Texas Two-Step

Now that there's been time for the dust to settle from Tuesday's primary, we wanted to take a second look at the mother of all Senate races, the one that has every chance of being the linchpin upon which control of the 120th U.S. Senate rests. We have some additional information available, we've had a bit more time to think about the whole thing, and we've gotten some useful suggestions from readers. So, away we go, with an approach that should make clear why we think this one is definitely up for grabs:

Five Reasons to Think Ken Paxton (R) Will Win:

1. Texas: Various commentators, particularly right-leaning ones, are already leaning into this very basic fact: Donald Trump won Texas by 14 points in 2024, 56%-42%. That certainly makes a statement about the fundamentals of the Lone Star State, especially since Paxton is basically a Trump Mini-Me (MAGA-Me?)
   
   
2. Track Record: Paxton, as we have pointed out, has won statewide in Texas three times, as compared to zero for Democrat James Talarico. In a state as large as this, that is no small thing. A smaller state can be something of a monoculture, politically. A larger state definitely is not, and it helps a lot if a candidate already knows how to connect with various constituencies.
   
   
3. Trans: Like "Communist enabler!" 50 years ago, and "Terrorist enabler!" 25 years ago, "Trans enabler!" is an all-purpose weapon for Republicans these days, one that they will use and use and use some more, until they've worn that club down to a nub. It worked against Kamala Harris, and Paxton and his campaign are going to try to make it work against James Talarico. The GOP's oppo research team has dug into everything Talarico ever said on the record, and they came up with two things from a few years back: (1) He said that God is non-binary and (2) He said modern science recognizes six biological sexes, explaining that refers to the chromosomal variations XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXXY, and X (which Team Paxton has turned into "Six-Gender Jimmy"). Both of these were back in 2021.
   
   Some Republicans, namely Stephen Miller, have gone even further, and insisted that Talarico himself is trans. What is the proper response to such an outlandish, bigotry-driven claim? How about: "shut up you ugly fuck"? That's not our response, mind you, it's the response put out on the official eX-Twitter account of the Democratic Party (and remember, we do not censor utterances that were made publicly). Many left-leaning voters were very pleased to see the blue team muckety-mucks roll up their sleeves and get a little dirty.
   
   Anyhow, this trans-centric strategy has worked, and worked well, for Republicans in the past. That said, and as we have written, it smacks of desperation, and tacitly says, "I have nothing to offer except OTHER MAN BAD." Also, it is worth noting that this trick did not work for Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), whose "Paxton is a trans enabler" onslaught might well have caused some Texans to start tuning out that line of attack. Talarico, for his part, has conceded that he did deliver the six biological sexes quote, and the non-binary quote. He said that he "missed the mark" with some of his remarks in the heat of debate, but that, in the end, "what Ken Paxton is doing is clipping my cringey comments to distract from his career of corruption." Sometimes, when a candidate confronts an issue head-on, there's nowhere left to go with it.
   
   
4. Polls: There is no question that, in preliminary polling of this race, Talarico is the (slight) favorite. The three aggregators who are tracking the race have Talarico up by an average of 4.3 points, 3 points, and 1.5 points, respectively, which averages out to Talarico +2.9%.
   
   However, as we pointed out yesterday, none of the pollsters had Paxton crushing Cornyn the way he did. Most pollsters were off by at least 10 points, some were off by more like 20. If so, that could imply that Paxton has hidden strength that is not showing in the polls, and that Talarico +2.9 is actually more like Paxton +5 or Paxton +8. Given that pollsters struggle to accurately measure Donald Trump's support, and given, again, that Paxton is Mini-MAGA, it's possible. That said, see "Tuesday Turnout," below.
   
   
5. GOP Establishment: If Paxton absolutely blows it coming out of the gate, and if the folks who run the Republican Party become convinced he's a lost cause, then they might cut him off and leave him to his own devices. But, failing that, the GOP pooh-bahs are going to be all-in on him. First, because the loss of this Senate seat could well lay the groundwork for the loss of the Senate. Second, because if a Democrat gets a 6-year foothold in a prominent statewide office, that could be disastrous to the GOP's long-term prospects. We've been talking about the eventual "blue-ing" of Texas for years, and a Democratic senator, particularly if he's well-liked, could hasten the process. If a world exists where the Democrats have California, New York and Illinois in the bag for sure, with Texas a real possibility, it will be very difficult for Republicans to win the presidency.

