Jasmine Crockett probably isn’t an optimal Senate candidate. But Democratic voters are angry, and “when we fight, we win” will be a compelling message in the primaries.
Matt Yglesias has pointed out that there is a difference between policy moderation and procedural moderation.
"We're going to work toward moderate policies" certainly may be appealing to swing voters.
"We're going to work toward moderate policies AND we aren't really going to do anything when we get filibustered or the Supreme Court lawlessly strikes even our compromise policies down" is not a winner with anyone.
I would be careful about equating the Democratic base with resistance liberals. Even in 2020 when woke was at its peak Biden won easily. They may be angry now but the two biggest winners this year, Sherrill and Spanberger, aren’t The Contrarian types.
That said, the biggest worry I have for the midterms is Democrats stepping on their own feet. 2026 is shaping up to be a great year and if there was ever a time to try to win Texas that’s it. Crockett is tailor made to drive away anyone who is not addicted to social media and MSNBC.
I preferred Allred but I like Talarico and maybe he catches fire. If Democrats must throw away a race by nominating someone toxic it’s better to do it in Texas than Ohio or Iowa where they have a better chance of winning.
Agreed. Nate kept referencing social media, substack and cable news but that’s a tiny segment of the base. They’re very vocal and over represented online but they’re a small number of people.
Well, the Bears play Green Bay, Detroit, and San Francisco at the end of the season. (In addition to Cleveland.) It is certainly not an easy schedule coming up, but the team controls its own destiny. If you had told me in August that the Bears would be 9-4 after 13 games, playing meaningful games in December, and with a chance to control its own playoff fate, I’d have been delighted. While it would definitely be a huge bummer to lose 4 in a row at the end, 9-8 actually exceeds my preseason expectations. I was disappointed with the Green Bay loss, but the Bears were in the game to the end.
I would agree that I’d like a tighter defense, though all the takeaways are fun. Having worked hard on the offensive skill positions in the draft and the offensive line in free agency, I am hoping that the 2026 draft will be defense heavy. I’d also agree that it would be better if Caleb completed a higher percentage of passes. I don’t actually think the Bears will be playing the Super Bowl Shuffle this year. But I’m happy with his progress. This is his de facto rookie year after last year’s disaster, and he shows flashes of true greatness. If he can retain that while being good a higher percentage of time, he might be the best Bear quarterback ever! Sid Luckman, move over.
Plus, unlike the cannon-armed Jay Cutler, he has a great personality, and his teammates clearly love him. And he clearly works well with Ben Johnson. The team seems to really like him as well, even if he’s also a tough coach.
Yeah but CJ, Newsom WAS one of Biden's head cheerleaders. The endorsement tweet may have been a Trump troll, but it's not like Newsom has walked back his (still baffling) 2024 Biden support.
I think you meant "Biden," not "Trump," in your post, and other than the border I had no real problem with Biden until he ran for re-election. My issue with Newsom is not that he supported Biden's tenure, but that he supported his re-election bid.
I have started listening to the Ezra Klein interview with Newsom and was pleasantly surprised by his still strong support of Biden. He gave a decent defense Biden policy.
Running Crockett even in the Primary is a mistake - it clearly sends the wrong message to the very voters that need to move to the Dems in Texas. She will run VERY GOOD ads, that will be seen by everyone, and the message she want so spread will stick and tarnish whoever wins. And if folks say, well she has the right to run in the Primary - this is the problem with Democratic party, there is no leadership to control things.
Sounds a lot like anti-Trump republicans circa 2015-16.
Sure, she might turn off some conservative voters, but they ain't voting for a Dem in the general anyway. Crockett could, however, bring in the mythical "low-propensity" voter that was crucial to both of Trump's victories.
The current Dem coalition hasn't won statewide in Texas in over 30 years, so my risk tolerance is pretty high, win or lose. I'm done with "moral victories"
As a libertarian, this comment is basically where I feel when I get up in the morning about this whole mess, albeit less enthused about the coming Democratic counter revolution.
