I think that you and other political observers overestimate the importance of money in political campaigns. It is too easy to look at fundraising numbers and use that to declare the current leader in the horse race. It is true that a candidate with $100K running against an opponent with $10M is at a significant disadvantage. I am not sure that the same can be said once ad buys have reached a certain level of saturation. At some point, an extra dollar does not translate into more votes.
I’d love to see Gabe respond to this with data. It seems like since the 2013 citizens united case we’d likely have enough data to make a compelling case for/against this!
Yes, it seems you get to a point of diminishing returns. The 13th mailer a candidate sends to my mailbox doesn’t really help their case anymore than the twelfth did
I'd like to point out some wording in this piece I find questionable. On its surface the language comes off as benign, but I can't help but feel an overall hard bias against Talarico throughout.
- Talarico has been encouraging and welcoming Trump supporters and especially Republicans to join his coalition since day one. The claim that he learned this "belatedly" feels disingenuous.
- It was painful it was to read the problems with Paxton (bribery, election interference) vs. the "problems" with Talarico (vanilla statements mixed with objective truth, the domestic threat comment is objective truth) in this post, written in a way as to suggest these issues are in any way comparable.
- Suggesting Talarico "cloaks" his Democratic views in Christianity. Many Democratic views fit in really well with biblical views- particularly the views of Jesus. Cloak means to conceal or hide - which isn't a fair description of how he's discussed religion and how it aligns with his politics.
Hi Julie, thanks for writing and for sharing your thoughts. My job as a political analyst isn’t to look at a candidate’s vulnerabilities and say which things wouldn’t or wouldn’t make me want to vote for someone - it’s to look from the perspective of Texas voters to analyze what will impact their voting behavior. In the case of Paxton, he’s been re elected several times since being indicted, so I do think there’s reason to think that is a vulnerability but a surmountable one. Conversely, we know for example how damaging the “Kamala is for they/them” ad was for Harris in electorates like Michigan or Wisconsin. Talarico is running in an even redder electorate, so there is reason to believe his similar comments will be a major vulnerability in a state as red as TX. Like I said in the piece, I still think it’s as close to a tossup race there as Dems will ever have - but to look at the odds from an objective lens, I do think it’s important to weigh the various vulnerabilities not from any individual’s perspective, but from the perspective of the Texas electorate at large.
I think all the points you raise are fair, though. By “cloak” I really just meant a big part of his political project was articulating progressive views with the language of Christianity — I agree that could have been better put. As for “belatedly,” I meant looking at his overall record as a politician not just in this Senate campaign — I do not think his comments from 2021 represent someone who was focused earlier in his career on reaching out to Republican voters as opposed to animating his progressive base. Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback.
I genuinely get your approach to be unbiased via consideration of what the electorate considers important - it certainly helps readers get on board if they feel their concerns are being weighed legitimately. Still, I think this method ends up centering a version of "truth" that is not actual truth. By any objective measure, a candidate that breaks the law is less preferable than a candidate that says something perceived to be scandalous. When should a reporter's job be to highlight the objective truth moreso than the perceived truth? If half the population believed the world was flat, would it be incumbent upon you to point out that factually is untrue, or would you give credence to this "belief" because it's politically important to half the country?
Hi Ashley, thanks for writing -- I hear what you’re saying. There are obviously a lot of journalists out there (beat reporters, investigative reporters, opinion journalists, columnists, commentators, the list goes on) and I’m sure different ones look at their jobs differently, so only speaking for myself, but I don’t view it as my job to tell my readers which candidates they should find more or less preferable. There are other writers who do that in the politics space, and there’s nothing wrong with that at all -- it’s just not the space that I try to fill in the media landscape. I do, however, analyze elections and try to give my readers a sense of how elections are likely to go -- looking at poll numbers and past races and all sort of other data to give them a sense of the political environment overall and in specific races. In that role, I am much more communicating what the electorate believes and analyzing it than saying what I believe or who I would vote for. I think there’s virtue in journalists who are doing the latter, it’s just not what I’ve chosen to offer in my newsletter. So what matters to me is understanding what matters to voters, so I can communicate that back to my readers and hopefully give them a sense of what the electorate at large is thinking. To be clear, this isn’t done to try make any readers feel like their own preferences or concerns are or aren’t being weighted -- it’s done because I want to give my readers an honest and accurate sense of where a race stands, and that can only be done if I weigh the facts of how a given candidate or situation is likely to be perceived, independent of my own personal opinions. If I’m giving a skewed sense of how the race is likely to go, because some group of voters was weighing a factor I disagreed with and I dismissed it in my analysis, I would view it as misleading my readers. Ultimately, no one is served by thinking an election is going to go one way and then it going another and them being caught off guard because I was telling them something incorrect about the factors that would influence the outcome. I hope that makes sense. Thanks as always for reading and sharing your thoughts.