Five Reasons to Think James Talarico (D) Will Win:

1. Texas: Again, if you laser-focus on 2024, Texas looks pretty good for Paxton. However, in 2024 Trump was running against an opponent who was female, and a double minority, and was doing so in a "throw the bums out" kind of year. By contrast, in 2020, Trump was running against an opponent who was male, white, and tended to wear his religion on his sleeve, and it was Trump himself who was the bum who needed to be thrown out. In that year, Texas only broke for Trump by 6 points, 52%-46%. And which person is Talarico more like: Kamala Harris or Joe Biden? Exactly. The "Trump won by 14" thing obscures the fact that Texas' current PVI is actually just R+6. As every reader knows, R+6 is doable for the Democrats in a wave election, doubly so when it's a weak Republican candidate.
   
   
2. Tuesday Turnout: We didn't have time to look carefully at this as we tried to write up the results; we thank the various readers who brought it to our attention. Take a look, first of all, at the GOP totals for the first round of voting in the Texas Senate race:
   
   

   Candidate	Votes
   Paxton	878,564
   Cornyn	910,382
   Wesley Hunt	293,250
   Other Candidates	84,714
   Total Votes	2,166,910

   
   Now take a look at the totals for the second round:
   
   

   Candidate	Votes
   Paxton	885,949
   Cornyn	501,725
   Total Votes	1,387,674

   
   Notice that Paxton got very nearly the same number of votes in each round, and that Cornyn lost because his vote total cratered. It's hard to know exactly what happened, and to know how many voters moved from Cornyn or some other candidate to Paxton. However, one way of reading these totals is that, by and large, Paxton has a hardcore MAGA base that will show up to vote for him no matter what and... that's about it. If Cornyn voters really did lose faith, en masse—perhaps because of Trump's late endorsement—then that is something that polls might struggle to capture. It's also worth noting that the one poll that did get close to the final result was also the second-to-last poll, and one of the few conducted entirely after the endorsement. So, the polling might not be broken, after all.
   
   
3. Politics: There is no way to quantify this, but sometimes a politician comes along who seems to be unusually talented. It was obvious with Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama long before either of them became president. Of more recent vintage, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was very clearly a rising star from the outset. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was, too, before he yielded to MAGA. Maine U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner (D) and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D), at least in early going, seem like they could be special talents. And our gut says the same about Talarico.
   
   Just like it's very interesting to watch a particularly gifted athlete, even if they don't play for your team, it's very interesting to watch someone who shows early promise, and to see what they do with that. Some, of course, burn bright and then fade out (ahem, Rudy Giuliani). Others go far. We have been very impressed, thus far, with Talarico's talent for messaging, and for communicating his ideas in a clever and digestible form. For example, this week, in response to the resurgence of the bizarro "Talarico is a vegan" stuff, the candidate said: "C'mon. I've been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton's first indictment." Another line the campaign has been using is: "Paxton wants the election to be about woke, Talarico wants it to be about broke." These are... not too bad. At very least, we are confident that Talarico's raw political skill is many orders of magnitude superior to that of Paxton.
   
   
4. Sleaze: There was much supposition that, because Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a "bad guy," he was at risk of losing to Beto O'Rourke or Colin Allred. Obviously, that did not happen.
   
   However, Cruz is just an a**hole and a selfish jerk who heads off to Cancun when the going gets rough. He's not a serial adulterer, and he's not a crook. Oh, and in a non-presidential (and thus non-Trump) year, he only defeated O'Rourke by a couple of points. It is not going to help Paxton that he's not only an a**hole and a selfish jerk like Cruz, but he's also so corrupt he'd make Boss Tweed blush. And don't forget that Paxton's divorce will be playing out while the campaign is underway, reminding everyone who might have forgotten that he's a lech. Think Talarico might have a few relevant pieces of scripture at the ready as needed—say, the parts of the Bible having to do with adultery? Our understanding is that neither Jesus, nor his dad, was a fan of that particular practice.
   
   
5. Infrastructure: Speaking of Beto O'Rourke, it's pretty easy to see Talarico as something of a sequel, and to expect the same result. However, when O'Rourke ran against Cruz, the Democrats' statewide machinery in Texas was pretty moribund, and O'Rourke and his team had to rebuild it. Now, Talarico will benefit from that infrastructure and, unlike O'Rourke, won't have to build it from (almost) scratch.

