you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 97 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

Segment itself was pretty banal. But watching the rightwing/ Chorus crowd coming in hard for Crockett is legit whiplash. And like, Crockett has always seemed.. hollow? Or performative?

Something about her reminds me of Buttigieg. Like they a suit you can just shove money and a campaign into and it will self animate and start giving speeches.

This whole thing is giving strong Mamdani vibes, not in the nature of the candidates but the structure of the race, how corporate Dems and Republicans in the end came into alignment to try and stop them. I think capital is sensing its lost the ability to control the narrative around races like this.

But legit, watching crockett flameout while the chorus crowd glazes her has been wild.

I mean Talarico isn't great and I still think flipping Texas is an op. Only thing Texas ever turns blue is peoples balls.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I like Crockett for being a bit of a firecracker. She's smart, she knows the law, and knows the exact right spots to push on to point out the obvious corruption of the right. She seems incorruptible.

    Talarico has a softer approach, isn't as combative, and leans on his faith a bit much I would say. I would say he probably plays better in Texas politics than Crockett might. He also seems incorruptible.

    Two different personalities who are both qualified for what we need right now, but two different tools in a toolbox.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Tal has a big up against crockett that will play big come the general election here in Texas.

    Talerico is a white male. Crockett isn't. This is Texas we are talking about and, as disappointing it is to say, it will play a massive role in an already uphill battle. He's just more electable at face value for that fact alone.

    I like both candidates, tal gets the edge for his funding methods to be sure, but the electability argument is a big one when you are talking about a Senate seat that hasn't been held by a dem since LBJ.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    Crockett denies Isreals war crimes so for many that's a non-starter. Though neither are perfect, I believe Talarico has committed to stopping offensive weapons transfers. I think he is marginally more progressive.

    However both but especially crockett are still kinda mainstream Dems, Crockett does have the benefit of being on the house oversight committee and had good questioning to Pam bondi. She has a lot of the smoke, but her policies are same old same old.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That's something that often gets lost in primaries it seems.. regardless of which candidate you prefer, which one is going to beat the Republican nominee?

    Definitely getting "can win in Texas" vibes from Talarico.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    She seems incorruptible.

    Her election funding would suggest otherwise

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Not sure what you're trying to illustrate here?

    The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors. She doesn't take AIPAC money. What's your point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors

    A plurality, but importantly not a majority.

    She received more from large individual donors and PACs combined than from small donors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don't understand how numbers or percentages work...

    Not trying to be insulting, but c'mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand, to a response you don't understand, and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don't understand how numbers or percentages work...

    It seems it's YOU that don't understand: people rich enough to make large individual donations tend to be the kind of elites who expect something in return for their largesse, as do PACs.

    With that in mind, it's COMPLETELY reasonable to combine those groups to compare with the small donors who represent a wider swath of her constituency and thus incentivize less corrupt practices.

    Not trying to be insulting, but c'mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand

    False, see above.

    to a response you don't understand

    Equally false.

    and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.

    My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Did you not read and understand the second picture you posted at all?

    The largest percentage of donors is at the top there. It's not AIPAC or corporate interests, it's small donors.

    What in the world are you not understanding about your own posts here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Did you not read and understand the second picture you posted at all?

    Yes, I did. Unlike you and my response to you.

    The largest percentage of donors is at the top there. It's not AIPAC or corporate interests, it's small donors.

    Again, the combination of the latter two is very much more relevant than the two separately. The donations NOT from small donors outweigh the donations FROM small donors

    What in the world are you not understanding about your own posts here?

    Literally nothing. It's you that seem to refuse to acknowledge my solid point that a comparison of "small donors" and "not small donors" is the more apt one and that 55.25 is a larger percentage than 44.74.

    Either way, over 72% of those PAC donations coming from business interests is an even more revealing stat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Add up the large individual contributions and the PAC contributions.

    Is that larger or smaller than the small individual contributions %?

    Is the small individual contributions greater or lesser than 50%? Keep in mind that to be the "majority" you must have more than 50%.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    She seems incorruptible

    Didn't she take money from AIPAC, while Talarico is reportedly not funded at all by them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Bruh what are you talking about?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Arsq9-90dyQ

    Crockett is like, 10/10 took the Israel funded trip, 110% in the bag for Israel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Crockett has always seemed.. hollow? Or performative?

    Which is EXACTLY why she's been a darling of the DNC leadership.

    Can't get caught up in actual POLICY matters! That way lies inconveniencing the owner donors!

    Something about her reminds me of Buttigieg. Like they a suit you can just shove money and a campaign into and it will self animate and start giving speeches.

    Spot on. See also:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Indeed, one should never vote for a crock of shit, no matter how representative it appears on the surface. Deep inside, it's full of shit and it will get all over everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Could you give a one-liner on what Chorus is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (1 child)