DONALD TRUMP COULD BE CHARLES FOSTER KANE

In the opening monologue of his latest podcast, Ezra Klein tells us that he has a theory: that President Trump doesn't want to help Republicans win the midterms, and might be happier if they lose.

My pet theory right now is that President Trump is not trying to win the midterm elections. I’m not saying he’s trying to lose them, exactly. I just don’t think he cares.

What he cares about is controlling the Republican Party. The Republican Party is his power base. The Republican Party is his protection. The Republican Party is how he can wield power far into the future, long after his presidency, and so control of it is what he’s prioritizing.

Klein gives us the conventional wisdom about how a president helps his party in midterm elections.

Well, if he wanted to win the midterms, he’d be moving to the center. He’d be focusing on the things that Americans are angry about, disappointed in him about. He’d be supporting the strongest Republicans in contested races and doing everything he could to bolster Republicans in vulnerable states and districts.

He’s not doing even a little bit of that. Instead, he’s doing the opposite.

Klein's theory is that Trump is attacking electable Republicans who have challenged him because he cares more about keeping Republicans loyal than about winning the midterms.

He fears a Republican Party in which members of Congress begin to participate in the investigations of his scandals or they abandon him as his fortunes fall. And so he’s made his choice. He is showing them that to oppose him, even from the right, is to light your political future on fire.

I think there's something to that -- if Republicans ever join Democrats in taking on Trump, he's vulnerable. (That will never happen, of course.) But this doesn't explain why Trump endorsed Ken Paxton over John Cornyn in the Texas Senate race -- neither one was likely to break with Trump. It doesn't explain why Trump is pursuing staggeringly unpopular policies -- tariffs, public displays of self-aggrandizement, the war in Iran.

And, as Liam Donovan, a Republican strategist, reminds Klein on the podcast, Trump is obviously doing quite a few things that will help Republicans in the midterms, or that he thinks will help them. He's demanding pro-GOP gerrymanders. He's pushing for the SAVE Act.

What's my theory?

I think Trump believes he won two elections -- actually, he thinks he won three -- despite saying and doing things that were supposed to doom his campaigns, and he's smarter than the pundits and consultants and is doing what it takes to win, even though his genius is going unrecognized. Part of him undoubtedly believes that the polls are fake news and Americans really love him. I think he believes that the tariffs are a brilliant idea, that he really is the one president who can conquer nations that bedeviled previous presidents (Iran, Cuba), and that the public likes his tasteless self-glorification.

But I think he knows the polls are bad for Republicans, and he can't dismiss those polls outright. I think he understands that the GOP might get shellacked. Klein thinks Trump might prefer that outcome starting in 2027.

A Democratic-controlled Congress gives him an enemy to fight. I think he gets a little lost without an enemy. It frees him from the tedious work of trying to pass legislation. It puts him back in the place he’s most comfortable, which is not wielding power; it’s claiming persecution.

But I think he's looking forward to claiming persecution long before the next Congress is seated. If Democrats are winning, he'll say the elections were rigged right away, and he won't stop. We could have a "stop the steal" period between November and January -- and probably beyone January -- that's even more dangerous and divisive than the one we had in 2024. This time, Trump's entire administration will participate, particularly the Justice Department. And ordinary Trump cultists will participate fully expecting that the law won't touch them. (Trump will explicitly offer them preemptive pardons.)

The movement could fail. The courts are likely to affirm Democratic wins. And public opinion won't be on Trump's side.

But this could give Trump the best of both worlds: the enemy party running Congress and a Republican narrative asserting that he actually led his party to victory.

Trump could be Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane -- the newspaperman who failed in a bid to become governor, and ran a paper that was ready for victory or defeat:

CAN JAMES TALARICO AVOID BEING DUKAKISED?

I'm watching the Republican campaign against James Talarico in Texas and I'm having flashbacks to 1988. That year, a decent, non-macho Democrat named Michael Dukakis, who was the governor of Massachusetts, tried to win a presidential election saying things like this:

... this election is not about ideology. It's about competence.

... It's about American values. Old-fashioned values like accountability and responsibility and respect for the truth.

The 1988 election wasn't about ideology or competence. It was about one thing: Do you believe Michael Dukakis is a dangerous freak? That was the question Republicans had Americans asking themselves, whether they recognized it or not.