On the whole, we think the arguments for Talarico are stronger. So, if you made us bet money, we'd bet on him. But we wouldn't bet much because, at the moment, there's no actual proof of concept, and the road to the Senate chamber is littered with the bodies of promising Texas Democrats.

Meanwhile, if the blue team can't win this one, with a strong candidate, a weak opponent, and the wind at their back, then they probably just need to give up on Texas for a decade or so. But for now, someone at the DSCC should just make sure Talarico gets a refresher course in how to keep his zipper zipped. (Z)

This Week in TrumpWorld, Part I: V is for Vendetta

Politico had an item yesterday headlined "Donald Trump's revenge tour might not end in 2026." The author suggests that Trump is going to be even more aggressive in trying to destroy his "enemies" in 2028, as he seeks to leave office with the Republican Party fully converted into the Trumpublican Party.

There is a somewhat substantial list of Republican Senators who are up in 2028, and who have challenged Trump, on occasion, including Lisa Murkowski (AK), Todd Young (IN), Rand Paul (KY), and John Thune (SD). You can also put Chuck Grassley (IA) on that list, if you think he's actually going to run for a ninth term at the age of 95 (shades of Strom Thurmond). If Trump applies the patented John Cornyn "Not Sufficiently Loyal" test, then nearly every Republican, with only a few exceptions, could be in hot water.

Truth be told, we can't imagine a scenario—short of Trump's dying or otherwise becoming incapacitated—in which he doesn't spend his last year-plus in office trying to pick off the senators (and representatives) he doesn't like. Beyond wanting to leave his stamp on the party, crushing people makes him feel good. It's even better when it's someone who licked his boots, like Cornyn did, because it makes Trump look gangster, like Keyser Soze. Plus, particularly if this year's midterms return a Democratic House, what else is Trump going to do with his time between Jan. 2027 and Jan. 2029? Certainly not pass any legislation. It is true that derailing electable U.S. Senators in favor of less electable challengers is not good for the Party, but Trump doesn't even care about that happening while he's still in office. He certainly won't care about it happening after he leaves.

The real question, then, is not whether Trump will try it, but whether he will have success. Certainly the takedowns of this year, most obviously John Cornyn and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), have Trump feeling good about his chances. However, he will also be 2 years closer to lame duck status than he is now, and he will also likely be more unpopular. Further, Republican donors, and some Republican operatives, have been willing to play Trump's game this year when the GOP has a 3-seat margin of error in the Senate. What if that drops to 1 seat, or 0, or -1? They may be less willing to play the game then.

Our crystal ball is too murky for us to know how this will play out. The only thing we are certain about is that it can only help the Democrats if Trump continues his curious practice of rat**cking his own political party. (Z)

This Week in TrumpWorld, Part II: Like a Very Dangerous Kid in a Very Dangerous Candy Store

Several times, in the last week or so, we've considered writing an item on the state of the Iran War. We've even put the links together, and sketched out a broad outline of what we might say. But the ultimate conclusion these days is always: "Eh, what's the point?" Every time Donald Trump claims that [X] is happening, or has been agreed to, or is about to be resolved, Iran says it's not true. Every time Iran claims that [Y] is happening, or has been agreed to, or is about to be resolved, Trump (or someone else in the White House) says it's not true. At this point, it's not news; it's just gossip.

Yesterday, there was finally something worth noting, though it has nothing to do with progress toward a resolution. In fact, it is an indication of a lack of progress. During a Cabinet meeting, Trump was talking about the conditions under which he wants the Strait of Hormuz to re-open; essentially that everyone gets passage without regard to nationality (the careful reader might notice that is what the world already had... before Trump decided to indulge in a poorly thought-out war). Someone at the Cabinet meeting pointed out that Oman, an American ally, might want increased control over the Strait. And Trump casually responded, "Oman will behave just like everybody else. Or else we'll have to blow them up. They understand that. They'll be fine."

Can you imagine what would happen if, say, the leader of Syria, or Yemen, or Lebanon or, for that matter, Oman offhandedly told reporters that if the United States did not fall into line, it might just be necessary to blow the Americans up? There would be American carrier groups en route to that nation within the hour. This is simply not something you say if you are the nation's leader—not accidentally, not to make a point, not as a joke, not under any circumstances. Oh, and by the way, the White House was so proud of that moment that it quickly posted the clip to social media.