The conservatives have barely begun stepping through the field of rakes they tossed about so carelessly in 2025: Democratic Candidates that shouldn't be candidates for dog catcher are already making huge leaps to near victory in deep red special elections, and I'm not seeing any signs that conservatives enthusiasm is set to rise.
Next year, inflation is going to shoot through the roof because of the current administrations lack of focus and it's willingness to give AI whatever it wants. The Democrats should send Sam Altman a gift basket for all the havok he's accidentally about to rain down on everyone. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up 'The Price of DRAM'.
This tied with the increase in premiums and the still unstable state of food supply means that we're going to have day to day costs rise, and we're probably going to get a recession and possibly a depression, depending on how stubborn this administration is the face of reality.
In those conditions, combined with the death of the Clinton era on the democrat side, lines up with a similar space for a 'new voice' to emerge from the democrats. And all the signs point to a socialist or communist filling the spot. Which would have been a career killer a decade ago, but as long as they are more capitalist than Trump they'll be able to get away with it. And since Trump has been dabbling in Stalinism, State Media Control, and a State Controlled Economy...
What real argument will 'conservatives' be able to bring in 2026 and 2028?
Nate, you're drinking progressive Kool-Aid when you say that "rallying behind Joe Biden ahead of South Carolina in 2020" constituted "intervening" in a primary.
As yellow dog democrat who grew up in Texas and now watches Texas politics from afar — I was bummed to see Crockett (who I personally like and who is great for her blue Dallas district) get into the Senate race. When visiting family in D/FW, in summer 2024 I was pleasantly surprised to see both Harris and Allred signs in my old neighborhood — and noted there were more Allred signs than Harris ones.
Nevertheless, after Wendy Davis’ defeat in the 2014 Governors race, I told myself I would never get hopeful about Texas politics again.
Beto did (and continues to do) a lot for the Texas Democratic Party. It isn’t his impressive WAR against Cruz — but his incredibly disappointing performance against Abbott in a cycle where Texas Government let the state down — the big Freeze across the state that killed 250+ people, the Uvalde school massacre, and the state government trying to put restrictions on local governments regards to COVID mitigation measures and Voting — that really illustrates the uphill battle Democrats face in Texas.
You clearly still have a bone to pick with Simon Rosenberg. I would invite you to reconsider. While he may not be accurate in reading polls, he certainly has raised a lot of money for swing candidates. Something you don’t do. Why don’t you let it go and stop dunking on him. He’s not doing the same thing as you are. He’s inspiring energy and also backing and raising money for, many eventual winners.
I’m reaching a point where I kind of think the Dems just need to let these situations play out for a few cycles without any “the party decides” thumbing of the scales. If a progressive/leftist/populist Dem wins a primary for a seat where the traditional wisdom says a moderate/establishment-Dem would fair better in the general election, oh well. Maybe they lose or maybe they upend conventional wisdom, something which has happened surprisingly often in the past decade and half, has it not?
But over the long-term, the Dems are going to have a harder and harder time winning the more divided and frustrated their “Big tent” becomes, and members of the Dem base who are fed up with the establishment are never going to believe their preferred candidates would get crushed in general elections for purple/light-red constituencies until they are given the opportunity to do just that. Either the establishment gets proven right, and the anti-establishment wing gets a dose of reality that makes them more amenable to the idea that any Dem who can win is better than a Dem who can’t. Or the annti-establishment wing will actually be proven right all along, and the Democratic Party (and maybe the country as a whole) enters an entirely new political era. Either way, I think it might give the Dems the hard reset they need to re-unify and eventually start winning more lasting opportunities to actually govern.
Obviously, Texas Democrats rather than national Democrats are the ones who rightfully get to make this call. I'll mail my donation to whoever they choose.
But the linkage between moderation and electability needs serious updating.
The assumption behind this concept is that moderation = ISSUE moderation. And that made sense as long as campaigns were heavily influenced by newspapers and network television. The human editors at those venues did their best to anchor coverage on the issues, and out-of-line positions brought bad attention.
