Why can’t the Texas Senate race be between John Cornyn, the Republican incumbent, versus James Talarico, a Democratic state representative? Because that would be too sane for the times we’re living in.

Instead, a recent University of Houston poll shows Ken Paxton, the state’s firebrand Republican attorney general, and Jasmine Crockett, an equally fiery Democratic US Representative, in the lead for their respective parties. Paxton holds a seven-point lead, with 38% of likely voters saying they will support him, while 31% say they will vote for Cornyn. (A third GOP candidate, US Representative Wesley Hunt, has 17%.) On the Democratic side, Crockett leads 47% to Talarico’s 39%, with 12% undecided.

In an era with stronger party bosses, Paxton would never have been allowed to challenge Cornyn, full stop. Over a steep pour of whiskey at a billionaire’s ranch in West Texas, the party bosses would have cited Paxton’s long list of scandals and said, “This is the end of your political career, not an invitation to take it to the national stage.”

And the bosses of the Democratic Party, perhaps over martinis at a spa resort outside Austin, would put their hand heavily on the scale for Talarico. Not for policy’s sake. There are few obvious policy differences between him and Crockett. But because Crockett’s strategy of of turning out energized progressives across the state simply will not work. There simply aren’t enough of them. Dallas, Austin, Houston — these are still blueberries in the tomato soup.

The goal for Democrats has to be to bring in the suburbs, the moderates, and the people who are disengaged from politics because they find the whole thing so divisive and angry. There’s more of them than usual. Trump is under water with Texas likely voters on his handling of key issues; 55% disapprove of his handling of inflation and the cost of living. And Democrats did recently win a special election outside of Fort Worth, flipping a deep-red seat.

Even so, the hypothetical polling match-ups still have Cornyn or Paxton beating either Crocket or Talarico every time. That’s why my imaginary Democratic bosses would say, “We respect Crockett’s political talent. But Talarico can flip a Trump district, and his unfavorability numbers are significantly lower. That means people won’t show up to vote against him.”

But my party bosses aren’t real. Although Trump’s endorsement seems to matter to a surprising degree, overall political party infrastructure is weak. “They can’t make decisions about who should represent them and who their candidates ought to be. All they can do is act as stages for narcissists,” said AEI constitutional scholar Yuval Levin. “And [the parties] pride themselves in this. They say, ‘Anybody can get on the debate stage, anybody can make it through a process.’ That’s actually not a good thing.” And on top of that, the media temperature is hot, news is fragmented, money is flowing in from all sides and people are angry.

I watched the first televised debate between Talarico and Crockett. In the strange times in which we live, I (a center-right conservative) found myself agreeing with their calls to end Trump’s protectionist tariff racket, which is driving up costs and punishing our allies. I found myself nodding when Talarico called out the historic level of self-enrichment occurring in Trump’s inner circle. I was soothed that neither of them called for abolishing ICE, but rather refocusing Immigration and Customs Enforcement on its original mission: pursuing violent immigrant criminals within our borders. (I hope they are telling the truth.) I, too, am appalled by the AI data centers in our backyard and worried about their impact on water and energy. You don’t have to go all Al Gore to want a little caution.

I found myself predictably frustrated at other parts. You think health care is expensive now? Wait until you see the massive tax hikes Medicare For All would require — no, taxing only the rich can’t cover it — and lose your employer plan. Universal healthcare systems in peer countries like the UK are breaking or broken; people can’t get into emergency rooms. (Although I’ve long believed there should be universal catastrophic health insurance paired with health savings accounts. Still waiting on a politician to adopt that one.)

Talarico’s focus on public education is also good, especially early literacy efforts and tutoring. But school choice works, too; it shouldn’t be treated like a punching bag.

And no one seems to want to talk about the federal deficit, the historic liability that drags behind us like a ball and chain, rattling particularly loudly for progressives given their proclivity for large government spending programs, from health care to universal child care.

A closing word for my rabble-rouser friends. I know that decades of “boring politics” is how we got to this anti-establishment moment. Archaic institutions (and people) didn’t do enough. Things were too polished and buttoned up. But if the last 10 years have taught us anything, it’s that different isn’t always better. Raw is not more virtuous. Someone telling you lies and abusing the office in plain daylight is bad, too.

There are worse things to wish for than a boring primary.

____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Abby McCloskey is a columnist, podcast host, and consultant. She directed domestic policy on two presidential campaigns and was director of economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.