This... concerning remark has caused a number of outlets to compile a list of all the nations that Trump has threatened to invade, attack, or otherwise use force against. Here they all are, organized by term:

First Term	Second Term
Mexico North Korea Syria	Canada Colombia Cuba Greenland/Denmark Iran Iraq Mexico Nigeria Oman Panama Somalia Venezuela Yemen

Countries in bold are the ones Trump has actually attacked, at least once.

It could not be clearer that, during his first term, Trump was reluctant to threaten other nations with violence, much less to act on it. This term, the gloves are off. We aren't entirely sure how to explain the difference. Maybe, once you get a taste of blood, you warm up to it. Maybe it's Trump's growing lack of mental discipline. Maybe it's that he no longer has to think about being reelected. Maybe it's Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Maybe first-term Trump didn't need to distract attention from the Epstein Files, and second-term Trump does. Could be any of these things, we suppose.

We mention this because while we don't believe Trump will actually attack Oman, we think an attack on Cuba is inevitable, and probably imminent. The indictment of Raúl Castro last week was clearly a predicate to that, setting up an excuse for the administration, not unlike Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. And yesterday, it was reported that the Pentagon has been very careful not to remove any military assets from the area around Cuba, even while it's trying to find enough firepower to send to Iran.

So, get ready for the United States' second war in Cuba. The first one was pretty brief (4 months), relatively painless, and worked out pretty OK in the end. We do not foresee the same thing happening this time. And if the Cubans decide this is their opportunity to strike against Guantanamo Bay, it could get downright ugly. There are 3,100 military personnel and another 3,000 civilians there, and it would not take much to exact a death toll far greater than the U.S. has experienced in the Iran War (13 soldiers, thus far). (Z)

This Week in TrumpWorld, Part III: The Slush Fund Backlash Is Building

The Republican members of Congress picked a heck of a good time to get out of Dodge for the Memorial Day break, since that lets them avoid daily questions about the Trump slush fund. Those Republicans bold enough to hold town halls during the break (probably not too many of them) are likely getting an earful from constituents. Oh well, at least their comments to constituents aren't likely to end up on the front page of The New York Times.

That Congress is (by default) playing its cards close to the vest does not mean that things are going well for Donald Trump when it comes to his slush-fund plans, though. Several different problems have already presented themselves:

• Lawsuits: There have already been at least three lawsuits filed in an effort to get the slush fund struck down as illegal. The first was filed by two police officers who were targeted during the 1/6 insurrection. The second was filed by a consortium of organizations and individuals who say they were harmed by the Trump-Vance administration. And the third was filed just yesterday, by a group of 35 retired federal judges, who want to reopen the dismissed-with-prejudice Trump v. IRS, on the basis that the request for dismissal (which came from Trump's lawyers) was fraudulent. This whole thing is so unorthodox that nobody really has any idea what will happen with these cases, or whether any of the plaintiffs will have standing. But, they will certainly tie things up for a while, and will also keep the story, and the stench emanating from it, in the headlines.
  
  
• Actual Victims: The people who are ostensibly supposed to get money from the fund are, most obviously, the close associates of the Trumps, crooked members of Trump's administrations, and the 1/6 rioters. It is laughable that these people are victims of anything, especially since most of them have either taken plea deals or have been convicted by a jury of their peers.
  
  The people who have an actual claim as victims of the "weaponization" of the Department of Justice are, of course, people targeted by Trump and his various pliant attorneys general. And these folks, while they aren't looking for money, would definitely like to poke Trump in the eye. So, James Comey, the six lawmakers who made the "Don't obey illegal orders" video, Letitia James, Michael Cohen, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a bunch of prosecutors fired because they worked on the Russia dossier, and numerous others, are preparing to file claims, or are at least thinking about it.
  
  The "terms" of the deal that the Trump administration made with... well, Trump say that the decisions of the secret panel are final, and cannot be challenged in court. But that does not make it so. At such point that these people are turned down, should it get that far, some of them (maybe all of them) will run to court and argue that the terms are invalid. Maybe they win, maybe they don't, but what's certain is that this will produce even more headlines.
  
