Talarico

 I generally find Yglesias' takes on politics to be blinkered. He really does seem to think that swing voters care about policy. I think evidence has demonstrated over time that that really isn't true. Swing voters are vibe voters, and even if those vibes are downstream from policy, they really aren't digging into those policy specifics. Trump ran on "bringing prices down on Day One" and tariffs. That's incoherent, but didn't matter.

I do think, though, that Yglesias is right in this column about Talarico. In many ways, the Texas situation is the inverse of the Maine race. In Maine, you have a Democratic challenger who has more red flags than a May Day parade, whereas Talarico just gives off endlessly sincere and thoughtful energy. Meanwhile, Ken Paxton would immediately become the worst Senator in America if elected. He's endlessly corrupt and malevolent. 

The hope is that about 1,400,000 Republicans voted in the runoff and Paxton got 886,000 votes. In 2024, Ted Cruz got almost 6 million votes in the general election, whereas Colin Allred got a hair over 5 million. Can Talarico draw enough independents who voted for Cruz to get closer to 5,500,000? And will Paxton lose - either because they are voting for Talarico or not voting at all - enough votes to drop below that 5.5 million number? 

Yglesias notes that Talarico is taking somewhat heterodox positions on things like oil and gas that will play well in Texas, but might upset Democrats in California. While there remains a certain segment of the censorious Left that might challenge Talarico on this - including perhaps bitter-enders from Crockett's campaign - I do think most Democrats understand that Talarico can't take the same positions that a candidate running in Oregon might.

Where this gets interesting is that Platner is taking roughly all the right positions, and for the moment he seems to be winning, even with massive amounts of personal baggage. Paxton is not, I think, an electoral overperformer the way Susan Collins is, but then again Texas is not Maine. Platner is VERY unpopular with online Democrats, precisely because his baggage is very real and very troubling about the sort of person he truly is. He does not have a long track record of public service to evaluate him on, so you have to look at character and personality. The personality seems suited to the moment, but the character looks toxic as hell.

Would the Censorious Left be better off simply ignoring Platner's baggage in the way that they seem to be ignoring Talarico's policy stances? Technically, Platner is not the nominee yet, so they can make the case for Mills to jump back on and there is a third candidate on the ballot. I see people vehemently hating on Platner, largely because they hate the people - the Pod Bros and the Bernie Bros - who foisted him on us. 

Personally, where I draw the brightest line is simply if the person is a Republican or not. Talarico can carve out space that fits Texas, even if it doesn't gibe with the overall Democratic policy suite. Platner can prove that he's growing into the role, as long as he gets rid of Susan Collins. 

Democrats have to "hold serve" everywhere - Michigan looks dodgy - and then pick up enough seats to not only take the majority, but neutralize Fetterman. That means North Carolina, Maine, Texas, Ohio and maybe some surprises like Iowa, South Carolina, Montana or Nebraska. 

That means swallowing candidates that don't fit your personal preferences, and you have to be OK with that.