Talarico or Crockett?

[Anonymous]

The late, great Ann Richards won in 1990 because she was up against a flawed candidate. Talarico could do this if Paxton wins the primary. Ann lost in 1994 against an "acceptable" candidate. Talarico will lose if Cornyn wins the primary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who do you feel would be a better senator?
I feel Talarico has the demographic advantage but Crockett is a strong proponent of plain speech

Crockett has no chance in Texas, against either Paxson or Cornyn. I think you know why.

Talarico has a small chance, but in the end, I don't think he'll win a statewide election.

Texas isn't going blue any time soon.

IS IT BECAUSE SHE IS BLACK?

Captain Obvious has entered the chat.

Come on, now. PP said, “I think you know why” she can’t win. She could have just, “she will never win a statewide race in Texas on account of being black.”

Talarico also talks a lot about Jesus. Texans know who he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The late, great Ann Richards won in 1990 because she was up against a flawed candidate. Talarico could do this if Paxton wins the primary. Ann lost in 1994 against an "acceptable" candidate. Talarico will lose if Cornyn wins the primary.

Cornyn is yet another politician who will be in his 80s if he is reelected. The contrast with Talarico is very striking. And the debate stage will really highlight the 40 year age difference. I think even Texas will be wary of sending geriatrics to Washington. Ten years of Trump and Biden have nationalized age as a big issue. Plus Talarico is a really good candidate for Texas. He has an excellent shot, especially since this is shaping up to be a very strong blue wave midterm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the Colbert show, I had no idea of who Talarico was. Do thanks to the CBS morons Talarico now has world wide name recognition!

he raised 2.5 million since this!

You do know that CBS nor the FCC prevented the airing of the interview. Seems as if Colbert has a preferred candidate and didn’t want anything to get in the way. Both Colbert and Talarico are lying.

You raised money off of lies, and have the audacity to continue pushing those lies.

CBS didn't even tell The Late Show that they couldn't air your interview.

They simply offered legal guidance for how Stephen Colbert could provide equal airtime to the other DEMOCRAT candidates who you are running against.

The FCC was never involved at any point.

You and Colbert seem to have colluded and worked together to push a false narrative to help you gain popularity instead of bothering to give the other candidates equal airtime.

It says a lot about how disingenuous and disgusting you guys are.

Who provided the legal guidance? Was it solicited?

Who does Bari Weiss want to see as the candidate? Who is she most afraid of? Or more to the point, which candidate does David Ellison most fear?

CBS/Bari Weiss shut this down. Maybe not directly but in a “nice mother you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to her” sort of way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The late, great Ann Richards won in 1990 because she was up against a flawed candidate. Talarico could do this if Paxton wins the primary. Ann lost in 1994 against an "acceptable" candidate. Talarico will lose if Cornyn wins the primary.

Cornyn is yet another politician who will be in his 80s if he is reelected. The contrast with Talarico is very striking. And the debate stage will really highlight the 40 year age difference. I think even Texas will be wary of sending geriatrics to Washington. Ten years of Trump and Biden have nationalized age as a big issue. Plus Talarico is a really good candidate for Texas. He has an excellent shot, especially since this is shaping up to be a very strong blue wave midterm.

Cornyn is running third in his primary currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like both of them, too, but think we NEED Talarico's voice in the Senate more at the moment. I think a Christian telling the Christian nationalists that they are not behaving like Christians will be much more effective than any of our other strategies at the moment.

I also think being censored by CBS is going to help him.

You are saying that Talarico is preferred BECAUSE he is Christian.

Your comment is advocating for Christian Nationalism, just the version you like better.

Senators don't take their matching orders from junior Senators. The Senate is not a debate forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like both of them, too, but think we NEED Talarico's voice in the Senate more at the moment. I think a Christian telling the Christian nationalists that they are not behaving like Christians will be much more effective than any of our other strategies at the moment.

I also think being censored by CBS is going to help him.

You are saying that Talarico is preferred BECAUSE he is Christian.

Your comment is advocating for Christian Nationalism, just the version you like better.

Senators don't take their matching orders from junior Senators. The Senate is not a debate forum.

It's his voice to the country not to the senior senators. Let's take a look at another version of Christianity.... The one promoted by Jesus Christ himself versus this Christian nationalism nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Crockett cannot win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like both of them, too, but think we NEED Talarico's voice in the Senate more at the moment. I think a Christian telling the Christian nationalists that they are not behaving like Christians will be much more effective than any of our other strategies at the moment.

I also think being censored by CBS is going to help him.

You are saying that Talarico is preferred BECAUSE he is Christian.

Your comment is advocating for Christian Nationalism, just the version you like better.

Senators don't take their matching orders from junior Senators. The Senate is not a debate forum.

You are all over the place here. First of all, you have never heard Talarico speak if you think he is a Christian Nationalist. He defines himself as 100% against Christian Nationalism, in every way demanding the separation of Church and State. Christian =/= Christian Nationalism for goodness sake! He argues that separation is better for the country AND for the Church.

Second, I personally am not more convinced by him because he is a Christian. I already believe in the separation of Church and State. I do think Christian voters in Texas will be more open to his arguments, more convinced by his logic, because he is a devout Christian whom they can relate to.

Third, who said anything about marching orders? Are we twelve? I am not expecting or hoping that Talarico will convince current senators, much less command them to do anything differently. This is a democracy and the people get to decide. My hope is that the people of Texas recognize how manipulative and dangerous the Christian Nationalists are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like both of them, too, but think we NEED Talarico's voice in the Senate more at the moment. I think a Christian telling the Christian nationalists that they are not behaving like Christians will be much more effective than any of our other strategies at the moment.

