Jasmine Crockett for Senate: Everyone Weighs In.

A roundtable discussion about the incendiery Texas Democrat

Jasmine Crockett is running for Senate. What will the Texas firebrand’s campaign mean for the left, for Democrats, and for U.S. politics? Everyone weighs in.

---

Steward Beckham says:

The announcement of Jasmine Crockett’s Senate campaign exposed tensions long simmering inside the Democratic coalition. Establishment and centrist voices quickly voiced concern, uneasy with an outspoken Black woman known both for sharp critique and occasional rhetorical overreach, stepping into a high-stakes race. Others were energized, seeing her candidacy as a potential jolt to a base frustrated by a donor-friendly class that still defends a legacy of neoliberalism and neoconservatism, while insisting it has nothing to do with the mess we’re in now.

This dynamic reflects the deeper problem: Democratic leadership continues to obsess over messaging and internal tone-policing while remaining disconnected from the urgent fears of working-class, marginalized, and increasingly disillusioned communities. We are living in a deregulated, destabilized economy shaped by decades of policy failure, yet party strategy often defaults to outdated assumptions about electability and a fantasy of bipartisan centrism.

In 2024, Democrats sidelined progressive voices calling for moral clarity on human rights, civil liberties, and the symbolism of a woman of color running for president in an age of rising bigotry. They lost. Now, 2026 presents another test. Will Democrats once again chase Trump voters at the risk of alienating their most loyal and vulnerable constituencies? Or will they take seriously the realignment happening in the electorate, where enthusiasm comes from clarity and not caution?

Jasmine Crockett’s candidacy isn’t just about one seat, it’s really about whether the Democratic Party is prepared to reckon with the present, or retreat into a past that no longer exists. What it chooses to hear, and who it chooses to trust, will say everything about where it’s headed.

Joe Wrote says:

Jasmine Crockett knows something is wrong with the Democratic Party. She recognizes that the old guard — Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, etc. — are uninspiring and unable to fight Trump’s fascism. She fills this void with enthusiasm and charisma, attacking Trump and Greg Abbott with the vitriol they deserve. However, while Crockett speaks like a firebrand, on policy there’s not much for me to be excited about. Crockett is a hard-core Zionist, accepts crypto donations, and routinely markets herself as a “no PAC money” progressive while taking cash from anyone who will give it to her. Because she’s a Black woman and vocally anti-Trump, she’ll be coded as “left wing” (just like Kamala Harris was) even though she’s anything but.

Joey Pipes says:

My reservations about Crockett as a candidate have been confirmed repeatedly since she officially entered the race. Her campaign kickoff video had no mention of any issues, instead highlighting how much Trump dislikes her personally. Her intro speech was rambling and seemingly under-rehearsed, with large portions dedicated to her talking about poll numbers.

She seems to have completely bought into her own hype, a fact that Republicans have reportedly taken advantage of by undertaking a psy-op campaign to encourage her to jump in the race and boost their own chances of holding onto the seat — even if the corrupt and widely-loathed Ken Paxton wins the nomination, as it seems he will. Her performance on Monday suggests that she has so thoroughly bought into her own hype that she doesn’t think she needs to try at all to win, at least in the primary.

There would be limits to her upside even if her campaign were run more competently. The common pro-Crockett argument holds that for any winnable Republican or independent voters she might lose, she will boost turnout among young, Black, and Latino voters based on her social media appeal. I think this argument is seriously mistaken, primarily because her online persona appeals to people who are already committed, enthusiastic, and voting Democrats. Who else would give a shit that she dissed a Republican congresswoman from Georgia’s fake eyelashes?

This isn’t to say that Democrats always need to run safe, centrist candidates, even in red states like Texas. But crude Democrat partisanship should not be confused with more left-wing economic policies, which actually do appeal to people who are not already committed Democrats (see, for example, Trump voters who supported Mamdani).

