I'm a Texas expat. If I still lived there, I'd have had a hard time deciding whether to vote for Talarico or Crockett. I like them both a lot, and I know a lot of Texas Dems feel the same way. My brother lives in Crockett's district in south Dallas; I've talked to her office a few times to express support for what she's doing in DC. We need someone to raise hell and get in Republicans' face.
In terms of how they'd vote on issues, I don't see much daylight between Crockett and Talarico. The media mislabel him as a moderate because he's trying to reach out to Trump voters. But he's not a moderate on the issues; he's liberal. He's simply calling for a more traditional form of populism in which liberals and MAGA conservatives focus on the billionaires and corporate interests that have left them both economically disadvantaged and politically marginalized. (Maybe worth remembering that the Populist Movement of the 1890s had its origins in Lampasas, TX.)
Some have suggested it's racist to say that Talarico is more electable because he's white. But I think that's just a recognition of the enduring racism of the general electorate in the state. I don't think any Black woman could win a statewide race right now in Texas. Not even Oprah. It's a sad commentary, but Texas is still a sad place, even though Joe Biden got more total votes there than any state besides California and maybe New York.
This primary illustrates the questions Dems are facing in primary races across the country. A feisty Black woman like Crockett is going to improve turnout among more liberal voters who think it's about damn time we had more candidates would speak up and fewer who act like Chuck Schumer. But she also may cost voters who had once supported Trump and are looking for an alternative they can get behind.
Talarico might bring some of those voters back. But the risk is that some of Crockett's voters won't show up for him. And it's also a fair question as to whether enough Trump voters to matter would support anyone running with a D by their name.
I am also an ExTx, but not a Horn. I know a lot of us in East Texas *just feel safer with Crockett* IYKYK. We are afraid Talarico is gonna go in there and goon over AI or sign a dirty deal to hurt 1) women, 2) issues that affect primarily the descendents of slavery in deprived areas such as defunding diversity and inclusion initiatives for reparative justice, 3) tough on crime shit that locks up mainly black people and fosters the cancer of racist rhetoric. Otherwise, he will be good, maybe even great, and certainly a change.
I would really like the explanation for not supporting the Black woman to be more than contested reports from a white lady at The Atlantic and the MSM and the fact that Crockett was too mean to Marjorie Taylor Greene. Was there an issue with her record serving in Congress? Her fitness as a potential senator? Because the cracks taken at her are really like “going on vibes”, which…🫠
I love people being mean to MTG. I just don't like when it's flagrantly homophobic. Nothing contested about the Atlantic report either, it's on tape. I've been a journalist for more than 30 years, so I probably care more about that than average, but I don't think it's at all cool when Republicans try to intimidate reporters, and I don't like to see Democrats do it either.
So why not have an actual discussion about the relative merits of the candidates, and treat the airing of your issues seriously, rather than off-hand ex-post sniping that dismisses her candidacy without ever addressing it as a serious matter? It comes off as disrespectful and minimizing. You are accusing her *now* of homophobia and press intimidation and claiming the cover of your journalistic experience without actually doing or linking to the journalism to back this up.
But we clearly can't have a discussion of the "relative merits" because saying "I think calling someone butch as an insult is homophobic" is met with "oh yeah WHY NOW?" and saying that more than once she's been shitty to journalists is met with a demand to prove I've been a journalist for more than 30 years? I don't really know how to prove that to you. But I started in newspapers at the Santa Barbara Independent in 1991 and except for three years unemployed after 2008, have worked in newspapers or at Wonkette the entire time.
I'm sorry you think it's minimizing and disrespectful. I don't really know what else to say.
I didn’t demand you prove you have been a journalist for more than 30 years. JFC. I have been following Wonkette since before you bought it. I know who you are. What I wrote was that you are claiming the cover of being a journalist for how concerned you are about intimidation of journalists as a *shortcut* to doing the actual reportage on the intimidation of journalists. And the “why now” is because you *chose* to do a parting set of “but really this is kinda awesome” run-for-the-hills potshots, rather than dealing with those issues *as part of* your coverage of Crockett’s candidacy. You know, when you would have had to do the work to make sure your arguments for whether those issues should legitimately impact her candidacy could stand up to scrutiny and debate. As opposed to being able to collect on the goodwill of providing positive coverage of her candidacy while it was happening and only now sniping in the rearview.