I also think being censored by CBS is going to help him.

You are saying that Talarico is preferred BECAUSE he is Christian.

Your comment is advocating for Christian Nationalism, just the version you like better.

Senators don't take their matching orders from junior Senators. The Senate is not a debate forum.

Christian does not equal "Christian Nationalism."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ideally, I prefer Crockett. However, she has a great position right now in the House and uses her platform well. I’d love for her to continue and grow in that roll.

Based on a few things, Talarico may be the better candidate for Texas and I think voters who want a fresh face and more youth in the Senate will like that too.

This way, we get both.

Can Crockett keep her House seat if she loses the Senate primary? I’m not sure.

I prefer Talarico in this race because Crockett hasn’t really presented a good reason for her running other than “Trump hates me” and she’s polling worse than he is against all of the possible opponents.

No. She gave it up.

Correct. As I understand it she was asked to run for the Senate, but then she has polled so badly the Democratic powers that be threw their support behind Talarico--including the whole Colbert/Talarico set up that got him launched. No one said anything about it from the government. It was CBS legal that brought it up. And Colbert didn't want to give Crockett equal time.

As politics goes, all the puppet masters behind the scenes doing their thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the Colbert show, I had no idea of who Talarico was. Do thanks to the CBS morons Talarico now has world wide name recognition!

he raised 2.5 million since this!

You do know that CBS nor the FCC prevented the airing of the interview. Seems as if Colbert has a preferred candidate and didn’t want anything to get in the way. Both Colbert and Talarico are lying.

You raised money off of lies, and have the audacity to continue pushing those lies.

CBS didn't even tell The Late Show that they couldn't air your interview.

They simply offered legal guidance for how Stephen Colbert could provide equal airtime to the other DEMOCRAT candidates who you are running against.

The FCC was never involved at any point.

You and Colbert seem to have colluded and worked together to push a false narrative to help you gain popularity instead of bothering to give the other candidates equal airtime.

It says a lot about how disingenuous and disgusting you guys are.

Who provided the legal guidance? Was it solicited?

Who does Bari Weiss want to see as the candidate? Who is she most afraid of? Or more to the point, which candidate does David Ellison most fear?

CBS/Bari Weiss shut this down. Maybe not directly but in a “nice mother you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to her” sort of way.

This definitely hurt Crockett and helped Talarico. Crockett realistically had no chance against Cronyn or Paxton. But Talarico might have a chance. That said, plenty of dems touted Beto O'Rourke as having a real chance, and that turned out to be false, or just false hope. I'm not sure Talarico will be different than Beto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The late, great Ann Richards won in 1990 because she was up against a flawed candidate. Talarico could do this if Paxton wins the primary. Ann lost in 1994 against an "acceptable" candidate. Talarico will lose if Cornyn wins the primary.

Ann Richards won the election the day that Clayton Williams refused to "stand for the lady" when she came in and tried to shake his hand. She had been trash talking him while campaigning. In Texas, you don't disrespect a woman--at least not in front of an audience. I loved Ann, but she promptly lost in the next election to George W.

Talarico will lose to Cornyn but he stands a chance against Paxton, given Paxton's history. I think Paxton could win the primary given all the RINO talk re: Cronyn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ideally, I prefer Crockett. However, she has a great position right now in the House and uses her platform well. I’d love for her to continue and grow in that roll.

Based on a few things, Talarico may be the better candidate for Texas and I think voters who want a fresh face and more youth in the Senate will like that too.

This way, we get both.

Can Crockett keep her House seat if she loses the Senate primary? I’m not sure.

I prefer Talarico in this race because Crockett hasn’t really presented a good reason for her running other than “Trump hates me” and she’s polling worse than he is against all of the possible opponents.

No. She gave it up.

Correct. As I understand it she was asked to run for the Senate, but then she has polled so badly the Democratic powers that be threw their support behind Talarico--including the whole Colbert/Talarico set up that got him launched. No one said anything about it from the government. It was CBS legal that brought it up. And Colbert didn't want to give Crockett equal time.

As politics goes, all the puppet masters behind the scenes doing their thing.

I think you understand most to all of this incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the Colbert show, I had no idea of who Talarico was. Do thanks to the CBS morons Talarico now has world wide name recognition!

he raised 2.5 million since this!

You do know that CBS nor the FCC prevented the airing of the interview. Seems as if Colbert has a preferred candidate and didn’t want anything to get in the way. Both Colbert and Talarico are lying.

You raised money off of lies, and have the audacity to continue pushing those lies.

CBS didn't even tell The Late Show that they couldn't air your interview.

They simply offered legal guidance for how Stephen Colbert could provide equal airtime to the other DEMOCRAT candidates who you are running against.

The FCC was never involved at any point.

You and Colbert seem to have colluded and worked together to push a false narrative to help you gain popularity instead of bothering to give the other candidates equal airtime.

It says a lot about how disingenuous and disgusting you guys are.

Who provided the legal guidance? Was it solicited?

Who does Bari Weiss want to see as the candidate? Who is she most afraid of? Or more to the point, which candidate does David Ellison most fear?

CBS/Bari Weiss shut this down. Maybe not directly but in a “nice mother you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to her” sort of way.

This definitely hurt Crockett and helped Talarico. Crockett realistically had no chance against Cronyn or Paxton. But Talarico might have a chance. That said, plenty of dems touted Beto O'Rourke as having a real chance, and that turned out to be false, or just false hope. I'm not sure Talarico will be different than Beto.

Beto lost but he only lost by 2 1/2 points. I don’t think any of that hope was false and he exceeded a lot of people’s expectations. And he has consistently stayed on the ground since talking to and registering voters.