Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Does either party actually want to win the Senate race in Texas?

Opinion

Does either party actually want to win the Senate race in Texas?

US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) speaks during an "Oversight and Government Reform" hearing on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 12, 2025. (Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

One of the worst features of the election primary system in our polarized “Red vs. Blue” time is the tendency of primary voters to flock to the candidate they most want to “destroy” the other party, not the candidate best positioned to do so.

Let’s say a zombie is scratching at your door. You’ve got a shotgun, a handgun and your favorite frying pan. The shotgun has the greatest chance of success, the handgun — if one is careful and skilled — has a solid chance of working, and the frying pan? It probably won’t dispatch the threat but, come on, how cool would it be to take out a zombie with a frying pan? So, you go with that.


In this extended metaphor, Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett is the Democrats’ frying pan and Attorney General Ken Paxton is the Republican one.

Given trends in media coverage, you’re probably more familiar with examples of this phenomenon from the GOP. Remember Christine O’Donnell, the sketchy Delaware Senate candidate who had to run an ad in 2010 assuring voters, “I’m not a witch.” Or Todd Akin, the 2012 Missouri senate candidate who got into trouble for insisting that women don’t get pregnant in cases of “legitimate rape.” More recently, there was Mark Robinson, the 2024 North Carolina lieutenant governor who dabbled in Holocaust denial and mocked school-shooting survivors as “spoiled little bastards.” Only after he got the nomination was it revealed that he described himself as a “black NAZI” on a porn site.

Democrats have a similar, if less colorful, problem. In a bunch of races, Democrat primary voters preferred the candidate who was more ideologically pure, more pugnacious, or — in the President Trump era — the most committed to “resistance.” Once nominated, they were ill-suited to appeal to swing voters in a general election.

Just a few examples of Democratic candidates who excited the base but not mainstream voters: Mandela Barnes, the very progressive Wisconsin Senate candidate in 2022; Kara Eastman, the preferred candidate of “Justice Democrats” in Nebraska’s second district House race in 2018; Stacey Abrams, the election-denying two-time candidate for Georgia governor; and Andrew Gillum, the Florida progressive underdog who beat out more centrist candidates to get the Democrats’ nomination for governor, only to lose narrowly to Ron DeSantis in 2018.

Some of these races were indeed close. But the populist left and populist right take the wrong lesson from the narrowness of their defeats. Like the ugly Americans who think foreigners will understand English if they just shout louder, each side convinces themselves that if they only fought harder, wasted a little more money, they could’ve won.

To be fair, sometimes they’re right. But even in those cases, they’re merely making a down payment on bigger losses to come. Because by electing bomb throwers and crackpots they hurt the brand of their party for the next election.

Which brings me back to Texas. The Senate primary is heating up. On the GOP side it’s a three-way race among solid, reliable, moderately boring conservative incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, Republican two-term Congressman Wesley Hunt and the rabble-rousing, wildly corrupt (sorry, “ethically challenged”) populist demagogue and hard-core MAGA loyalist Ken Paxton.

Although nothing is assured given what might be a Democratic wave year, Cornyn would probably beat Crockett, who most analysts and Democrats (when speaking anonymously) think cannot win against anybody except maybe Paxton. But she can soak up an enormous amount of money and attention.

Crockett is very smart, but she is in many ways a Democratic version of Republican bomb throwers and social media phenoms Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert. Indeed, Crockett has already trademarked her insult for Greene (whom she said has a “bleach-blonde bad-built butch body”). Crockett has also said that 80% of the “most violent crimes” are committed by “white supremacists,” Black people can’t be Republicans because Republicans are racist, Latinos have a “slave mentality” and that police shouldn’t prevent crime, they can only solve it, etc.

This stuff may work in a safe congressional district, but it’s not the stuff of a successful statewide race in Texas.

When Crockett announced she was running, Rep. Colin Allred, a more moderate candidate who was positioning himself to be a safe alternative to the Republicans, announced he was no longer pursuing a Senate bid.

And so here we are. Two parties, once again, are poised to nominate candidates so flawed they have a chance of losing to the other.

This is what happens in a polarized age when parties outsource their nominating process to the angriest voters in their coalition. They’d rather take a shot with their favorite frying pan, than shoot that boring shotgun.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.


Read More

Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control

When it comes to the issue of open primaries, DSA true believers like Brad Lander in New York and MAGA mouthpieces like Governor Abbott in Texas sing from the same hymnal: open primaries invites mischief and party raiding. If we let independents vote we’d get pandemonium. Democracy needs guardrails, and political parties need integrity. You wouldn’t want Elks voting in Rotarians’ elections would you?

There is a certain logic to it. Except Abbott, Lander and all their fellow partisan warriors have it completely backwards.

Keep ReadingShow less
If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

wallet with dollar bills, on top of an American flag

hartcreations/Getty Images

If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

A recent court ruling allowing the Colorado Republican Party to decide how and whether to close its primary elections comes at a pivotal moment for the state’s election system. For nearly a decade, Colorado has had an open primary; one designed to reflect the state’s growing share of independent voters. The decision now raises a fundamental question: should taxpayers continue to fund an election that restricts large numbers of the public?

Colorado’s primary elections are not private affairs. They are administered by the state, financed by taxpayers, and conducted through public infrastructure. Ballots are printed and mailed by government offices. Election workers are trained and compensated with public funds. In every functional sense, primaries are public elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., speaks at a press event about free and fair elections. A recent study from MIT ranked Nevada second in the nation for quality of election administration, based on measures of accessibility and security.

(Battle Born Progress)

Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

President Donald Trump has made passing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act a top priority before the midterms but supporters of safe and fair elections in the Silver State said it would be a disaster for democracy.

The bill, which purports to combat noncitizen voting, would make it much harder to register to vote. It passed the U.S. House but is stalled in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less
How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

A sign that reads: Voting

E4C

How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • The Electoral Count Reform (ECRA) of 2022 modernizes the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which governed how Congress counts Electoral College votes. The original Act has been widely criticized as vague and susceptible to exploitation.
  • The ECRA clarifies that the Vice President’s role is ceremonial, raises the objection threshold to 20 percent of both chambers, and designates governors as responsible for submitting elector certificates.
  • Supporters argue that the bipartisan reform prevents future election disputes and protects democratic stability, while critics contend that it was rushed, doesn’t address deeper election integrity issues, and raises concerns about federalism.
  • The Act reflects bipartisan cooperation but continues debates about federalism and the balance of power between states and Congress.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA) was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in July 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022. It is a reform to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), a law that governs how Congress counts the Electoral College votes for president every four years. The Act is also a response to President Donald Trump’s efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results, which revealed several gaps in the law that could be exploited by a presidential candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less