can simply be bought as easily like that. People are paying attention and are rightfully pissed off at the DNC, AIPAC and the rest.
deleted by creator
Guy who is definitely going to scam you: “Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt!”
Really? You can’t think of anyone that you should inherently distrust? I can! Cops, CEOs, hedge fund owners, stock brokers, self-help gurus, anyone trying to sell you something, insurance agents, bankers, billionaires, Nazis, religious zealots, politicians… I can think of at least a couple more groups that should be inherently distrusted. If your group spends its existence abusing others- I will discriminate against and distrust you inherently.
The other good news is that Cornyn and Paxton are headed to a runoff, so they can beat the shit out of each other while Talarico campaigns for the general.
Looks like that situation might change. Apparently trump has been “truthing” that he’s going to endorse one of them and ask the other to step down instead of letting it go to a runoff, and obviously his choice is going to be Paxton. You know, just normal democracy things where the king picks the winner instead of the people.
Hopefully the fact that the republican party impeached Paxton will help turn people away from voting for him. He also famously committed fraud while in office. Even if they don’t vote for Talarico, less voters for Paxton is a good thing.
AIPAC money and a Harris endorsement appears to have obliterated an 18 point polling lead. That’s crazy to think about.
obliterated an 18 point polling lead
Gotta wonder whether that lead ever existed. YouGov flip-flopped on Crockett the minute polls actually opened
I wrote about this yesterday. Harris and Schumer, and possibly Jefferies, all seem to have the mierdas touch.
The Colbert fiasco with the FCC trying to silence Talarico really did a number here.
Love that Trump still manages to fuck things up for himself.
The Colbert fiasco with the FCC trying to silence Talarico really did a number here.
and also, because the OG situation:
I can’t tell if that’s Barbara Streisand or Jennifer Aniston.
They basically handed him the primary via Streisand Effect.
Colbert worked the refs brilliantly
That’s the most sane thing in America politics for a while lol. It’s crazy that she couldn’t predict that it would happen.
Harris is running for Pres again in 2028, she has learned nothing, and we will all suffer the cost.
As long as we get a primary, she won’t make it past that
Primaries are meaningless when it comes to presidential candidates. The courts have ruled that the political parties are under no obligations to respect those results.
The 2016 and 2024 DNC actions certainly proved that.
She didn’t make it to the primary even before she was a certified failure.
It was frustrating to see Jasmine Crockett make the same mistakes as Kamala Harris in her campaign. Lots of “not that guy” and very little “why me”. Not once did I ever hear about Crockett’s policies in this entire election cycle. In contrast, every video of Talarico out there is him spitting bars about the same policies he has been fighting for for years.
Anyway, the battle is still ahead of us.
Crockett is great at the “sick burn” politics. Great for people who subscribe to RawStory for all their news, and I’d have been happy enough to vote for her, but Talarico seems to be more substantive and let’s be honest, a white guy vs black woman in Texas is a bit more of a challenge.
Yeah, I couldn’t name a single policy position of hers other than her notable support for Zionism.
Yeah, I couldn’t name a single policy position of hers other than her notable support for Zionism.
She didn’t really have any. Afaict, most of the people who seem to support Crockett was primarily because of her appearance as a fighter. But if you paid attention to Crockett, it was always windows dressing criticism. Criticism about style without being critical of the content.
From supporters of hers I hear that she will fight Trump. Which I tend to follow up with, so what will she do once Trump is no longer in office. It’s clear very few seem to be thinking that far.
Yeah she had this clap back thing going on, but when you look at her actual responses, its all style commentary. Her policy positions show her to be pro-Israel in the same ways as Trump. Carte-blanche effectively.
As an aside, here is the candidate who just took her seat (this was from October 8th 2023):
And its an extremely safe blue seat, thanks to dummy-mandering.
I’d call that an upgrade.
Particularly bad time to be a Zionist in US politics I would think. And after the oil price shock has had a chance to fuck the rural US squarely in the keister, it’ll be even less.
AI bros running their datacenters on LNG not thinking about how cutting off a quarter of the world’s supply might affect their costs…
Jasmine Crockett make the same mistakes as Kamala Harris in her campaign.
Also, the zionism.
They said “the same mistakes”
Was omega bummed to see her on AIPAC Tracker too
A significant number of voters vote against someone, not for anyone.
Well we have two Trump victories that say not a significant enough number of voters. The nice thing is that you can still not be the other guy while giving a “why me”.