And to be clear when someone says something false I note it! So if someone was saying the world was flat I would absolutely call it false, just like I say that about Trump claiming the 2020 election was stolen, for example. But I would still weigh it as a sizable political force if it were one -- I think it’s possible to call something false, but also say that False Claim X is driving votes in one way or another, separating whether a claim is factually true from whether that claim will have an impact that is relevant to note.
I think you are right about Paxton’s vulnerabilities. His misdeeds are essentially “old news” at this point and surmountable. Talarico’s woke comments are “new news” and will be shocking to many uncommitted Texas voters. The first legislator to declare their pronouns will be a punchline no doubt.
The fact that an occasional "woke" comment by Talarico is somehow comparable to fraud and bribery - literal law-breaking - is so friggin indicative of the current upside down world we're living in. The double standard is so unbelievably absurd that it makes me feel actually insane. WHAT ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT.
I think Talarico will eke out a win, it will take everything to fall in place, but we've got the right horse for the race, under the best circumstances in a long time. The daily economics are hurting ordinary folk, many have buyers' remorse on trump since 2024 election, Hispanics, thankfully, have returned in droves to Democrats, Paxton is the objectional candidate trump has foisted upon Texas, so, hopefully, Texans will finally see the light of day and vote for what's best instead of ideologically, a big hope, but times, they are a-changin'.
Seizing the moment is one of Trump’s greatest abilities, what he ignores is that the moment passes. What follows may or may not work for him. A President who has seemingly personally ended both majorities in the House and Senate, may well see a rebellion big enough, to impeach him. Anger can work from the Presidency to Congress and vice-versa when the occasion requires it, politically.
Talarico might win Dallas, Harris, and Bexar Counties in Texas, but Paxton will win the other 251 counties. And he'll actually fight like hell in the Senate unlike worthless John Cornyn.
Perhaps Paxton would fight in the Senate. But what he would fight for may no longer align with what voters want to see happen. Even Texas voters. What I find more telling than Paxton’s victory is the low, low turnout for this Republican primary. I tend to think that many voters just didn’t care because they weren’t planning on voting for either Paxton or Cornyn. Maybe voting for a Democrat would be a bridge too far. But they have already learned they can stay home. Staying home is just as powerful as voting for the other guy, as Kamila Harris learned to her great cost. Who knows if Talarico has the political chops to pull this off. But I wouldn’t discount him just yet. Pronouns notwithstanding.
I think that you and other political observers overestimate the importance of money in political campaigns. It is too easy to look at fundraising numbers and use that to declare the current leader in the horse race. It is true that a candidate with $100K running against an opponent with $10M is at a significant disadvantage. I am not sure that the same can be said once ad buys have reached a certain level of saturation. At some point, an extra dollar does not translate into more votes.
I’d love to see Gabe respond to this with data. It seems like since the 2013 citizens united case we’d likely have enough data to make a compelling case for/against this!
Yes, it seems you get to a point of diminishing returns. The 13th mailer a candidate sends to my mailbox doesn’t really help their case anymore than the twelfth did
I'd like to point out some wording in this piece I find questionable. On its surface the language comes off as benign, but I can't help but feel an overall hard bias against Talarico throughout.
- Talarico has been encouraging and welcoming Trump supporters and especially Republicans to join his coalition since day one. The claim that he learned this "belatedly" feels disingenuous.
- It was painful it was to read the problems with Paxton (bribery, election interference) vs. the "problems" with Talarico (vanilla statements mixed with objective truth, the domestic threat comment is objective truth) in this post, written in a way as to suggest these issues are in any way comparable.
- Suggesting Talarico "cloaks" his Democratic views in Christianity. Many Democratic views fit in really well with biblical views- particularly the views of Jesus. Cloak means to conceal or hide - which isn't a fair description of how he's discussed religion and how it aligns with his politics.
Hi Julie, thanks for writing and for sharing your thoughts. My job as a political analyst isn’t to look at a candidate’s vulnerabilities and say which things wouldn’t or wouldn’t make me want to vote for someone - it’s to look from the perspective of Texas voters to analyze what will impact their voting behavior. In the case of Paxton, he’s been re elected several times since being indicted, so I do think there’s reason to think that is a vulnerability but a surmountable one. Conversely, we know for example how damaging the “Kamala is for they/them” ad was for Harris in electorates like Michigan or Wisconsin. Talarico is running in an even redder electorate, so there is reason to believe his similar comments will be a major vulnerability in a state as red as TX. Like I said in the piece, I still think it’s as close to a tossup race there as Dems will ever have - but to look at the odds from an objective lens, I do think it’s important to weigh the various vulnerabilities not from any individual’s perspective, but from the perspective of the Texas electorate at large.