Republicans portrayed Dukakis as a freak in part because he wasn't tall or manly and because he didn't look good in the helmet he wore while riding a tank in a campaign photo op. Republicans portrayed him as dangerous because a criminal named Willie Horton who was released on a furlough program on Dukakis's watch committed a violent assault, something that wasn't unique to the furlough programs that had been established at that time by every state and the federal government. Republicans also portrayed Dukakis as dangerous because in 1977 he'd vetoed a bill requiring students to say the Pledge of Allegiance, a mandate that had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court a couple of decades earlier; because he opposed the death penalty; and because he was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The attacks on Talarico feel similar to these attacks on Dukakis because, in both cases, positions that seem reasonable in more liberal and tolerant parts of America are easy to portray as bizarre and civilization-threatening in conservative America.

The first general election ad from Talarico's opponent, Ken Paxton unloads nearly everything Republicans have got on Talarico:



It's all cultural -- there really isn't anything here about policy. What doesn't make the cut in this ad shows up in the messaging of Paxton's surrogates:

What the hell is he eating?

It’s not BBQ—because Talarico is passionately anti-meat.

Is that a tofu log? https://t.co/J9Uvch1RY7

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 27, 2026

(Talarico isn't vegan, though he said during his 2022 state senate bid that he was running a "non-meat campaign.")

It's a huge problem for the Democrat Party that you take one look at the men they run for elected office and just know that they couldn't name a single obscure wide receiver from the early 2000s. https://t.co/fKmt8jhUoL

— Dan Weldon for Congress (FL-14) (@TampaDan) May 27, 2026

(Yes, this is how we decide who runs the most powerful country in the world.)

Watters: Talarico is also 37 and not married. He says he has a girlfriend. He called her his best friend. He’s not revealing her identity because he wants to protect her privacy. Why haven’t we ever seen her before? Does she exist? If he wins, are they going to have a coming out… pic.twitter.com/yFskJ7tcsm

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 27, 2026

It's middle school gay-baiting, but it might work. And Stephen Miller took it a step further, describing Talarico as the Democrats' "first transgender senate candidate." The party, to its credit, responded quickly and vulgarly -- "shut up you ugly fuck" -- but I think Marisa Kabas is right:

as much as i appreciate the democrats responding with vigor for once, the fact that republicans are using "transgender" as a slur for a political candidate is fucking horrifying and dems need to quickly figure out a way to address it head on. calling stephen miller ugly isn't a long-term fix.

[image or embed]

— Marisa Kabas (@marisakabas.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 2:29 PM

Over the course of my lifetime, there's been a significant positive change in how non-gay Americans see gay people, but I don't see any sign that we're approaching a day when the majority of cis Americans will be similarly at ease with trans people, or at least accepting of their rights. Talarico is a trans ally, and he might not be able to win a Texas election for that reason alone.

One big difference between Talarico and Dukakis is that Talarico appears to understand the assignment. Unlike Dukakis (and John Kerry sixteen years later), he's not ignoring the GOP's most vicious attacks and hoping they'll just go away. This is from a new CBS interview:

Pressed on a comment he made that God is nonbinary, Talarico said he was being "intentionally provocative," but added that "what it means is that God can't be defined by human categories." On his comments about gender, Talarico said "I know there are two sexes, men and women. I also know there's a very small percentage of people who have these chromosomal abnormalities, and I believe they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

Asked by O'Keefe about the criticism surrounding his diet, Talarico said he is not a vegan, noting that he's an eighth-generation Texan who's "been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton's first indictment."

(Talarico, as you can see in the Paxton ad above, has said that there are six biological genders.)

Talarico, by taking these attacks head-on, might remain competitive in the race, but I wonder if he can really neutralize them. This campaign should be about Ken Paxton's criminality and moral failings, about Donald Trump's incompetence and corruption, and about the Republican Party's failure to make life better for ordinary Americans. But I don't think it will be about that. I fear it will be about whether the Democrat is a big old weirdo. Talarico might win anyway, but he'll have to win on the GOP's turf.