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett’s Statement on Federal Court Blocking Texas’ Discriminatory Congressional Map

---

---

Eric T. says:

Jasmine Crockett sums up the worst parts of American politics. I wish that wasn’t the case, but she is extremely self-centered, as evidenced by her announcement video and rally, where she did little to talk about actual policy and instead made it about
Jasmine Crockett. That is not to say that she could not pivot at a later date, but I am highly skeptical. She is right that she might activate more disaffected voters, but to fully capture them, you need to offer them something as well.

It remains to be seen if James Talarico can run a strong enough campaign to counter her entrenched popularity. It feels like he may be flirting too much with vague platitudes instead of the substance of leftwing Christianity-infused populism that made him popular in the first place. It would be a shame if he didn’t lean into what could be a very unique brand of politics. In any case, Crockett is the favorite to win the primary as it stands, but her victory far from guaranteed.

jane madden says:

Jasmine Crockett has decided to run for Senate in Texas. She’s truly a top three skyfucker in 2025 politics TikTok aura farming. With the gerrys being ‘mandered for the 2026 election, Crockett’s district (TX-30) is going to face the same fate as the nation known as The Maldives. Gone, lost, to the sands of future time. An epic parcel of half a million or so souls, home to the Southwest Airlines hub Dallas Love Field, will be snackrificed by Greg Abbott in order to keep a small wooden gavel in the legal possession of Mike Johnson (LA-4). This leaves Crockett with one choice: to run for Senate. Game on.

Jasmine Crockett did not enter this battle with Greg Abbott lightly. She threw in a pot shot by calling the wheelchair-bound Republican “Governor Hot Wheels.” Finally, the blood-brain barrier between BlueAnon and Pendejo Time had been broken, turning dirtbag left humor into the same experience as downtown Dallas on a Friday night. Greg Abbott was now fair game, and so was the entire Republican apparatus — this includes Mr. Monkey Business himself, Donald Trunt. While the no-name, glup shitto Clue Freeman Democrats were standing on business — either by wielding a baseball bat (Hakeem Jeffries) or wearing an adult diaper on the senate floor for 25 hours (Cory Booker) — Crockett was just hurling One Insult After Another at Mr. Trunt and successfully baiting him into 2016 4chan tier dog whistles such as “Low IQ”. Truly an epic damage taker in this four year boss fight, my friends.

Crockett’s campaign launched to much fanfare, including an unlisted YouTube video where she just stares in profile while Mr. Trunt chants “Low IQ.” Her solution to the modern day constitutional crisis? Jasmine Crockett. She hasn’t released a platform yet, only the statement: “Texas, and our nation, are heading in the wrong direction.” Being a political aficionado myself, I can give you an idea of what her political platform will look like. Housing? Jasmine Crockett. Healthcare? Jasmine Crockett. Social Security? Jasmine Crockett. Israel? “Well, uh, I HEAR YOU, but uh it’s complicated!” she says standing next to an array of Iron Dome Tamir missiles joint-funded by DoD contractor Raytheon.

Crockett’s logo for senate looks like Dunder Mifflin got really into Portishead in 2006. You can’t even read half the words on it. Meanwhile, James Talarico had his best fundraising day when she announced her run for Senate. Jasmine Crockett is not an oyster farmer; she’s an aura farmer with an uphill battle against Talarico, Cornyn, et. al in 2026. If she wins the primary, well, I hope she wins the general too.

Mom Jorts says:

Jasmine Crockett is a TikTok politician. She may currently be meeting the bizarre political moment we’re in with meme-able quips and one-liners that scratch the itch we all feel as we watch the current administration screw everything up, but is there genuine progressive substance under there? Her entire political strategy is being loud in a way that appeals to liberals and progressives on the surface — but when you pull the curtains back, you find an establishment Democrat with a megaphone and an attitude.

