Democrat James Talarico is projected to win a Senate seat in Texas, defeating Republican Ken Paxton and delivering his party their first big Lone Star state win in decades, according to a projection by Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 8 hours ago (13 children)

I know I'm very skeptical but many of those states only turned blue because guys like Talarico would pretty much run as a Republican 15 years ago. Texas didn't suddenly turn progressive, it simply didn't turn as fascist as the general MAGA movement. For example Talarico still run on hiring more Border Patrol agents and has a border security plan endorsed by republican Sheriff. On energy he still wants to "protect good-paying oil and gas jobs". If you look at his program it's mostly "I will push back against the worst parts capitalism while protecting most of our values". Which is great but it doesn't really reflect change of direction as much as different pace at which red state go full fascist.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 52 minutes ago

    Talarico isn't perfect but he's a serious improvement over the cartoonishly evil Republicans who are usually in charge of Texas. There are certain positions which are political suicide in Texas (being anti fossil fuel and anti cop) so it's a given that any candidate who actually wants to win will support that. Basically everything else about him is a huge swing to the left for Texas. I thought there was 0 hope of turning Texas into a blue state, it's a huge achievement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    From outside (I live in the UK) and only knowing Texas through media. At some point you have to run on what supports your state/district/town. You can't run a state with a lot of jobs tied in oil and gas by destroying all of those jobs, without causing massive harm.

    Separately, Texas as a state had a lot of sunlight and land, and a lot of that energy production could be (should be?) transferred to solar.

    While great for the planet, the job loses and associated lack of grassroots income would take a massive change in society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago

    I'm old enough to remember Ann Richards, and Lawton Childs here. Texas, and Florida too, are still close to 50/50, just gerrymandered to hell and back. It's nice for Texas, I am happy for them, and Georgia too. Sorry that we couldn't get enough people out, I kinda like Angie Nixon, it would have been great to have a progressive voice for FL. 4,207,947 votes for Moody (the traitor) 3,969,186 for an honest to God progressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    As a Texan, I don't fully agree. Talarico isn't perfect, but I've not in my lifetime ever seen a pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro workers rights Republican. Texas, fucking finally, just voted for all three. This IS a sign of progress, and hopefully some healing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 hours ago

    This is just another flavor of that lazy "both parties are the same" nonsense. We are in the midst of a Trump-driven party realignment, and that means both parties are moving in different directions on different issues, and there are debates within both parties about where to go.

    A generation ago, it was an active debate about whether sex acts between two people of the same sex should be a crime punishable by prison. We pushed real reforms through, from decriminalization to allowing them to hold security clearances and serve in the military, legalizing same sex marriage and recognizing their parenthood of children. We made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. In all this time, these positions on LGBT rights shifted from far left fringes to internal divisions within the Democratic Party to mainstream views within the Democratic Party to influencing divisions in the Republican party. And although I'm disappointed in many Democrats not doing more to defend against active hostility towards transgender people, their positions aren't actually less transgender friendly than the norm even 10 years ago (much less 25).

    On abortion, we've moved the party towards pro-choice, even as we've lost ground on the battlegrounds in the courts and in state legislatures. It used to be a fairly normal view to be a pro-life Democrat. Not necessarily the party majority, but there were enough elected Democrats who would vote against abortion rights, and compromises with them led to at least federal funding restrictions of abortions. At this point, pretty much any elected Democrat will not only fight for abortion rights, but are ready to bring the fight on putting government resources behind abortion access.

    The active debate right now, within the Democratic Party, about Israel and Palestine, is so much further pro-Palestine than would be recognizable 20 years ago. For the first time, we have elected officials who are publicly against military aid for Israel, and in favor of prosecuting war crimes against senior Israeli government officials.

    It's not every issue like this, though. Union membership is no longer a reliable indicator of Democratic Party support, and labor rights are a bit more muddled within the party. Lots of economic issues have gone from being partisan coded to mixed coalitions (tariffs and trade, environmental and energy policy, financial markets and banking regulation, health policy). And Democrats have backslid on immigration/border issues, much to my disappointment.

    But most of it is just that Democrats have lost on policy issues over the last 10 years, and so the debate between Democrats on lots of these issues feel only theoretical rather than practical. Are there Democrats fighting for reducing carbon emissions, shoring up social security and the safety net, raising taxes, replenishing the middle class? Yes, sure, but they don't have the opportunity to actual discuss the details because they're mostly an opposition minority party fighting to stop the bleeding on destructive Republican policies going the other way.

    Let's win some fucking elections so that we can actually have the debate. I'd love to see Democrats control a trifecta so that the coalition can churn out something like what Pelosi/Reid/Obama accomplished between 2009-2011 and listen to the left complain that the sausage making was too corporate/neolib/etc. That's the debate I'd like to have, from the position of having actually won back power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    This is basically Mark Carney, the current Prime Minister of Canada. He ran and won as a Liberal, but he would have been a Conservative two decades ago. He's been working against the interests of every day Canadians, but the thing is that if the alternative is Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives, I'd still vote for Carney 10/10 times, because at least Carney isn't a homophobic, transphobic racist. He'll defend your human rights while robbing you.

    Carney looks great on the world stage because he's juxtaposed against Trump. And yes, we're definitely better off with Carney at the helm than with Poillievre who was trying so hard to emulate Trump, but the entire world had been taking a pretty hard shift to the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago

    Yeah I hate Carney with all my guts because he's pushing through shit that conservatives wish they could get away with, but he's acting nice and reasonable while selling off our future.

    The conservatives are basically sitting there dumbfounded because they have nothing to oppose. Only the loonies who foam about trans people or immigrants have anything to complain about, and those are not serious people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 hours ago

    This is mostly a sign that the overton window has shifted so far to the right that Democrats are palatable again.

    He was a Republican 15 years ago. He hasn't changed. The Democrats just came to meet him.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago*

    i would argue it did turn fascist, a long time ago

    its just that the fascism they voted for ended up hurting the wrong people, themselves, which is why they voted for the closet Republican over the overt Republican

  • source
  • parent