IN TEXAS, DEMOCRATS DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE CRAZIEST S.O.B. (D.O.B.) IN THE RACE

You know about the big headline from Texas last night: Not only did highly corrupt extremist and Donald Trump endorsee Ken Paxton beat incumbent John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary runoff, he trounced Cornyn, winning by a 64%-36% margin. Paxton appears to have won all but 2 of Texas's 254 counties.

And that's not the only Texas race in which extremism seems to have prevailed. Josh Kovensky of Talking Points Memo reports:

The Republican primary runoff ran for the open Texas Railroad Commissioner position was too close to call as of Wednesday morning, with extremist candidate Bo French leading the incumbent by less than 15,000 votes, according to the Associated Press’ unofficial tally of returns....

French waged an eye-popping campaign for the seat on a platform that had little to do with the actual work of the office, supporting the deportation of 100 million people and railing against what he described as the “Islamification” of Texas.

As Kovensky previously reported, French

largely campaigned on culture war intangibles, like cleansing Texas’ oil sector of Islam, fighting DEI, and deporting 100 million people. While chair of the Tarrant County GOP last year, French earned condemnation from fellow Texas Republicans for posting a poll that asked whether Jews or Muslims posed a greater threat to the United States....

He’s called Muslims “savages” and demanded their deportation; he’s said that Texas mosques are “training centers” for an “ideology” of people who “get to rape your wife and daughter.” ...

When the city of Corpus Christi began to run out of water this year, French pinned the blame on a nearby plastics factory, which is majority-owned by the Saudi government. French played that up. In a recent runoff campaign ad, French attacked Wright, accusing his opponent of selling the city’s water to a “Muslim foreign government” and claiming a Delaware court had caught the plastics company trying to “enact Sharia law in America.”

“Do you really want a commissioner who would sell out his own neighbors to a Muslim government? I don’t,” he concluded.

A couple of days ago, I quoted a 2017 observation by Thomas Massie, the libertarian Kentucky congressman who's now a lame duck because he crossed Trump. Massie talked about voters who backed Trump in 2016 after previously supporting him and fellow libertarians Ron and Rand Paul.

"All this time," Massie explained, "I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class, as we had up until he came along."

In yesterday's runoff, Texas Republicans voted for the craziest son of a bitch for both U.S. senator and (apparently) railroad commissioner.

You know who didn't vote for the craziest son of a bitch -- or, rather, daughter of a bitch -- in yesterday runoff? Democratic voters in Texas's 35th congressional district.

Progressive sex therapist Maureen Galindo lost the Democratic runoff for Texas’ 35th District after being accused of antisemitism and facing condemnations from within her own party.

Johnny Garcia’s victory over Galindo on Tuesday has national and Texas Democrats breathing a sigh of relief.

They had moved en masse to disavow Galindo after she said in a recent social media post that she would write legislation to turn a local ICE detention center into a “prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking.”

The Instagram post on Galindo's campaign site didn't just call for the imprisonment of Zionists. It said they should be castrated.

Galindo lost the runoff 64%-36% after leading Garcia in the primary by 2 points.

Americans think both parties have an extremism problem. A Pew survey from last year found this:

61% say the phrase “too extreme in its positions” describes the Republican Party very or somewhat well; 57% describe the Democratic Party as too extreme.

But only one party is routinely defined as extreme. In a new Washington Post/ABC poll, respondents were asked to express in their own words what they don't like about the two major parties. For Democrats, the top answer (at 12%) was summarized in the poll as "Too liberal/socialism/race/gender/abortion/crime positions." For Republicans, the top answer was (also at 12%) was "Trump/Loyalty to Trump," while there's no all-encompassing ideological characterization of Republicans. "Lack of concern for ordinary people/cruelty" is at 6%, "Authoritarianism/disregard for rule of law/anti-democracy" and "Racist or anti-diversity politics " are at 4%, but extremism is not front of mind for most voters when they think about Republicans, and there seems to be no Republican equivalent of the W word for Democrats, as used by one survey respondent:

Too woke, focus on issues not central to Americans (economy and jobs).
— California woman, 50s, independent

And there's this:

Gone too far to the left, they are more in line with the communist and socialist parties.
— New York woman, 50s, independent

In reality, hardly any viable Democratic candidates are extreme in the way that Bo French and Ken Paxton are, and Democrats aren't accepting of unrepentant hatemongers, while Republicans increasingly embrace them. But the public still doesn't see that.