In what I feel should be THE defining litmus test for progressives, Crockett is an abject failure: She supports continued funding to Israel, pointing to “75 years of allyship.” Is this a shocking position amongst establishment Dems? Absolutely not. Is it acceptable from a progressive viewpoint? Absolutely not. While she’s voted against Israel aid packages that do not also include Palestinian aid, she continues to promote the US-Israel alliance — an alliance between her vision of US governance and a genocidal regime that continues an ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. The sunk cost fallacy does not apply to murdering children, and 75 years of allyship should mean nothing against the horrors being perpetuated on Gaza, but we have a politician many label as a “progressive” promoting the alliance anyway. Whether this is a genuine belief she holds, or her attempt to pander to zionists for political reasons, it’s hard to say. Either option is bad when you juxtapose them with her competition, James Talarico, who has taken what appears to be a genuine and principled stance against Israel’s actions (while stopping short of decrying Israel entirely) and has expressed his desire to stop offensive weapons sales to Israel and use US influence to mitigate the crisis in Gaza.

A smaller but salient problem for me, as a finance nerd, is that Crockett accepts funding from crypto-related PACs and voted for the GENIUS Act — a regulatory framework for widespread “stablecoin” cryptocurrency that fell far short on important consumer and economic protections.

The only difference between Jasmine Crockett and any other Democratic Senate candidate is that Crockett is shrewd enough to know that the Democrats’ precious political decorum is officially dead, and she’s taken full advantage of that as a do-almost-nothing way to get herself labeled as a progressive ally without any of the pesky downfalls of actually being progressive in the current political environment. And of course, we need people in power who are willing to speak up loudly and point out every failure and contradiction of the current administration. But it would be much better if those people were actual agents of Democratic evolution, rather than the same type of line-toeing politicians that landed us in this mess in the first place.

---

Austin Woods says:

While Rep. Jasmine Crockett possesses the fiery charisma and combative instincts to engage in a high-profile clash with a slimy figure like Ken Paxton (who I presume to win the GOP nomination), she is not the ideal choice in the Democratic primary. Her candidacy almost perfectly represents a politics of personality over substantive policy, as you can see in her campaign launch video ad. Texas State Rep. James Talarico offers a comparatively better set of policy stances, championing progressive populist priorities like public education funding, economic equality, and housing as a human right. It must be emphasized, however, that Talarico still does not even have an Issues page on his campaign website and has been more social media star than policy wonk in his campaign to this point. Crockett meanwhile has been terrible on the Gaza issue, aligning with a destructive, bipartisan status quo of unconditional support for militarism and occupation — an immediate disqualifier for myself and many others — but I am not a Texas voter.

Crockett’s potential general election chances against an ethically venomous opponent like Paxton are real, and you don’t need to look further than Ann Richards’ 1990 win against Clayton Williams. A cartoonishly corrupt GOP nominee can unite a broad coalition and mobilize Democratic turnout, but this is a cynical and risky bet, reducing the election to a spectacle of personalities rather than a contest of visions for Texas.

Ultimately, the path to a “Blue Texas” is not firmly set. It can be via bombastic figures with stale policy, or through charismatic populist preachers, or through some other vector entirely that remains to be seen. One thing to take away from all of this: nominating Jasmine Crockett for Senate should be understood as a gamble that Ken Paxton’s grotesqueness will be enough — which is not a bad bet to make.

Mike Johnson says:

I’ll start by saying I’m actually ambivalent about the Senate race in Texas because of its white whale status, so take that for what it’s worth. I think there are basically two types of people concerned with Crockett: Talarico supporters who are treating her entry as more of a competitive boost (donate more money, sign up for more volunteering), but approach her as you would anyone (generally) in your party entering a primary: with passive respect.

Then there is…everybody else. Most seem ambivalent, but anti-Crockett for a host of apparently personality-based reasons. Yes, I read Zaid Jilani’s piece. Yes, it isn’t racist or sexist to criticize Crockett. But I will say it certainly may be perceived that way when you consider: in Maine, the Crockett-weary establishment has rallied behind Gov. Janet Mills — who would be the oldest freshman senator in American history — in the massive shadow of questions about age for candidates and elected officials; and in Michigan, behind Rep. Haley Stevens’ campaign that is struggling to connect and feels fairly lackluster.

