this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
192 points (97.5% liked)

politics

28607 readers
2620 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The state lawmaker leads his opponent by four percentage points, 47% to 43%

State Rep. James Talarico is beating Rep. Jasmine Crockett in Texas' Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, according to a new poll.

The survey was shared by JT Ennis, a spokesman for Talarico. It showed that the lawmaker had a 4-point advantage before his interview with Stephen Colbert, which stirred controversy after not being aired on the late show television. Talarico claimed it was the Trump administration who blocked the airing of the interview and called it "the most dangerous kind of cancel culture."

Conducted by Impact Research among 800 likely voters in the Democratic primary, the survey showed Talarico getting 47% of the support, compared to Crockett's 43%. 9% of respondents said they were undecided.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kofe@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (5 children)

What about him do you like more than Jasmine? She's a fuckin firecracker. I love her. Never heard of this other dude.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

She's kicking journalists that she doesn't like out of her campaign events like Trump would. Is that what we're supposed to like now?

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I do, or did too. But I frankly like how Talarico packages his points much better and in a way that reaches "moderate" or Independent swing-voters more effectively.

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.