THAT CONSENT WON'T MANUFACTURE ITSELF

Paul Krugman struggles to understand the culture of flattery that surrounds President Trump:

On Memorial Day the New York Times published an article with the headline “Trump is the only person who can save America, according to his cabinet.” The article offered a quantitative analysis of senior-official sycophancy. As the article notes, Donald Trump likes to hold long, televised cabinet meetings. In these meetings, according to the Times,

On average, at least one of every six sentences either flattered Mr. Trump, gave him credit or criticized his political opponents.

Yeah, you know:

And it continues this morning, as Interior Secretary Doug Burgum tells us that Trump is the only president who's ever worked the phones on a holiday weekend, and is the only president who can get other world leaders to talk to him over a holiday weekend that actually isn't a holiday weekend in their countries:

Burgum: "It's obviously President Trump two moves ahead of his critics as always. Nothing short of aspiration for peace in the Middle East. I mean, who on a Saturday afternoon over a holiday weekend can pull together all of the world leaders from the gulf state allies, get 'em all on a phone call?"

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) May 26, 2026 at 7:44 AM

Obviously, Trump has an off-the-charts need for praise -- he might be the most emotionally needy person who has ever lived. But as Krugman notes, this exaltation of a Republican president is not unprecedented:

The truth is that the right wing attempt to build a cult of personality around a deeply unpresidential figure, while it has reached new levels of absurdity under Trump, isn’t new. Republicans tried to do the same thing for George W. Bush. Remember this?

And readers of a certain age may recall that the right’s canonization of Ronald Reagan began while he was still in office.

Why do Republicans do this? Sure, Democrats sometimes respond to their political heroes as if they're rock stars: Zohran Mamdani, AOC, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. But it's more that we find them cool and like the job they're doing. At most, it's fandom, not worship. We don't exalt them. We don't imagine them as royalty, or as gods and goddesses.

I think two things are happening with the Republicans. First, they like traditional hierarchies: women subordinate to men, people subordinate to God. It feels natural for them to conclude that an especially favored president belongs near the top of the great chain of being, as a monarch or a god.

But it's also a way for them to manufacture consent for their party leaders' policies. When they tell us that one of their presidents is worthy of worship, they're trying to make us believe that everyone, or at least everyone normal, supports their leader and their party. They might never have fully succeeded in persuading the public that everyone loves Trump (except perhaps in red states), but they sustained Bush's popularity for years after his post-9/11 popularity spike, and they've created an aura around Reagan that persists after his death. (Even some liberal pundits recall him as a unifying president who was very different from the current crop of divisive GOP culture warriors. In reality, he was one of those divisive GOP culture warriors.)

As Bush's popularity faded, his handlers largely abandoned efforts to manufacture exaltation propaganda. By 2007 and 2008, you weren't very likely to see him positioned in such a way that his head would be framed by an apparent halo, as in a 2003 AP photo, or placed in front of Mount Rushmore, as in a photo from 2002.

With Trump, they're still doing it, even though most of America hates him now. (And unless he salvages the Iran surrender deal soon, I guess most of America will continue to hate him.) I suppose it keeps the base on board, so it's not an entirely wasted exercise for the GOP. And if Trump dies in office, it's groundwork for posthumous sanctification efforts of the kind we saw in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death.

If Trump dies soon, I don't think the general public will respond the way Republicans hope. But the base will never stray. Trump will never be Richard Nixon, a president nearly everyone now agrees was justifiably driven from office. We'll never have universal agreement on Trump's awfulness.

DON'T BE SO SURE THAT TRUMP'S IRAN SURRENDER WILL BE A LOSS FOR HIM

In The Atlantic, David Frum declares that President Trump lost his war with Iran, and lists the reasons why. One reason, Frum writes, is this:

Trump is reckless. Trump is not a plan-ahead guy. He plunges into desperate adventures without any clear endgame in mind. What really was Trump’s plan on January 6, 2021? After Mike Pence was seized by rioters and forced at gunpoint to recite the magic words Trump wanted him to say, what was supposed to happen then? The 81 million American majority who’d voted against Trump in 2020 would submit? The military, CIA, and FBI would follow blatantly illegal orders? In 2021, Trump provoked violence and hoped it would all somehow work out. He followed the same approach again in 2026.

