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

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far
a person is casting a vote into a box

Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far

Primary elections are already underway across the United States, and this year’s contests are giving early clues about what voters may prioritize in the general election.

Several states have recently held high-profile primary races that could influence the balance of power in Congress over the next two years, in both state-wide and local elections. Many of these races involve open seats or competitive districts, making the outcomes especially significant as parties prepare for November.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Trump and His Allies Are Trying to Make It Harder for Americans to Vote
two stickers with the words i vote on them
Photo by Mockup Free on Unsplash

President Trump and His Allies Are Trying to Make It Harder for Americans to Vote

President Trump and his administration have been working diligently to try to undermine Americans’ trust in our elections. The steady drumbeat of lies and disinformation is intended to give cover to their efforts to interfere in our elections and stack the deck in their own favor. Time and time again, we see them justify their actions by making false claims of widespread fraud from noncitizens voting (something that is exceedingly rare). Back in 2020, we saw secretaries of state from both parties hold the line and protect our elections from executive branch interference. However, this year, President Trump is prepared to go further. From deploying the FBI to raid local elections offices in Fulton County, Georgia, to the President’s repeated claim that the only way the opposing party can win is by “cheating,” the administration has been working overtime to sow doubt in our elections.

That’s bad enough. But now, the President’s allies in Congress are getting in on the act with a raft of new legislation that would trample Americans’ most basic right: the right to vote. As former members of Congress, we are deeply concerned.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fulcrum Roundtable: Election Interference
a group of people outside a building

Fulcrum Roundtable: Election Interference

President Donald Trump’s comments urging Republicans to “nationalize” elections have intensified debate over the future of U.S. election administration. In an interview last month on Dan Bongino’s podcast, Trump repeated disproven claims of widespread voter fraud and argued that the GOP should “take over” voting operations in multiple states.

Amherst College professor and legal scholar Austin Sarat joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable for a wide‑ranging conversation on the state of American democracy and the challenges facing the nation’s electoral system.

Keep ReadingShow less