I'm a Texas expat. If I still lived there, I'd have had a hard time deciding whether to vote for Talarico or Crockett. I like them both a lot, and I know a lot of Texas Dems feel the same way. My brother lives in Crockett's district in south Dallas; I've talked to her office a few times to express support for what she's doing in DC. We need someone to raise hell and get in Republicans' face.
In terms of how they'd vote on issues, I don't see much daylight between Crockett and Talarico. The media mislabel him as a moderate because he's trying to reach out to Trump voters. But he's not a moderate on the issues; he's liberal. He's simply calling for a more traditional form of populism in which liberals and MAGA conservatives focus on the billionaires and corporate interests that have left them both economically disadvantaged and politically marginalized. (Maybe worth remembering that the Populist Movement of the 1890s had its origins in Lampasas, TX.)
Some have suggested it's racist to say that Talarico is more electable because he's white. But I think that's just a recognition of the enduring racism of the general electorate in the state. I don't think any Black woman could win a statewide race right now in Texas. Not even Oprah. It's a sad commentary, but Texas is still a sad place, even though Joe Biden got more total votes there than any state besides California and maybe New York.
This primary illustrates the questions Dems are facing in primary races across the country. A feisty Black woman like Crockett is going to improve turnout among more liberal voters who think it's about damn time we had more candidates would speak up and fewer who act like Chuck Schumer. But she also may cost voters who had once supported Trump and are looking for an alternative they can get behind.
Talarico might bring some of those voters back. But the risk is that some of Crockett's voters won't show up for him. And it's also a fair question as to whether enough Trump voters to matter would support anyone running with a D by their name.
I am also an ExTx, but not a Horn. I know a lot of us in East Texas *just feel safer with Crockett* IYKYK. We are afraid Talarico is gonna go in there and goon over AI or sign a dirty deal to hurt 1) women, 2) issues that affect primarily the descendents of slavery in deprived areas such as defunding diversity and inclusion initiatives for reparative justice, 3) tough on crime shit that locks up mainly black people and fosters the cancer of racist rhetoric. Otherwise, he will be good, maybe even great, and certainly a change.
I would really like the explanation for not supporting the Black woman to be more than contested reports from a white lady at The Atlantic and the MSM and the fact that Crockett was too mean to Marjorie Taylor Greene. Was there an issue with her record serving in Congress? Her fitness as a potential senator? Because the cracks taken at her are really like “going on vibes”, which…🫠
I love people being mean to MTG. I just don't like when it's flagrantly homophobic. Nothing contested about the Atlantic report either, it's on tape. I've been a journalist for more than 30 years, so I probably care more about that than average, but I don't think it's at all cool when Republicans try to intimidate reporters, and I don't like to see Democrats do it either.
So why not have an actual discussion about the relative merits of the candidates, and treat the airing of your issues seriously, rather than off-hand ex-post sniping that dismisses her candidacy without ever addressing it as a serious matter? It comes off as disrespectful and minimizing. You are accusing her *now* of homophobia and press intimidation and claiming the cover of your journalistic experience without actually doing or linking to the journalism to back this up.
we gave her plenty of good press and addressed her candidacy as a serious matter as recently as Saturday. https://www.wonkette.com/p/were-gonna-kick-that-goldang-texas
But we clearly can't have a discussion of the "relative merits" because saying "I think calling someone butch as an insult is homophobic" is met with "oh yeah WHY NOW?" and saying that more than once she's been shitty to journalists is met with a demand to prove I've been a journalist for more than 30 years? I don't really know how to prove that to you. But I started in newspapers at the Santa Barbara Independent in 1991 and except for three years unemployed after 2008, have worked in newspapers or at Wonkette the entire time.
I'm sorry you think it's minimizing and disrespectful. I don't really know what else to say.
I didn’t demand you prove you have been a journalist for more than 30 years. JFC. I have been following Wonkette since before you bought it. I know who you are. What I wrote was that you are claiming the cover of being a journalist for how concerned you are about intimidation of journalists as a *shortcut* to doing the actual reportage on the intimidation of journalists. And the “why now” is because you *chose* to do a parting set of “but really this is kinda awesome” run-for-the-hills potshots, rather than dealing with those issues *as part of* your coverage of Crockett’s candidacy. You know, when you would have had to do the work to make sure your arguments for whether those issues should legitimately impact her candidacy could stand up to scrutiny and debate. As opposed to being able to collect on the goodwill of providing positive coverage of her candidacy while it was happening and only now sniping in the rearview.