This got me thinking: Did Trump really fail on January 6?

I don't know what Trump's plan was, but at minimum it was to save face. Trump wanted to be perceived as someone who went down fighting (even though he left the fighting to his followers, the way the owner of a resort might ask the help to tidy up the rose bushes). In that sense, he got what he wanted.

But I think it can be argued that January 6 was a success for Trump -- just not right away. During the "stop the steal" period after the 2020 election, Trump turned an electoral defeat into a Lost Cause. He persuaded millions of Americans that he was the legitimate winner. Then he dodged accountability -- he wasn't arrested, he wasn't convicted after impeachment, and he wasn't successfully prosecuted. Many of his followers went to prison, but he succeeded in making them martyrs -- martyrs whom ordinary Trump admirers found relatable. In the primaries, it's quite possible that he beat Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and other challengers precisely because of January 6 and "stop the steal." What Republican base voters want most of all is to own the libs. Even a vote for DeSantis, a tireless culture warrior, didn't seem as lib-owning as a vote for Trump, who had persuaded the base that the libs stole the presidency from him.

In the way that historians such as Heather Cox Richardson argue that the South ultimately won the Civil War, I think we can argue that Trump won January 6, even if it took four years for him to collect his winnings.

If fall arrives and Trump's Iran surrender has lowered gas prices to an approximation of where they were before the war, while he's persuading gullible rubes that he saved America from an imminent Iranian nuclear attack, then he might ultimately win this time, too. Maybe the outcome would change if Democrats were willing to compare and contrast Trump's deal with the nuclear deal negotiated during Barack Obama's presidency, which cost America nothing in blood and treasure -- but apart from Obama himself, Democrats have never been willing to defend that deal, much less boast about it.

So at the very least, I think Trump will emerge from this debacle in better shape than he's been for the past three months.

TRUMP'S PLAN TO SALVAGE THE MIDTERMS: SURRENDER

In the latest New York Times roundtable, Michelle Cottle says that President Trump doesn't seem to be doing anything to improve his party's standing ahead of the midterms:

... as best I can see, Trump doesn’t even really seem motivated to focus on things that could turn it around. I mean, he’s doing his ballroom and his arch and the Reflecting Pool and his war, and maybe he’s going to invade Cuba, and he’s making statements about how he doesn’t care about Americans’ affordability crisis

What am I missing? What do you guys see that he is aggressively investing in, that suggests he gives two figs about turning this around? Besides rigging the game, of course....

Jamelle Bouie replies:

I don’t think there’s any evidence that this even crosses his mind.

Bouie cites Trump's belief in the Power of Positive Thinking, as well as information flow in the White House, which is designed to feed Trump only good news.

But as the midterms approach, it's clear that Trump does care about the opinions of people who don't like him. So he has a plan to make Republicans' more popular by November:

Surrender in Iran.

On Thursday, Robert Kagan wrote this in The Atlantic:

The outlines of President Trump’s endgame in the Iran war are now emerging. In a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, Trump reportedly explained that the United States was negotiating a “letter of intent” with Iran that would “formally end the war and launch a 30-day period of negotiations” on Iran’s nuclear program and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The purpose and effect of such an agreement should be clear: The United States is walking away from the crisis....

In 30 days ... the new Iranian strait regime may already be firmly in place. As the Institute for the Study of War reports, Iran has been using the cease-fire period to “normalize” its control over the strait by “compelling oil-importing countries” to establish transit agreements with Tehran and charging fees on vessels from nations without such deals. According to Iranian officials, the new strait regime will give Iran’s strategic partners, such as Russia and China, priority and allow nations friendly to Iran, such as India and Pakistan, to negotiate their own transit agreements. Vessels associated with nations that Iran regards as an adversary will be denied access to the strait entirely.

Several nations, including South Korea, Turkey, and Iraq, are reportedly already negotiating at least temporary transit agreements. Now that Trump has made clear he has no intention of fighting to reopen the strait, the stampede to get good terms with Tehran will begin.... By the end of 30 days, most of the world will have a stake in the new arrangement and will oppose any resumption of hostilities, even in the unlikely event that Trump wanted to go back to war.