I think all the points you raise are fair, though. By “cloak” I really just meant a big part of his political project was articulating progressive views with the language of Christianity — I agree that could have been better put. As for “belatedly,” I meant looking at his overall record as a politician not just in this Senate campaign — I do not think his comments from 2021 represent someone who was focused earlier in his career on reaching out to Republican voters as opposed to animating his progressive base. Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback.
And thank you for considering and the reply.
I genuinely get your approach to be unbiased via consideration of what the electorate considers important - it certainly helps readers get on board if they feel their concerns are being weighed legitimately. Still, I think this method ends up centering a version of "truth" that is not actual truth. By any objective measure, a candidate that breaks the law is less preferable than a candidate that says something perceived to be scandalous. When should a reporter's job be to highlight the objective truth moreso than the perceived truth? If half the population believed the world was flat, would it be incumbent upon you to point out that factually is untrue, or would you give credence to this "belief" because it's politically important to half the country?
Hi Ashley, thanks for writing -- I hear what you’re saying. There are obviously a lot of journalists out there (beat reporters, investigative reporters, opinion journalists, columnists, commentators, the list goes on) and I’m sure different ones look at their jobs differently, so only speaking for myself, but I don’t view it as my job to tell my readers which candidates they should find more or less preferable. There are other writers who do that in the politics space, and there’s nothing wrong with that at all -- it’s just not the space that I try to fill in the media landscape. I do, however, analyze elections and try to give my readers a sense of how elections are likely to go -- looking at poll numbers and past races and all sort of other data to give them a sense of the political environment overall and in specific races. In that role, I am much more communicating what the electorate believes and analyzing it than saying what I believe or who I would vote for. I think there’s virtue in journalists who are doing the latter, it’s just not what I’ve chosen to offer in my newsletter. So what matters to me is understanding what matters to voters, so I can communicate that back to my readers and hopefully give them a sense of what the electorate at large is thinking. To be clear, this isn’t done to try make any readers feel like their own preferences or concerns are or aren’t being weighted -- it’s done because I want to give my readers an honest and accurate sense of where a race stands, and that can only be done if I weigh the facts of how a given candidate or situation is likely to be perceived, independent of my own personal opinions. If I’m giving a skewed sense of how the race is likely to go, because some group of voters was weighing a factor I disagreed with and I dismissed it in my analysis, I would view it as misleading my readers. Ultimately, no one is served by thinking an election is going to go one way and then it going another and them being caught off guard because I was telling them something incorrect about the factors that would influence the outcome. I hope that makes sense. Thanks as always for reading and sharing your thoughts.
And to be clear when someone says something false I note it! So if someone was saying the world was flat I would absolutely call it false, just like I say that about Trump claiming the 2020 election was stolen, for example. But I would still weigh it as a sizable political force if it were one -- I think it’s possible to call something false, but also say that False Claim X is driving votes in one way or another, separating whether a claim is factually true from whether that claim will have an impact that is relevant to note.
I think you are right about Paxton’s vulnerabilities. His misdeeds are essentially “old news” at this point and surmountable. Talarico’s woke comments are “new news” and will be shocking to many uncommitted Texas voters. The first legislator to declare their pronouns will be a punchline no doubt.
The fact that an occasional "woke" comment by Talarico is somehow comparable to fraud and bribery - literal law-breaking - is so friggin indicative of the current upside down world we're living in. The double standard is so unbelievably absurd that it makes me feel actually insane. WHAT ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT.
I think Talarico will eke out a win, it will take everything to fall in place, but we've got the right horse for the race, under the best circumstances in a long time. The daily economics are hurting ordinary folk, many have buyers' remorse on trump since 2024 election, Hispanics, thankfully, have returned in droves to Democrats, Paxton is the objectional candidate trump has foisted upon Texas, so, hopefully, Texans will finally see the light of day and vote for what's best instead of ideologically, a big hope, but times, they are a-changin'.
Seizing the moment is one of Trump’s greatest abilities, what he ignores is that the moment passes. What follows may or may not work for him. A President who has seemingly personally ended both majorities in the House and Senate, may well see a rebellion big enough, to impeach him. Anger can work from the Presidency to Congress and vice-versa when the occasion requires it, politically.
Talarico might win Dallas, Harris, and Bexar Counties in Texas, but Paxton will win the other 251 counties. And he'll actually fight like hell in the Senate unlike worthless John Cornyn.
Perhaps Paxton would fight in the Senate. But what he would fight for may no longer align with what voters want to see happen. Even Texas voters. What I find more telling than Paxton’s victory is the low, low turnout for this Republican primary. I tend to think that many voters just didn’t care because they weren’t planning on voting for either Paxton or Cornyn. Maybe voting for a Democrat would be a bridge too far. But they have already learned they can stay home. Staying home is just as powerful as voting for the other guy, as Kamila Harris learned to her great cost. Who knows if Talarico has the political chops to pull this off. But I wouldn’t discount him just yet. Pronouns notwithstanding.