Winning the Senate is harder for Democrats than winning the House, despite Republican efforts to gerrymander House districts. The reason has to do with Democratic strength in urban and suburban areas not mattering in places like Nebraska. Dems can win Omaha, but not the state at large.
Yglesias catches on to the idea that this electoral environment puts the Senate in play for Democrats, despite it being an unfavorable map. The map is always unfavorable, frankly, but it's especially tough this year. Most of the races are in the South or the western bank of the Mississippi.
The recent lessons from special elections is that people are not at all happy with Republican rule. Whether that translates into votes for a Senate candidate in Kansas or not is arguable, but I'd look at Tennessee 7th last week as offering two lessons.
The first, obviously, is compete everywhere. Recruit good candidates and put effort into every single race. This is especially true in the Senate, where terms last 6 years. Winning during a Blue Tsunami means that seat is yours for six years.
Secondly, make sure the candidate matches the district. Aftyn Behn was not really a great match for that district. Would a more moderate, safer candidate have won? Impossible to say, but it likely would have been closer.
Which brings me to Texas. The promise of flipping Texas has been out there for over a decade. The last time we came close was in 2018 during Trump's first midterm shellacking. Otherwise, it's like Florida: tantalizing but perpetually just out of reach. Still, we are seeing real cratering in support for Republicans among Hispanic groups. Yesterday, Democrats flipping the mayor's office in Miami for the first time in 30 years, because Cubans and other Hispanics are pissed.
Now, maybe that's good enough to flip Texas with any Democrat, but Jasmine Crockett seems like a candidate to rile up Democrats and alienate exactly the sort of middle of the road, low information, small-c conservative voters that you are going to need to win in Texas.
Yes, because she's a Black Woman. Sorry. It's not something you're supposed to say out loud, but Crockett's strength as a back-bench, mediagenic brawler makes for great news clips, but isn't going to flip the Houston and Dallas suburbs. What's more, most voters make decisions on pretty dumb metrics.
In her piece, Richardson talks about the Morris piece I wrote on yesterday. She goes further and looks at how Roger Ailes manipulated that irrational tendency of voters to respond to negative imagery. Democrats keep thinking that they can win with bold policy papers, when people really just react to things like how a candidate looks or talks. What makes Crockett so appealing to Democratic voters is how she taps into the outrageous racism, sexism, corruption and stupidity of the Trump Administration.
The problem is that the majority of voters in Texas are Republican voters - at least in the immediate past. Does she give them permission to swap allegiances? I just doubt it.
I want to be clear, I'm not endorsing the racism and sexism that exist deep in the brains of American voters. I would note that Harris lost Biden voters who were Black, because it's buried THAT deep.
Leftists will argue that we need candidates like Crockett or Platner that excite the base. I think Trump has done all the partisan motivating we need. The 2026 election will be a persuasion election because we will be competing in R+10 districts and states.
I'd rather elect a White Guy Democrats who will vote for things that help minorities than nominate a candidate that represents those minority groups and loses.