Spoiler alert: Naaah. But it's certainly fun to fantasize.
Yes, John Cornyn may have been a slightly safer bet than Ken Paxton in a general election. Given the relative difference between how the two would have voted over the next six years, the gain from nominating Paxton probably doesn't justify the assumed risk of dethroning the incumbent Cornyn. It might take more money to fight for the seat in the general election, but that assumes that Democrats would have left Texas alone had Cornyn eked out a win over Paxton.
In the end, though, Texas is Texas, and a primary runoff doesn't change the nature of the Republican or Democrat parties in the Lone Star State.
First off, does anyone know how long it has been since Democrats won a statewide election in Texas? That last happened in Bill Clinton's first term, in the 1994 midterms. Texas Democrats have not won a statewide election in 32 years, a longer skunk streak than Republicans have in Minnesota (2006). Beginning in Clinton's term, Texas Democrats took a turn to the Left, and began their long retreat into Academia. About the closest they came was in 2018, when Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke came within four points of Ted Cruz. That was in a Blue Wave election cycle where Democrats poured tens of millions of dollars into the state, and national media tried to turn O'Rourke into the second coming of JFK, too.
It's not for nothing that Texas Democrats have the longest current streak of statewide-election futility in the nation.
Second: Ken Paxton is not a political newcomer to statewide elections. He has won statewide office as Attorney General in three straight elections, starting in 2014. The closest Paxton came to losing was in the same 2018 Blue Wave cycle when Democrats poured all that money into the state, and he still won by three points over Justin Nelson, 50.6/47.0. Four years ago, after Paxton's extramarital affair had become public knowledge and whistleblowers had already come forward to claim corrupt actions – the oft-mentioned baggage that accompanies Paxton – Paxton won his re-election bid by almost ten points over Rochelle Mercedes Garza, 53.4/43.7.
That doesn't make this baggage disappear. It does, however, make it old news, as Cornyn himself discovered in the runoff. Cornyn hammered Paxton for his personal marital scandal and the whistleblower allegations 24/7 during the runoff (as well as in the weeks leading up to the March primary), and it didn't move the needle at all. The phrase "asked and answered" comes to mind when analyzing voters' reactions, at least in terms of their actual ballot choices.
In comparison, Democrat nominee James Talarico shares the same problem that O'Rourke and Colin Allred had – a limited legislative constituency. O'Rourke and Allred at least had congressional constituencies, albeit in curated liberal-progressive districts that allowed them relatively cocooned political existences. Talarico has a curated state-legislature constituency, even smaller and less representative than either O'Rourke or Allred. Talarico has never succeeded in running a campaign for a congressional district, let alone the entire state of Texas. Talarico may be a good fit for his Austin/Travis County district, but Austin isn't exactly representative of Texas. By a long shot.
Third: Democrats may have dodged a bullet with Talarico's win over the extreme and unelectable Jasmine Crockett, but that creates two problems for Democrats. Black Democrats, perhaps especially in Crockett's area of Houston, are not going to be enthusiastic about Talarico after his surprise win. They aren't going to suddenly go MAGA either or vote for Paxton, but their turnout may not be as strong for a white, milquetoast Austin nominee with no connection to their communities.
The second problem is that Talarico may look like a cypher who can twist himself into a pretzel to look moderate, as O'Rourke and Allred attempted to do, but he's already built a track record of positions that won't appeal outside of the bounds of Academia. Remember the ad that Donald Trump ran against Kamala Harris over the transgender issue – "Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald Trump is for us?" Expect the Texas GOP to run the same playbook against Talarico over this and other transgender-activist comments:
James Talarico: “I love trans children” pic.twitter.com/o0fU2uti0T
— Justin (@JustinUSA) May 27, 2026
Then there is this tortured explanation of how Talarico sees the American flag. Apparently, it's a "complicated symbol" for the man who would be Senator:
James Talarico: “The American flag is such a complicated symbol for most of us.” pic.twitter.com/zcMowHvZeL
— Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) May 25, 2026
The American flag may be "a complicated symbol" for people who reject Americans. Most Texans, however, take pride in their country and its flag, and aren't about to apologize for either one.
Talarico's comment about the cross relates to another supposed moderating factor in his candidacy – his time in a Christian seminary. However, as Jeffrey Blehar points out, Talarico's version of Christian theology diverges sharply from mainstream Christian thought, perhaps especially in Texas:
As he ranted against the founding of “Christian schools,” denounced Constantine as the “first Christian nationalist,” and stated, “We are closer than we think to a Christian theocracy,” I had one thought, aside from his manhandling of doctrine: This ain’t gonna sell statewide. I was amused that Democrats thought this guy was going to win religious voters in Texas — whether Catholic or Evangelical — while peddling Austinite progressive politics under the thin veil of a Christianity unrecognizable to most practitioners of the form. Who did these people think they were fooling?
No matter — he won the primary. And Democrats celebrated across the nation. And then the real oppo file began to drop.
All the old videos are now being reposted. The old tweets are “resurfacing.” And the hopes of national Democrats are being slowly gutted as they read old texts of their Great White Texan Hope righteously babbling ultra-woke slop such as, “White skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus [of racism]. But we spread it wherever we go — through our words, our actions, and our systems. We don’t have to be showing symptoms — like a white hood or a Confederate flag — to be contagious.” (Why yes, of course he wrote that in May 2020, but even more amazingly it was written before George Floyd’s death. Talarico was ahead of the zeitgeist.)
Jeffrey links to a statement that I'd forgotten to emphasize just how radical Talarico's version of Christianity is:
Texas senate hopeful James Talarico uses the gnostic 'Gospel of Thomas' to prove that Jesus was a feminist, offering that men must not be male, but must be female, and vice versa. pic.twitter.com/QjGOMPympG
— Protestia (@Protestia) March 4, 2026
The Gospel of Thomas was not "omitted" from the Bible by "church leaders"; it was never an accepted part of the prophetic writings. Every reference to it in the early Church condemned it as false, used to advance the Manichaean heresy of dual gods of good and evil (and perhaps the Gnostic heresies as well). Any seminarian building a theological argument on the Gospel of Thomas about the true teachings of Jesus should be flunked out of school. And there are a lot of Bible-taught Baptists in Texas who know the difference, not to mention Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and so on.
Texas Democrats may find a way to win a statewide election in Texas at some point. It's not going to happen, though, as long as they keep pushing radical weirdoes like Talarico and pretending that he's mainstream. Paxton may take a little more effort, but not nearly as much as Republicans fear.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy HotAir's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member