Trump no doubt hopes that he can slip away without Americans noticing the magnitude of this defeat.

And now...

[image or embed]

— George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸 (@gtconway.bsky.social) May 23, 2026 at 8:37 PM

Iran was supposed to be scared into submission by Trump's bombing threats. Instead, Trump was scared into submission by this:

Jeff Currie, executive co-chairman at Abaxx Commodity Exchange, said that physical shortages [of oil] could hit Europe “any day now,” and the severity of the ongoing supply crunch is not yet reflected in oil prices....

Speaking with CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” ... Currie said that oil supply concerns will intensify as inventories are depleted, adding that once the shortages hit, prices will go “non-linear.”

Currie said the oil market is currently in the midst of its “shoulder months” — traditionally the weakest part of the commodity demand cycle throughout the year, coming out of the heating season and heading into the driving season.

But, with the U.S. Memorial Day and U.K.’s spring bank holidays approaching, demand for diesel, gasoline and oil will rise sharply. “That’s when you’re going to begin to feel it,” Currie said.

Trump is trying to avoid an imminent spike in the global price of oil, and thus for a tank of gas in the U.S. And he appears to have grasped the fact that he needs to act now in order to rein in gas prices before voting starts in the midterms:

SocGen analysts said that even if the Strait [of Hormuz] were to reopen by early June, the complex physical supply chain sequence of getting more oil online — involving tanker transit, discharge, refining and distribution — still means a delay of at least 52 days....

A late June reopening, meanwhile, would bring “deeper and more prolonged stress”, with physical relief pushed back into late August and meaningful normalization not expected until September, according to SocGen.

But an even lengthier delay to reopening could see oil prices pushed toward $150 per barrel and staying elevated for the rest of the year.

So Trump will surrender, and Trump will declare victory, adding this to the absurd list of wars he claims he's ended as president. (He'll say he ended a 47-year war.) At least 30% of Americans will believe whatever he says.

And then it's on to Cuba. Americans oppose the upcoming Cuba war by a 64%-15% margin, but it will undoubtedly be less of a clusterfuck than the Iran war. It's quite possible that it will look like a victory. It won't improve ordinary Americans' lives, but it may serve as a moderately successful distraction if it doesn't make their lives worse.

If all this works, Trump will at least have stopped the bleeding for the GOP. But there's still time for the deal to come apart, and there's a great likelihood that Trump will do something else that's wildly unpopular between now and the fall.

THE FUTURE LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS KEN PAXTON, OR AT LEAST SOMEONE LIKE HIM

Yesterday I tried to answer a question raised by Jamelle Bouie in a video essay:

And so what does the Republican Party do when Trump is gone, when there is now a vacuum? I don't really have an answer to that. I'm mostly curious to see. But that, I think, is the dilemma the Republican Party will face. It doesn't have an identity outside of Trump, and it won't be in a position to even find one until Trump is gone.

I said that the party will organize itself around cultural (specifically, culture war) issues. But who'll lead the party?

For all we know, it could be Ken Paxton, the scandal-plagued Texas attorney general who's likely to become the GOP's Senate nominee now that he's secured Donald Trump's endorsement. It's likely to be someone who's very much like Paxton, though probably less enmeshed in scandal.

I've just read Elaine Godfrey's new story about Paxton in The Atlantic. Godfrey finds it baffling that Paxton has survived as long as he has in Texas politics, and finds it baffling that Trump would endorse him over the quite conservative incumbent, John Cornyn. Paxton has a closet full of skeletons -- mortgage fraud, securities fraud, multiple infidelities. He was impeached and nearly convicted in a Republican-dominated Texas legislature.

And surely he'll be much easier for the Democratic Senate candidate, James Talarico, to beat, right? All the smart people seem to think so, Godfrey tells us.

But many Texas political observers and strategists believe that Cornyn would be better-positioned than Paxton to beat Talarico in November, given Cornyn’s ability to fundraise and his palatability among general-election voters. Especially in a year when the political environment seems so favorable to Democrats, running someone as controversial as Paxton, they argue, would be risky. The Cook Political Report has already said that if the attorney general wins next week, “Texas would move into a fully competitive race.”

This is, of course, the outcome that many Republicans dread most: that Paxton will be unable to win over the moderate Republican and independent voters he’ll need to succeed in November—and that Texas will make Talarico the first Democratic senator it’s elected since 1988.

Godfrey thinks Paxton's supporters are delusional.

At least for now, [Paxton supporters] seem to exist in an alternate reality—a place where Donald Trump’s endorsement can only be a good thing, where MAGA reigns.... “I don’t know where they’re getting those numbers from,” a woman named Mary told me ... when I asked about the president’s dwindling national popularity.... [Supporters] don’t see Ken Paxton as an electoral liability any more than they believe that Joe Biden won the 2020 election fair and square. For them, November is looking particularly bright.

There's just one problem with this: the polls tell us that these "alternate reality" voters are right. Paxton's past doesn't seem to be a handicap in Texas -- in fact, his numbers and Cornyn's are nearly identical in head-to-head matchups with Talarico.

Why wouldn't years of scandals be hurting Paxton in Texas? Because he never stops trying to own the libs. Godfrey writes:

As attorney general, he sued the Obama administration more than a dozen times, with mixed success; later, he filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Biden administration. (Both of these facts are applause lines in Paxton’s stump speech.)

As attorney general, Paxton sues like he breathes. This month, he won a $10 million settlement from the Texas Children’s Hospital that required it to stop gender-transition surgeries for minors. He also ordered Texas public schools to show proof that they were displaying copies of the Ten Commandments in classrooms....

Culture war. Always culture war.

Godfrey doesn't really seem to understand this. She writes:

Paxton’s superpower is that he is highly adaptable to the changing dynamics of his party and, like the president, appears to be completely lacking in shame. He has always simply “ignored electability as a concern,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a political-science professor at the University of Houston, told me.

But the "dynamics of his party" aren't changing -- owning the libs is always in favor. Paxton hasn't "ignored electability as a concern." Boastfully attacking the libs is the source of electability.

This seems like a good place to bring up a 2017 quote from Thomas Massie, the GOP congressman from Kentucky who just lost his primary after challenging Trump on a few issues. Massie regards himself as a libertarian in the mold of Ron and Rand Paul, and recognizes that Trump is not a libertarian. In 2017, after Trump had been sworn in as president, Massie said this to the Washington Examiner:

"I went to Iowa twice and came back with [Ron Paul]. I was with him at every event for the last three days in Iowa," Massie said. "From what I observed, not just in Iowa but also in Kentucky, up close with individuals, was that the people that voted for me in Kentucky, and the people who had voted for [Ron] Paul in Iowa several years before, were now voting for Trump. In fact, the people that voted for Rand in a primary in Kentucky were preferring Trump."

"All this time," Massie explained, "I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class, as we had up until he came along."

Ken Paxton survives scandals because he's always the craziest son of a bitch in the race. "Craziest," in his case, means least self-examining and most lib-owning.

I don't believe every Republican voter prefers the craziest son of a bitch in every instance -- Cornyn did, after all, poll slightly ahead of Paxton in the March 3 primary, though not decisively enough to avoid a runoff. And we know from national politics that many pollsters divide GOP voters into "MAGA" and "non-MAGA." Trump's support among non-MAGA voters is eroding.

But in a typical red-state election, zealots pick the craziest son of a bitch in the race and then less extreme Republican voters rally around that candidate because, gosh, you can't expect them to vote for a Democrat, can you? In red states -- including Texas until maybe, just maybe, this year -- that's all a Republican candidate has needed in recent years: supporters of the crazy SOB plus anyone-but-the-Democrat voters. In purple states, and also nationally, you need more, which is why Trump had to add a few non-white men and young bros to his coalition in 2024.

If the Democratic Party has a future, it will come from persuading some of the moderate-ish voters who don't prefer the crazy SOB that the Republican Party is bad and they should at least consider the Democrat once in a while. But I fear that Democrats will never grasp the need to do this, so the GOP will continue to be the party of crazy SOBs, who'll fire up the base and win the less-crazy GOP leaners, and maybe flip just enough swing voters to win nationwide.