  
• Federalism: There is no state governor who hates Trump more than Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). And between that hatred and his 2028 presidential ambitions, Newsom has been looking for a way to fight back. Now, he has come up with an idea (which he actually stole from a legislator in New York). That idea is that any state resident who receives a payout from the fund will be taxed at a very high rate on that money. That rate will be... 100%. A bill proposing this plan is likely to secure passage in both California and New York, and the legislature in New Jersey is teeing up a vote as well. Expect other blue states to follow suit.
  
  
• Legal Quagmire: Thanks to reader P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, for bringing this one to our attention. There is a law called the False Claims Act, which was passed during the Civil War. It was initially intended to combat shady war contractors, but has been used since to pursue many different kinds of behavior that involve laying hands on government money that a person or entity is not entitled to.
  
  Basically, in something roughly analogous to a whistleblower situation, anyone can sue if they believe an unlawful claim on government funds has been made. And if that plaintiff wins, the defendant is not only on the hook to pay the money back, but can also be assessed treble damages. Because it's a civil tort, rather than a criminal claim, a presidential pardon is not available. Oh, and while the government has the power to dismiss these fraud claims, the statute of limitations is 6 years. So, a potential target would be on the hook well into the next presidential administration. We're just spitballing here, but we are guessing the average 1/6 participant doesn't have a couple of hundred thousand bucks in the bank to cover the bill if they get popped for treble damages.

Congress returns next week, and so they will get to deal with this headache before the courts will, or even the blue-state legislatures. We imagine this is too corrupt for even them, and that there will be some sort of bipartisan effort to kill the slush fund. But if it's another CACO moment, well, Trump and his corrupt cronies still won't be out of the woods. (Z)

This Week in TrumpWorld, Part IV: Senate Republicans Perform Parliamentarian Theater

Donald Trump has become absolutely obsessed with getting Congress to pay $1 billion toward the ballroom he once bragged would not cost taxpayers a single cent. There's no way that expenditure can get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. So, if it's going to happen, it will have to be in the reconciliation bill (which, it should be noted, may or may not pass, regardless of whether the ballroom money is in it). Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has already performed a Byrd Bath, and said that the $1 billion cannot be included in the reconciliation bill. So, Trump wants her fired, so that the $1 billion can be jammed back into the bill.

This week, some number of Republican Senators have been signaling that they are open to Trump's suggestion, and would like to see MacDonough cashiered. One GOP Senate aide, speaking to reporters, said: "The fire-the-parliamentarian group is growing. There are quite a few members now who are saying, 'We should have fired her day one.'" The aide further said that it's MAGA senators who are most enthusiastic about the idea, in case anyone hadn't guessed that already.

This is, to be clear, useless political theater, meant to persuade Trump that his demands are being taken seriously. It's not even particularly good political theater, since nobody is putting their names to it (the aide's comments, and all other statements so far, have been off the record). So, it's not like Trump will even know that it was, say, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) or Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) who was talking a big game about firing MacDonough.

Mostly, we pass along this news because it offers us an opportunity for a refresher on why this $1 billion isn't going to happen. First, even if it's somehow whipped into shape in a way that qualifies for a reconciliation bill, a lot of Republican members hate the whole idea. They don't want to spend the next 6 months (or, maybe, the next 3 years) answering questions about why they thought Trump's gaudy ballroom was more worthy of funding than, say, USAID, or healthcare subsidies, or school lunches. And let us not forget that there is now a quartet of senators (and maybe more than a quartet) who have nothing to lose, and who are not exactly looking to find ways to honor their nemesis Trump.

The firing of MacDonough is even more problematic. Maybe Trump doesn't understand, or maybe he doesn't care, but if Senate Republicans get rid of MacDonough (or, if they just overrule her, which would be enough), then in exchange for a fairly middling $1 billion victory, they would be opening the floodgates for the Democrats to go nuts the next time they have the trifecta. "If Republican initiatives don't have to undergo Byrd Baths," they will say, "then Democratic initiatives don't have to undergo Byrd Baths, either." And the blue team would cram their reconciliation bills with enough goodies that it would even make Santa Claus jealous—changes to the Supreme Court, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, big chunks of the Green New Deal, tax hikes for billionaires, etc. Defanging the Parliamentarian would be functionally similar to getting rid of the filibuster, except that all the goodies would have to go into one bill (actually, technically, three bills) instead of being passed throughout the year.

The upshot: Sorry, Mr. President, you're going to have to figure out something else when it comes to plans for your balls. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger