I’m split evenly on them. Republicans want Crockett because she’s a woman and black and they think that’ll make it easy or something. I think she’s a more dominant opponent to the Republican party in sheer strength. Her rhetoric hits like a sack of nickels.

Talarico on the other hand is a bigger threat to Christian nationalism. That what I think they fear in him. He is a very mild mannered, straight white Christian man. He knows the Bible and he is politely reminding Christians that the Jesus in the Bible would have never worn a maga hat, and would have opposed those that do.

So I see why Republicans prefer Crocket, but I think it’s bad news for them either way.

I do, or did too. But I frankly like how Talarico packages his points much better.

I also saw Crockett took a $25k trip paid for by AIPAC and that’s a deal-breaker alone for me. Though Talarico took took money from Adelson’s pac before he went viral, it seems that was related to casinos. Both imperfect, I guess.

Watch some of his recent speeches, or the videos that made him viral this past year. He has fully embraced the Fight Oligarchy strategy of AOC and Sanders.

I have an instinctual dislike for any candidate that is an enthusiastic religion freak. I also like Crockett a lot. So it seems like my choice would be easy, but it isn’t.

Democrats have been getting closer and closer to winning with every Senate election. Republicans used to win by double digits, now they are barely winning by very small margins. Beto O’Rourke probably could have won, if he hadn’t stupidly gone on the radio, and arrogantly declared that he would take their guns. In Texas. He might as well have taken one of those guns and shot himself. I wasn’t shocked he lost after that, I expected a blow out loss, but I didn’t expect how close he would still come.

If Beto could get that close after announcing his gun confiscation dreams, then a proper candidate could probably win it. So in TEXAS, which candidate can realistically flip that seat, the white preacher, or the loud black lady?

Viewed through the lens of the average Texas voter, the choice seems obvious.

He says Israel has committed war crimes. Crockett has said that Hamas committed war crimes, but I have never heard her actually say that Israel has committed war crimes. She’s aggressive, but what does she actually stand for?

Jasmine Crockett being better / more aggressive in a debate doesn’t make her better on policy. She’s the establishment choice in this primary, an AIPAC-compromised ghoul with a snazzy coat of paint. Roasting Republicans with sick burns on fox news doesn’t wash the Palestinian blood from her hands, and she’ll keep up the appearance of fighting while caving at every opportunity to corporate interests.

Fuck MLK, right?

That’s the sad reality right now though. To reach the crazies you need people who can get to them. The way things are, they see every outside criticism as invalid and unimportant. You need someone who can cut across that.