If you believe that Democrats should be focusing on “winnable races” and that Crockett makes that more challenging, shouldn’t you feel that doubly so for races where Democrats have actually won statewide races in (most) people’s lifetimes? Shouldn’t you be concerned that Schumer et al are putting the weight on the scales in favor of candidates who don’t seem to rouse the party base?

The dream of a blue Texas has blinded people to these broader issues that receive little attention compared to Bluesky clapbacks about Crockett — and yes, I think that will feed perceptions involving racism and sexism as we move forward if folks aren’t careful. I’m a donor to both Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, but I’m not spending a whole bunch of time criticizing Angie Craig or Mallory McMorrow; ask yourself why, instead of sending 20 bucks to James Talarico, you are ranting against Crockett, and you may get to the bottom of why certain “perceptions” are coming up in the discourse.

Michael E. says:

I’m completely ambivalent to a Jasmine Crockett U.S. Senate run, but her candidacy may net positively for “the movement.” She presents an attitude towards politics that has become significantly more commonplace in the Democratic Party and among everyday liberals, something that we should expect in a representative democracy, even when it means whiffing an election or three. Thus, the bemoaning on her DOA run has begun to bother me.

“Letting” Crockett run is a fascinating and ridiculous belief to hold, let alone express. She’s her own woman, she has a war chest, and she’s relatively popular. She wanted to run, so she did. If you want to stop her flavor of liberalism, then present something worthwhile as an alternative.

James Talerico is interesting, as a pastor with a general nice-guy and agreeable attitude, and could certainly make a persuasive argument to on-the-fence voters in a general election. But he is not the left’s choice for Senate. Like Crockett, he describes himself as a fairly progressive liberal, but lacks a strong stance on popular left-wing policies — and, like Crockett, Talerico still lacks a policy page. Has his demeanor or willingness to change and adapt to the political environment resonated with voters? I can’t differentiate the candidates in any meaningful way other than demeanor or demographics, and in 2026 I believe those issues matter far less than policy.

If Texas is to go blue, it’ll go blue. If it isn’t, it will not no matter the nominee between our current choices. Nothing would surprise me, including Jasmine Crockett losing the primary to Talerico, only for him to narrowly lose the general against Ken Paxton anyway.

Crockett on Kimmel

Not Citizen Kane but says:

As Donald Trump’s time as the most projected-on politician in the country wanes, someone will have to take his place. Should I be worried that Jasmine Crockett may already be that next politician?

I guess I’m happy it is an actual Democrat that the party base has decided to make its champion in AI smackdown reels. I can only imagine the Mueller-slop that would have been generated if the technology was inflicted on us during the first Trump term. But is this desire to see Crockett call Ken Paxton a kkkracker in a debate enough to win a primary and pull off a victory in a general election? I’ll be honest, I don’t really see Texas as winnable this cycle, so the answers to those questions in reverse order are: “I don’t think so” and “I don’t care.”

What I do care about is doing a little projecting of my own, because there is a winnable primary and general election in 2028, and my preferred candidate is a woman of color House Rep. from a deep blue area that is considered progressive and a social media star: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Despite their differences in political dynamics, both stages of Crockett’s Senate campaign will be a testing ground for the same kinds of attacks AOC will receive from inside and outside the party during a presidential run. “She’s too young,” “She’s too progressive,” “____ will never elect a nonwhite woman” are among the arguments both candidates will face, to say nothing of the vile smears republicans will sling. The result of the race won’t matter either way, as the usual suspects will always say Crockett would have performed better if she was more centrist (or more progressive). But as AOC fan, I’ll be watching Crockett’s moves and how people respond to them closely.