Not once did I ever hear about Crockett’s policies in this entire election cycle
I did, and they were consistently dogshit
I love Jasmine Crockett but infuriatingly, a white man that talks frequently about his Christian faith is much more likely to win a senate seat in Texas.
Tbf he’s Presbyterian, the same church as Mr Rogers, and by this atheist’s view, the only genuinely honest Christian sect as a whole. They focus heavily on Christ’s teaching on community, believe in the charitable service of others as the devine will of god, and they don’t prostilitize or require tithes. That’s not to say bad people can’t be apart of any faith, but as he’s a minister of that church (like Mr Rogers) I’m inclined to think he’s honest about those core beliefs and not just riding the good name of the church like other politicians have.
Ultimately none of that really matters. He’s on record more progressive than Crockett, and unlike her, did not take AIPAC money. That should be a deal breaker for any voter I don’t care what party, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
Presbyterians, ELCA Lutherans, and United Methodists coalition together. Just FWIW. They have different theologies but very similar approaches to what ultimately matters out in the world: ethics
the only genuinely honest Christian sect as a whole.
Are you not counting unitarians? Because hands down they’re the best denomination. Only ones I see consistently waving rainbow flags and free Palestine banners.
Unitarian is not Christian. There are a lot of disaffected Christians at your local Unitarian church, but they welcome all religions as well as atheists.
Most Quakers seem chill, but maybe I’m overlooking some shitty views they may hold?
Yeah, they’re pretty good too, but don’t really see that many of there churches these days.
Also your username is dumb and unoriginal. You aren’t fooling anyone Rick.
Get off my lawn, kid
A white man who in 2026 has the political sense to say “Gaza is a genocide and that’s a simple moral question,” while Crockett took AIPAC money and voted to continue funding Israel.
My problem with Crockett was that she took corporate PAC money. Talerico ran on not taking corporate PAC money.
I don’t think Talerico is nearly progressive enough, with the main issue I found being that he supports a public option over universal healthcare, which will ultimately leave insurance corporations in charge. I do hope that, if elected, he could be convinced to pivot further left and that he will continue to not take corporate money, but at this point, I’ll believe it when I see it.
I also like Crockett, but to be fair I haven’t seen much about Talerico I don’t like beyond his Christianity. To be fair in that regard he at least talks the talk of a genuine Christian, rather than the hate mongering bigotry you normally see.
Remember that Crockett took a $25k paid trip to Israel by an AIPAC affiliate. Also Talarico’s messaging blows hers out of the water with independents and moderate Republicans, and yet still manages to put him closer to AOC in attacking billionaires.
Agreed. If Crockett had more leftist ideals and political substance, she’d be a member of the squad. That is not what she is tho. I hope she stays fighting as a Rep and is supportive of initiatives coming from the left wing of the party.
And also of separation of church and state.
His faith-based takedown of the bill to put up donated ten commandments posters in classrooms was pretty great.
This is one of the things that gives me the most hope for him as a candidate. He is (imo) a great public example of how to a person of faith in politics. I think setting this example will have a large impact on US politics as a whole. I think there are a ton of Christians that would break with Trump in a heartbeat given the choice between a Talarico and a Christian nationalist (as unfortunate as that scenario is).
The good news is that Crockett will remain in Congress where she has been a very effective critic of MAGA. I’m sorry she probably won’t be able to move beyond that position, but that’s the consequences of being a black woman politician in Texas. She’s lucky to be in that office at all.
AOC, OTOH, has a good chance of taking Schmuck Schumer’s or BackStabbing Gillibrand’s seats, and I wish she’d get to doing it. Those two have to go, especially Schmuckie-Boy.
Alexandria has bigger things in store for her i hope. But someone needs to send Schumer to his retirement home in Tel Aviv for sure
I thought that part of the reason she was running for senate was that her district had been gerrymandered out of existence - if so, she will only be in the house until January.
Def not, her district is barely changing and is heavily Democratic. You can compare the old and new boundaries on the map here
From that exact page:
“Redistricted to the 33rd district but choosing to retire to run for U.S. Senate.”
I like her and it’s clear her messaging is orchestrated to appeal to those of us who hate maga and the rapist in chief BUT she’s an ardent AIPAC shill. Fuck every single AIPAC backed candidate regardless of party. Fuck them all.
This right here.