Now, moderation has far less to do with issues and more to do with attitudes and respect towards kinds of people. And, unfortunately for candidates, this is largely out of their hands because an enormous portion of the attitude expressed towards, say, young white males or rurals or military families or whatever comes from the mass of blogs and posts purportedly speaking for the candidate (but often actually trying desperately for personal attention above all else). And even if the actual candidate and most of the blogs speak respectfully about rurals, the non-human "editors" of the internet will highlight the rage-inducing disrespectful ones. Issues? They are pretty much eclipsed.
This is a killer for the country, for democracy, and for moderate candidates, but great for extremist candidates (right and left) and for a certain type of asshole who wants to make it as an influencer.
But as to whether a "respect-type" moderate could be a big success if they understood this problem and tackled it head on, I have no idea. But at present, being moderate on issues won't help. Here in my red county, my neighbors aren't going to vote for someone who seems to disrespect people like them and cultures like theirs.
Dems keep trying to optimize around voters instead of trusting them. Allred may have been the “lab-designed” candidate, but with the lack of enthusiasm, discouraging alternatives is just denial.
As I wrote recently regarding NY-10, “A party that fears primaries fears its own voters.” I break down why primaries matter and why safe seats aren't property.
Matt Yglesias has pointed out that there is a difference between policy moderation and procedural moderation.
"We're going to work toward moderate policies" certainly may be appealing to swing voters.
"We're going to work toward moderate policies AND we aren't really going to do anything when we get filibustered or the Supreme Court lawlessly strikes even our compromise policies down" is not a winner with anyone.
What, exactly, do you expect them to do? Stage a coup d'etat?
Please tell us.
They could abolish the filibuster (or threaten to do so). They could alter the makeup of the Supreme Court (or threaten to do so).
They can threaten all they want, but they do not have the votes to do either, so it would be pure meaningless bluster.
Is that what you want? More meaningless bluster?
If the Democrats take back Congress and the White House, they can do those things. I am suggesting that they ought to be willing to do those things.
Fine, what do you want them to do NOW that they're not already doing?
This is it
I would be careful about equating the Democratic base with resistance liberals. Even in 2020 when woke was at its peak Biden won easily. They may be angry now but the two biggest winners this year, Sherrill and Spanberger, aren’t The Contrarian types.
That said, the biggest worry I have for the midterms is Democrats stepping on their own feet. 2026 is shaping up to be a great year and if there was ever a time to try to win Texas that’s it. Crockett is tailor made to drive away anyone who is not addicted to social media and MSNBC.
I preferred Allred but I like Talarico and maybe he catches fire. If Democrats must throw away a race by nominating someone toxic it’s better to do it in Texas than Ohio or Iowa where they have a better chance of winning.
I also think that “Democratic base” is ill-defined, because the ultra-progressive wing is not obviously “the base”.
Agreed. Nate kept referencing social media, substack and cable news but that’s a tiny segment of the base. They’re very vocal and over represented online but they’re a small number of people.
Well, the Bears play Green Bay, Detroit, and San Francisco at the end of the season. (In addition to Cleveland.) It is certainly not an easy schedule coming up, but the team controls its own destiny. If you had told me in August that the Bears would be 9-4 after 13 games, playing meaningful games in December, and with a chance to control its own playoff fate, I’d have been delighted. While it would definitely be a huge bummer to lose 4 in a row at the end, 9-8 actually exceeds my preseason expectations. I was disappointed with the Green Bay loss, but the Bears were in the game to the end.
I would agree that I’d like a tighter defense, though all the takeaways are fun. Having worked hard on the offensive skill positions in the draft and the offensive line in free agency, I am hoping that the 2026 draft will be defense heavy. I’d also agree that it would be better if Caleb completed a higher percentage of passes. I don’t actually think the Bears will be playing the Super Bowl Shuffle this year. But I’m happy with his progress. This is his de facto rookie year after last year’s disaster, and he shows flashes of true greatness. If he can retain that while being good a higher percentage of time, he might be the best Bear quarterback ever! Sid Luckman, move over.
Plus, unlike the cannon-armed Jay Cutler, he has a great personality, and his teammates clearly love him. And he clearly works well with Ben Johnson. The team seems to really like him as well, even if he’s also a tough coach.
Oh, was there something else in your post?
Where do you stand on mini Mike Ditka vs the 49ers?
From the looks of the guy without his shirt, mini Ben Johnson wouldn’t do all that badly!
Hard to believe Nate doesn't recognize that Newsom's tweet about Biden is specifically trolling Trump.
I suppose Nate's anti Biden lean filters out his sarcasm detector.
Yeah but CJ, Newsom WAS one of Biden's head cheerleaders. The endorsement tweet may have been a Trump troll, but it's not like Newsom has walked back his (still baffling) 2024 Biden support.
If you are baffled by people supporting Biden perhaps you are confused about how well the country did from 2021 to 2024.
The good news is that you have a lot of company.
I think you meant "Biden," not "Trump," in your post, and other than the border I had no real problem with Biden until he ran for re-election. My issue with Newsom is not that he supported Biden's tenure, but that he supported his re-election bid.
Thanks for the correction. I will blame replying while making coffee. Sigh.
I fixed it
So far as Newsom was not in Washington, I think him supporting the current leader of the party is pretty reasonable.
I have started listening to the Ezra Klein interview with Newsom and was pleasantly surprised by his still strong support of Biden. He gave a decent defense Biden policy.
The Titans were once the Houston Oilers. They qualify as texas exes.
Although unlike the George Strait song, it's now the Ex that resides in Tennessee
Running Crockett even in the Primary is a mistake - it clearly sends the wrong message to the very voters that need to move to the Dems in Texas. She will run VERY GOOD ads, that will be seen by everyone, and the message she want so spread will stick and tarnish whoever wins. And if folks say, well she has the right to run in the Primary - this is the problem with Democratic party, there is no leadership to control things.
Sounds a lot like anti-Trump republicans circa 2015-16.
Sure, she might turn off some conservative voters, but they ain't voting for a Dem in the general anyway. Crockett could, however, bring in the mythical "low-propensity" voter that was crucial to both of Trump's victories.
The current Dem coalition hasn't won statewide in Texas in over 30 years, so my risk tolerance is pretty high, win or lose. I'm done with "moral victories"
As a libertarian, this comment is basically where I feel when I get up in the morning about this whole mess, albeit less enthused about the coming Democratic counter revolution.
The conservatives have barely begun stepping through the field of rakes they tossed about so carelessly in 2025: Democratic Candidates that shouldn't be candidates for dog catcher are already making huge leaps to near victory in deep red special elections, and I'm not seeing any signs that conservatives enthusiasm is set to rise.
Next year, inflation is going to shoot through the roof because of the current administrations lack of focus and it's willingness to give AI whatever it wants. The Democrats should send Sam Altman a gift basket for all the havok he's accidentally about to rain down on everyone. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up 'The Price of DRAM'.
This tied with the increase in premiums and the still unstable state of food supply means that we're going to have day to day costs rise, and we're probably going to get a recession and possibly a depression, depending on how stubborn this administration is the face of reality.
In those conditions, combined with the death of the Clinton era on the democrat side, lines up with a similar space for a 'new voice' to emerge from the democrats. And all the signs point to a socialist or communist filling the spot. Which would have been a career killer a decade ago, but as long as they are more capitalist than Trump they'll be able to get away with it. And since Trump has been dabbling in Stalinism, State Media Control, and a State Controlled Economy...
What real argument will 'conservatives' be able to bring in 2026 and 2028?
They're gonna run their standard plan: lie.
Nate, you're drinking progressive Kool-Aid when you say that "rallying behind Joe Biden ahead of South Carolina in 2020" constituted "intervening" in a primary.
By that standard, all politics is "intervening".
"compelling biography"
Texas and Democrats? Watch an episode of Landman to understand why that any Democratic revival in Texas is an illusion.
Moreover, Crockett's position are extreme, and profoundly hateful of the US.
Concede the obvious.
As yellow dog democrat who grew up in Texas and now watches Texas politics from afar — I was bummed to see Crockett (who I personally like and who is great for her blue Dallas district) get into the Senate race. When visiting family in D/FW, in summer 2024 I was pleasantly surprised to see both Harris and Allred signs in my old neighborhood — and noted there were more Allred signs than Harris ones.
