Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Republican scheming backfires in Texas election

Opinion

Republican scheming backfires in Texas election

Texas Senate candidate James Talarico (D-TX) addresses supporters on election night on March 3, 2026, in Austin, Texas. Texans went to the polls to vote for Democratic and Republican primary candidates ahead of November's midterm elections.

(John Moore/Getty Images/TCA)

On Sept. 9, 2025, a little-known 36-year-old former middle school teacher and seminarian named James Talarico announced he was jumping into a crowded Texas Senate race, joining several other Democrats vying for GOP Sen. John Cornyn’s seat.

He’d first made news by flipping a Trump-leaning state legislative district in 2018, and became something of a rising star inside Texas Democratic circles. Outside of Texas, however, he still had work to do.


But he was smart — over the next seven years he started going where ambitious and savvy young Dems go to reach new voters, places like Joe Rogan’s podcast and Pod Save America. He gained more national attention during the Texas redistricting battle in 2025 when Texas Dems decided to leave the state in protest.

But when he entered the Senate race, he was still very much an underdog. He told Politico at the time, “[M]y life has always shown me that it’s a good idea to bet on the underdog.”

But Talarico wasn’t looking like such a good bet. When media-darling Rep. Jasmine Crockett jumped in the race in December, it looked like his bid was all but done. If he’d been a rising star, she was, for many Dems, the North Star, with regular appearances on cable news, “The View” and Jimmy Kimmel, and even presidential buzz swirling around her.

Leading up to the Democratic primary, as recently as Feb. 22, Crockett was leading Talarico by as many as 18 points.

Cut to Tuesday night, where Talarico pulled off an impressive win against Crockett, beating her by more than 7 points. He’ll face the winner of the Republican runoff, either Cornyn or Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in the general.

So what happened? How did Talarico go from underdog down by double digits to a convincing win? Two words: Stephen Colbert.

On Feb. 16, a little more than two weeks before the primary, Talarico got a huge boost when Colbert accused CBS of blocking an interview with him from airing, a decision Colbert implied was out of fear of the Trump administration’s crackdown on media outlets he deemed unfriendly.

The fracas ate up the national airwaves, and Colbert posted the interview on YouTube instead, where it gained 5 million views in just two days. The Talarico campaign said he raised $2.5 million in 24 hours. Suddenly Talarico was the frontrunner.

Just like it had Sen. Mark Kelly and independent journalist Don Lemon, the Trump administration had targeted Talarico for censorship and intimidation and inadvertently made him a resistance hero, boosting his name ID, his fundraising, and his future prospects.

To be sure, Republicans wanted to face Crockett in the general, figuring their chances in Texas were better against a progressive Black woman rather than a Presbyterian white man.

And their calculus was probably right. But Trump’s GOP, in its bloodlust for lefty scalps, still doesn’t realize it keeps handing the opposition giant gifts — if Kelly wants to run for president, if Lemon wants to compete with corporate media, if Talarico wants to become the first Texas Democrat to win the Senate in three decades, they all got a lot closer to their goals thanks to Trump’s hamfisted attempts at censoring them.

He’s failed all three times — a grand jury would not indict Kelly, Lemon is almost certainly going to be acquitted, and now Talarico is poised to give Republicans a run for their money in November, especially if the scandal-plagued Paxton is the nominee.

These are embarrassing own goals that Republicans simply can’t afford. And they make clear that Trump is no longer the effective dragon-slayer he once was. Good news for the left.

(S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.)


Read More

The New Fight Over Election Observation
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The New Fight Over Election Observation

As a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the U.S. has signed the foundational agreement committing all participating states to open elections to external scrutiny and inviting fellow members to observe through the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The 2024 ODIHR observation mission to the U.S. found the fundamentals reassuring—a well-run process, active engagement, free campaigning—but issued 31 recommendations to align U.S. elections with international standards and commitments. Four stand out: federal pre-clearance legislation against discriminatory election-law changes; reassessing the Electoral College; balanced representation in election administration; and guaranteed access for international and nonpartisan observers—notable, since 17 states still legally bar international observation, which is at odds with commitments made by all 57 OSCE states. Yet over a year later, follow-through is thin: no pre-clearance restoration, no Electoral College review, unchanged observer-access laws. Where movement exists—in disinformation tools, in financial disclosure—it remains piecemeal.

An uncomfortable convergence

Keep ReadingShow less
Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026
a person is casting a vote into a box

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act stands as the direct antithesis of our founders' aspirations for the American Experiment, eroding the core principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Rather than cultivating a government that derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," this legislative measure inverts that relationship. It transforms a natural right into a government-administered privilege, erecting bureaucratic barriers that conflict with the expansive, participatory democratic republic the Framers sought to construct.

Subverting the Consent of the Governed: the foundational premise of the American Experiment, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is that the legitimacy of a government hinges entirely on the active consent of its citizens. The SAVE Act disrupts this dynamic by fundamentally shifting the burden of proof.

Keep ReadingShow less
10 Organizations Independent Voters Need to Watch

Young woman at voting booth

Canva

10 Organizations Independent Voters Need to Watch

Independent voters are no longer a political afterthought. They are the majority.

And when these voters look at the state of politics in the US, they see the lack of accountability, representation, competition, and meaningful choice that the system produces.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Gerrymandering Solution
person holding white and red box

The Gerrymandering Solution

The 250th anniversary of American independence should remind us what’s wrong with gerrymandering. Due to partisanship, however, it now not only persists but rachets tighter in a tit-for-tat cycle that threatens to strangle representative rule. There is a solution to gerrymandering, however, if only politicians will act.

Inspired by revolutionary Enlightenment Era ideals, the Declaration of Independence and the new state constitutions of 1776 call for representative rule. The people would be sovereign, they proclaimed, with governments drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed. Nothing of the sort had ever been tried on a large scale and the founders struggled with how to implement it. Everything turned on establishing a truly representative governing assembly for each newly independent colony or state.

Keep ReadingShow less