Nik says:

Full disclosure: I’m supporting Rep. Joaquin Castro in this race. Since the Democratic primary is shaping up to be a contest between Rep. Crockett and State Rep. Talarico, here are my thoughts on what her candidacy means at this inflection point in American history and for the Democratic Party:

Jasmine Crockett winning the Democratic would highlight one of the core strengths of the Democratic Party: the unyielding loyalty it receives from Black women. For a Black woman from a state like Texas to run for U.S. Senate, putting oneself in the line of vicious bigotry, bullying, and outright abuse is a given. I applaud her grit for stepping into that fire and will cheer her if she becomes the nominee. Black voters in Texas give everything to Democrats and have every right to choose her if she’s the one they want. If that’s the case, she’ll have my full support. A Black woman Senator from Texas would be nothing short of a glass-shattering moment that we need in Trump’s America.

Now, comparing any Democrat to Trump would be unfair, given how buffoonish the man himself is. But Jasmine Crockett does share some uncanny similarities that are worth recognizing. Her opponents are salivating over those similarities just like Hillary and Biden did with Trump in 2016 and 2024. The hate from her critics seems to fuel her, as was clear from her campaign launch. Her “Governor Hot Wheels” nickname for Greg Abbott is the closest any Democrat has come to Trump-style nicknaming. And most of all, her campaign feels centered around HER and HER DESTINY — not any particular policy or goal, but a statement about HERSELF. Whether that becomes an asset or a liability is something only time will tell. What I definitely do not believe is that this race will be about policy.

As for the general election, Republicans will likely hold this seat regardless of which Democrat wins the primary. A progressive pastor might look ideal to me on paper as a California liberal, but I’m not convinced that he will resonate with conservative Texas Baptists and evangelicals the way some liberals imagine. Still, defeating Crockett in the primary could boost his moderate credentials and give him just the edge he needs against the Republican nominee. If Crockett wins, I plan to enjoy the campaign, let her cook her opponents, and see where the chips fall. It’s either President 48 or Whoopi Goldberg’s replacement on The View.

Evan Stern says:

Full disclosure: I have money riding on this race. Before Crockett launched her campaign, I took a $9.82 position on the Kalshi prediction market betting that she would be the Democratic nominee for Senate. Initially, the plan was for her big splashy announcement to improve the odds (and therefore, the value) of my position — at which point I would cash out with a profitable difference of 50 cents or maybe even a whole dollar.

At this point, though, I’ve decided to let it ride. Crockett is going to win this race, and all the proof you need is a flash poll of likely Texas Democratic primary voters conducted by Texas Southern University following her Monday announcement. Both candidates have high name ID and, while Crockett leads Talarico 51-43 overall, the key indicator of her inevitability lies across the education divide: for both voters with and without a 4-year degree, Crockett is the preferred candidate. The education gap has emerged as the definitive fault line in contemporary politics, and Crockett bests Talarico on both sides of that divide.

With a lead among less educated voters (twelve points) far greater than that among more educated voters (three points), Crockett is also the Democrats’ best chance in a general election they can only win by picking off Trump voters. This election isn’t going to be decided by race or by gender. This isn’t about left versus center or a contrast of styles and personas. Through the narrow lens of sheer probability, the education breakdown tells us everything we need to know.

But we care about much more than who will win the primary contest and the general election. We care about race and gender, left versus center, and best political practices of performance and style. That’s why I’m so excited about this race: for the next three months — and potentially five, in the event of a runoff — we have the opportunity to lead and participate in discourse that will advance a clearer understanding of these issues of great importance.

Everyone’s a pundit now, including us. Including you. The way we talk about these issues matters far beyond this race; indeed beyond politics into the culture as a whole. This roundtable discussion isn’t going to move the needle on Talarico versus Crockett, but it’s a meaningful contribution to a crucial set of conversations we should welcome and — when we’re ready — jump in and join.

---

---

---

Previously, on Certain Thoughts:

---

---