This map convinces me of that. Even amongst the people voting in a dem primary, the rural people preferred the white church boy. Crockett is more qualified, but Talarico has a better chance of actually winning.
Fortunately, they were both good candidates.
What you see on this map is the Hispanic population overwhelmingly supporting Talarico over Crockett, and vice versa for the black population. This bodes well for a general election, given Texas is 40% Hispanic.
Crockett is more qualified,
Because she has 3 whole years in the House…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Crockett
And Tarico only has checks notes 8 years of experience in House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Talarico
But it’s not just that, he’s religious and the grandson a Christian church leader! Not like Crockett who…
Is religious and the daughter of a Christian church leader…
Well, she only takes some money from corporate PACS, and he takes… Well, he takes none, but…
The only thing Crockett has more experience in, is losing elections.
The only one she won, was because crypto bros bought it for her and the incumbent heavily supported her.
On November 20, 2021, incumbent representative Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas’s 30th congressional district announced she would not seek reelection in 2022.[24] Four days later, Crockett declared her candidacy for the seat. Johnson simultaneously announced that she was backing Crockett.[25][26]
Crockett also received extensive financial support from Super PACs aligned with the cryptocurrency industry, with Sam Bankman-Fried’s Protect Our Future PAC giving $1 million in support of her campaign.[27]
There’s no logical reason for everyone to have such high options of her, except you all fell for billionaire and Republican propaganda
Can you give me a logical defense of:
Crockett is more qualified,
Because I legitimately never understood her “rise”.
Can you give me a logical defense of:
Crockett is more qualified,
Crockett has 3 yrs in the Texas House and 3 years in the US House.
Talarico’s 8 yrs have been solely in the Texas House.
I think most people weight national legislative experience significantly higher than state legislative experience.
Plus Crockett has a demonstrated track record of getting national news coverage opposing Trump.
I’m really not looking to get into a debate though. I’m not a Texan and have only casually followed this race. They seem like remarkably comparable candidates overall. I just wanted to say that from the outsider’s perspective, Talarico seems to have a better chance in the generals.
Looks like San Antonio has churros and Talarico voters.
Brother. Do you know how rural all that purple is?? That’s the East Texas Piney woods, just as rural as any prairie farmer
East Texas is also significantly more African American, even in the small towns
It’s not about race…
Talarico is more progressive and can convince people to agree with him.
Crockett is more conservative and just yells at people, that’s why the NRSC manipulated her into running, why after that came out she refused to acknowledge it, and why she’s now claiming the reason she lost is racism and she’s suing.
Even if we were skipping a general and either one was guaranteed to be a Texas Senator, Talarico.was the best choice.
It wasn’t just “who’s most electable” and frankly it’s concerning that so many people didn’t look deeper than skin color but are so opinionated on this.
You’re the reason the NRSC tried this manipulation, because it worked on you.
We can’t afford for it to happen again, look into candidates and what they actually have as a platform. Not just who’s the most outrageous on social media.
Ah, but you’re forgetting that this is america where if a white man wins any competition against a black woman, the only conceivable reason has to be racism.
If people vote based on the merits of the individuals’ policy platforms or who they receive their funding from, then it’s racism plain and simple. Only the people whose voting choices are entirely based on skin color aren’t racist. Anything else is colorblind racism.
In case it isn't clear:
/s, but some people do insist on this unironically
Removed by mod
It’s part of it, of course. He’s more “electable” (cough hhhwhite).
But there’s a lot to dislike about Jasmine Crockett for this particular race without even getting into policy - just campaign strategy.
Her strategy is to energize dem voters in Texas at the expense of angering conservatives and “moderates”. She’s good at that, and has been vocally slapping down Republican politicians on the hill for a while now. That will all be used against her by the Republican opposition in this race. They will use her viral clips in smear campaigns to energize Republican voters to save their state from the woke angry black lady - that is a message that will land great with their base and even with many “moderates/undecideds”. There’s a reason the republican party has backed her campaign, and it isn’t because they think she can win. It’s about race and gender, but also messaging.
Talarico is much more mild mannered and has a strategy of winning over Republican voters. That is not usually a winning strategy. But in Texas when many people want an alternative to Trump & cronies that shares their christian values? It’s got a real shot. People are fucking stupid and care more about messaging than actual politics. He’s got the messaging that will appeal to them. He’s a seminarian. He looks like a choir boy. He is fucking great at rhetoric. He is electable for more reasons than just race.
You’re literally falling for Republican propaganda…
The National Republican Senatorial Committee put out a poll in July with Crockett’s name included, which showed her as the leading Democrat in a hypothetical matchup.
“When we saw the results, we were like, ‘OK, we got to disseminate this far and wide,’” a source familiar with the process told NOTUS.
The fact that Crockett was included in the poll was no accident.
In June news broke that Texas Democrats Colin Allred, James Talarico, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Rep. Joaquin Castro met to discuss the 2026 election. Operatives at the NRSC realized that Crockett — whose political stock had been rising — wasn’t included in that meeting and also hadn’t been included in any credible poll. So they decided to change that.
https://www.notus.org/senate/jasmine-crockett-nrsc-texas-senate
That propaganda is literally the only reason she ran:
Crockett herself even admitted she was encouraged to jump into the race by all the positive polling she was seeing ahead of her announcement.
"The more I saw the poll results, I couldn’t ignore the trends that were clear,” Crockett said during her announcement speech.
Crockett did not return a request for comment.
We can’t afford to just ignore that people are being manipulated…
Shitlibs can’t comprehend a world where their identity isn’t the center of the universe.
He was the better candidate with a more attractive message for the target audience.
They also had the earned media from the Trump/ Colbert thing.
I genuinely think Crockett wins without that. That was hundreds of millions in earned media, and just an unforced error on the part of Trump.
If Trump had just “done nothing”, that Talarico interview maybe gets 80k views coming from people who just “Like Colbert”. Instead it got millions of views because it was the thing everyone was interested in for 48 hours. And it got a lot of people who would have not known who Talarico was to learn the name.
I love his gimmick! Being openly Christian and stuff, but not being an intolerant, genocidal brained, warmonger!
He seems to have threaded the needle of studying the bible and not becoming an atheist or a rabid right winger. His belief does appear to be a major factor in trying to help the people who need help. You know, like Jesus said you should.
For real dude knows how to work a Texas crowd
Same, me and my wife were split on this vote, but I’d be fine voting for either one, I just wish they were running for different seats. Hope Crockett sticks around to oust Cruz in 2031, but I imagine she finds another race before then.
And in the long run, as much as this also sucks, the presidency.
So far as I can tell, Crockett was practically an idpol/Woke-v1 psyop by conservatives. I never thought I’d be happy to see a black woman lose in Texas, or cheer for GenericChristianWhiteBoy#12, but here we are…
Dear left wingers, you need to come to terms that this is what’s stopping you. Republicans are easy to defeat, only Democrats can lose to them. Democrats are only there to stop left wingers.
What the fucking insane non-sense are you spewing?
The further left-wing candidate won the primary. The AIPAC/ pro-Israel candidate lost.
What exactly is stopping us? Showing up and getting the more Progressive candidate in? Your comments not making any sense.
I like to think Carr and Colbert had a huge hand in this outcome. Carr through the Streisand Effect, and Colbert through what we at work call “Short-timers Syndrome.”
As a non-American. What happens to Jasmine Crockett now? Does she still have an official political role?
Yes. She retains her seat in the House of Representatives.
Talarico, the more popular of the two, will do his best to consume Crockett whole (and possibly her family if he can find them) in order to consolidate the voting base and display his prowess. Failure to do so could lead to a third party situation, such as Andrew Cuomo, who was consumed far later than the primary.
Habibi, why is Cuomo in my shawarma?
This entire shawarma is now haram, such a waste
It seems barbaric but really it’s the only way.
Primary elections are where a political party selects their candidate to run in the general election in the fall. Jasmine Crockett will not be on the ballot as a representative of the Democrat party. She could still run in the general, but it would be for a different party or, if Texas allows it, an independent. Some people do that, but it’s usually considered a real dick move, as it tends to split the vote and make it more likely for the opposing party to win. It’s basically a good way to end your political career for good.
So she’s out of politics??
She still has to finish out her current term in the House of Representatives. She just won’t be continuing her run for the Senate. I don’t think she can run for re-election to the House now, since she would have to take the place of Frederick Haynes, who won the primary for her seat. If she wants to run for another position in the fall, it would likely be something at the state level.
She’ll probably run for another position. Yet to be seen.
Hey “There will be no midterms, there will be no elections, the DNC has this rigged along with the GOP” team, where you at? You still planning on sitting all this out in “protest?”
Thank you!
It’s one thing to be angry at what’s happening but the mood they put in is so bleak (intentionally or not) and they just want everyone to not do anything about it.
There are both genuine burnt-out doomers out there, and there are astroturfers and bots that feed on their cynicism and boost it, making even more doomers. It’s a self-sustaining cycle that spreads rapidly and serves all the purposes of those who don’t want us to vote.
There absolutely is going to be election interference, there always is, and it always takes the form of social messaging in the US. Where people make a mistake is assuming it’s going to be one or two large-scale attacks on democracy, when in reality it’s thousands and thousands of micro-attacks, everything from capitalizing on male sexual insecurity all the way through to instilling doubt in science, through to feeding cynicism and doubt about our process with rumors and predictions. There are whole farms of these people and bots out there just spreading through every conversation-space on the internet.
You can’t change the minds of millions of people, but you can make millions of people confused or unsure what’s actually happening. It works just as well to make people vote wrong or not vote at all, but people don’t view the little things as the actual threat, people are still looking for large conspiracies, which are less realistic and harder to maintain by an administration made largely of utter morons.
I love how we’re both getting ineffectual, impotent downvotes just for talking about it. There are a lot of people who have all their emotions attached to the idea that nothing can be done, because it prevents them from feeling accountability.
Revolutionary optimism is the way to go
I have a very bad feeling about this guy.
Never trust a Christian fundamentalist. They can get away with anything by their rules if they just repent, whatever the fuck that means.
What makes you think the guy is a Christian fundamentalist? From what I’ve seen, he’s been very outspoken about the criticality of the separation of church and state.
Just so you know, Christian fundamentalism is not at all defined by an individual believer’s stance in regard to the Free Exercise Clause. Someone being a “Christian fundamentalist” simply means they believe in Biblical literalism. It may or may not coincide with other beliefs, political or religious. And even then the purely religious definition tends to shift over time.
It’s really just the faux-fundamentalists who don’t actually believe in their book at all, and who have hijacked religious belief to shore up failing hold on political power, that don’t like separation of church and state.
I’m not a fan of Talarico, I think he’s an unknown quantity at this point, but I offer this clarification in defense of the many non-political and apolitical fundies I have known in my time. Please do not confuse them with the hyper-politicized neofascist version of “Christianity” now popular in right-wing power grabs.
As for Talarico, he has personally been a critic of “Christian nationalism” and doesn’t identify as anything even close to Christian fundamentalism but rather as a Presbyterian. It’s about as vanilla as you can get these days and leans liberal: they’re the kind of Christians uber-conservative Christians love to hate.
Sure, but I was trying to highlight he’s not an extremist. Presbyterians aren’t bible literalists
You’re right, I misunderstood. Thanks for the correction.
All good, I probably should have been more clear
I don’t believe christians when they say that.
Talarico gives me Mike Johnson vibes.
I received a metric fuckton of texts that were like, “ZOMG YOU GUYS WE ARE SO REPUBLICAN AND CROCKETT HATES ICE CAN YOU BELIEVE IT-ZORZ?!?!?!?” They seem to trace back to a shady republican group. Apart from a couple of milquetoast Cornyn ones, everything else I got was for various Dem candidates despite my living in a very red zip code.
The campaigns have excellent lists, and somebody on the right wanted blue voters to know how very “terrified” they were of her. The only reasonable alternative is that she ran them herself as a low-grade false-flag, and in either case it made me go ahead and decide on Talarico, though I’d have happily voted for either in the general. I think he’s made such a brand of being a blue christian that he’d probably feel obligated to make separation of church and state an important part of his brand, and he’s speaking very explicitly to the wealth divide in a way she hasn’t.
I do tend to think the dust-up over the Talarico’s Allred comment has at least some truth to it, but while I assume he’s much more calculating than his public persona, even in the worst case the story hit my (admittedly white) ears like someone who assumed that his allyship exempted him from micro-aggressions, rather than his being some cackling hypocrite. He’s got his work cut out for him, but if he can energize the base, recover Trump 2024 Hispanics, and get a couple of percentage points’ worth of red voters to flip or even just say, “meh” and stay home, he’s got a chance.
Realistically, I think the most likely scenario is that we’re looking at a pre-guns Beto campaign that comes close but can’t get over the hump versus an unpopular Republican, but I think he’s the best chance we’ve had since then to flip a seat. All of which is incumbent on elections happening semi-normally.