Nevertheless, after Wendy Davis’ defeat in the 2014 Governors race, I told myself I would never get hopeful about Texas politics again.
Beto did (and continues to do) a lot for the Texas Democratic Party. It isn’t his impressive WAR against Cruz — but his incredibly disappointing performance against Abbott in a cycle where Texas Government let the state down — the big Freeze across the state that killed 250+ people, the Uvalde school massacre, and the state government trying to put restrictions on local governments regards to COVID mitigation measures and Voting — that really illustrates the uphill battle Democrats face in Texas.
You clearly still have a bone to pick with Simon Rosenberg. I would invite you to reconsider. While he may not be accurate in reading polls, he certainly has raised a lot of money for swing candidates. Something you don’t do. Why don’t you let it go and stop dunking on him. He’s not doing the same thing as you are. He’s inspiring energy and also backing and raising money for, many eventual winners.
Typo in footnote 3: “…the requisite amount of **outrange** about…”
I’m reaching a point where I kind of think the Dems just need to let these situations play out for a few cycles without any “the party decides” thumbing of the scales. If a progressive/leftist/populist Dem wins a primary for a seat where the traditional wisdom says a moderate/establishment-Dem would fair better in the general election, oh well. Maybe they lose or maybe they upend conventional wisdom, something which has happened surprisingly often in the past decade and half, has it not?
But over the long-term, the Dems are going to have a harder and harder time winning the more divided and frustrated their “Big tent” becomes, and members of the Dem base who are fed up with the establishment are never going to believe their preferred candidates would get crushed in general elections for purple/light-red constituencies until they are given the opportunity to do just that. Either the establishment gets proven right, and the anti-establishment wing gets a dose of reality that makes them more amenable to the idea that any Dem who can win is better than a Dem who can’t. Or the annti-establishment wing will actually be proven right all along, and the Democratic Party (and maybe the country as a whole) enters an entirely new political era. Either way, I think it might give the Dems the hard reset they need to re-unify and eventually start winning more lasting opportunities to actually govern.
Obviously, Texas Democrats rather than national Democrats are the ones who rightfully get to make this call. I'll mail my donation to whoever they choose.
But the linkage between moderation and electability needs serious updating.
The assumption behind this concept is that moderation = ISSUE moderation. And that made sense as long as campaigns were heavily influenced by newspapers and network television. The human editors at those venues did their best to anchor coverage on the issues, and out-of-line positions brought bad attention.
Now, moderation has far less to do with issues and more to do with attitudes and respect towards kinds of people. And, unfortunately for candidates, this is largely out of their hands because an enormous portion of the attitude expressed towards, say, young white males or rurals or military families or whatever comes from the mass of blogs and posts purportedly speaking for the candidate (but often actually trying desperately for personal attention above all else). And even if the actual candidate and most of the blogs speak respectfully about rurals, the non-human "editors" of the internet will highlight the rage-inducing disrespectful ones. Issues? They are pretty much eclipsed.
This is a killer for the country, for democracy, and for moderate candidates, but great for extremist candidates (right and left) and for a certain type of asshole who wants to make it as an influencer.
But as to whether a "respect-type" moderate could be a big success if they understood this problem and tackled it head on, I have no idea. But at present, being moderate on issues won't help. Here in my red county, my neighbors aren't going to vote for someone who seems to disrespect people like them and cultures like theirs.
Moderation per se is not a plus...any more than progressivism is per se a plus.... it's all contextual.
As they say, I'd rather be strong and wrong, than weak and right.... winning matters....no matter how you do it.
As long as the Democratic leadership is centered I. any and California the upside seems very limited. New leadership is required now.
Dems keep trying to optimize around voters instead of trusting them. Allred may have been the “lab-designed” candidate, but with the lack of enthusiasm, discouraging alternatives is just denial.
As I wrote recently regarding NY-10, “A party that fears primaries fears its own voters.” I break down why primaries matter and why safe seats aren't property.
I encourage you to read: https://open.substack.com/pub/jacksonrubin/p/i-relapsed-and-replied-to-someone?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer