Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Just saw my first confirmed Talafreaker. AWFL (assuming) driving her BMW SUV with the back window sticker "Texas is Talarico Country".

---

I've seen one so far.

Car also had old Beto, Biden, and Harris stickers on it along with multiple anti-Trump stickers including 8647.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I know CONSERVATIVE women who are falling for it...and have to be told what a heretical and degenerate freak he is and what exactly he supports. When you tell them that he wants biological males in their daughters' sports, locker rooms, and showers, they think you are crazy, because their media outlets don;t tell them this.

It is literally just right winged social media accounts and influencers bringing this to light...who only people like us follow.

---

you're so close to getting it

They are all the same.

Bunch of weirdos

YouBet said:

---

Well, I can see now why his brand of "Christianity" is a lie and wrong.

Quote:

---

"I know personally that I've learned as much about my faith from Salman's tradition, from the Islamic mystics, from poets like Rumi, as much as I have from Christian authors and Christian writers," said Talarico.

---

---

His "faith" is nothing more than a cynical tool to influence weak minds into voting for him. He "practices" Christianity the same way that a psychopaths practices human emotions and empathy. He really doesn't understand it or feel any of it, but he can learn to go through the motions well enough to gain other's trust.

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

Rapier108 said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Just saw my first confirmed Talafreaker. AWFL (assuming) driving her BMW SUV with the back window sticker "Texas is Talarico Country".

---

I've seen one so far.

Car also had old Beto, Biden, and Harris stickers on it along with multiple anti-Trump stickers including 8647.

---

It was the white background and black lettering just like the generic yard signs.

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

Quote:

---

Texas is Talarico Country

---

I'm sure this dip **** had a Beto sticker all three times, too.

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

Yeah, you said they were ****ty, not terrible. Huge difference. Many of those ****ty candidates Trump supported would have won if they hadn't been working against the headwinds of NeverTrumpers working against them and actively helping the dems, and if they hadn't been starved of donor money by the GOP-e that controls the NRSC and other funding national level funding mechanisms. Having Lara Trump controlling the RNC and redirecting the funding to maximize effectiveness and win rate instead of funneling it to GOP-e favored political consultants made a huge difference in 2024.

We do have something in common...I voted Hunt too. I wish he would have won, but I will happily hold my nose and vote for Paxton with all his warts because Talarico can't be allowed to represent Texas.

Keep on the lookout for my Aggie brother. I understand he is working as a "fluffer" for tallywacker!

Rapier108 said:

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so

---

You have that 180 degrees backwards.

Old McDonald said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I know CONSERVATIVE women who are falling for it...and have to be told what a heretical and degenerate freak he is and what exactly he supports. When you tell them that he wants biological males in their daughters' sports, locker rooms, and showers, they think you are crazy, because their media outlets don;t tell them this.

It is literally just right winged social media accounts and influencers bringing this to light...who only people like us follow.

---

you're so close to getting it

---

That the female voting block is largely shallow and ruled by emotion and easily swayed by their media and celebrity mental "handlers"?

No, I get it every bit as much as you do. It's "what do we do about that?? How do we make women wiser and not so captive to their emotions and weaponized toxic empathy??". Those are the questions.

You're a male Talarico cupporter aren't you? LOL

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

Yeah, you said they were ****ty, not terrible. Huge difference. Many of those ****ty candidates Trump supported would have won if they hadn't been working against the headwinds of NeverTrumpers working against them and actively helping the dems, and if they hadn't been starved of donor money by the GOP-e that controls the NRSC and other funding national level funding mechanisms. Having Lara Trump controlling the RNC and redirecting the funding to maximize effectiveness and win rate instead of funneling it to GOP-e favored political consultants made a huge difference in 2024.

We do have something in common...I voted Hunt too. I wish he would have won, but I will happily hold my nose and vote for Paxton with all his warts because Talarico can't be allowed to represent Texas.

---

Herschel Walker, Oz and Kari Lake were all objectively bad candidates that lost winnable races because they were objectively bad candidates. Paxton is a pretty crappy candidate overall but him losing seems unlikely thanks to the Dems nominating a far left psycho.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

Yeah, you said they were ****ty, not terrible. Huge difference. Many of those ****ty candidates Trump supported would have won if they hadn't been working against the headwinds of NeverTrumpers working against them and actively helping the dems, and if they hadn't been starved of donor money by the GOP-e that controls the NRSC and other funding national level funding mechanisms. Having Lara Trump controlling the RNC and redirecting the funding to maximize effectiveness and win rate instead of funneling it to GOP-e favored political consultants made a huge difference in 2024.

We do have something in common...I voted Hunt too. I wish he would have won, but I will happily hold my nose and vote for Paxton with all his warts because Talarico can't be allowed to represent Texas.

---

Herschel Walker, Oz and Kari Lake were all objectively bad candidates that lost winnable races because they were objectively bad candidates. Paxton is a pretty crappy candidate overall but him losing seems unlikely thanks to the Dems nominating a far left psycho.

---

I think the GOP could have overcome how "bad" they were in at least 2 of those races with proper levels of national support and without the "GOP Insiders" giving press interviews and podcasts about "how bad x is as a candidate" before and during the election cycle. Those interviews and comments were weaponized and used against those candidates effectively and the candidates didn't have the money necessary to overcome those tactics because they were deliberately starved by the national level funding groups specifically because they were not GOP-e candidates. They were "winnable" races even with the candidates that were run, but not "winnable" without proper support from the party and not with deliberate sabotage of them by "insiders".

The Convention is soon and I bet we'll see the ads after as he doesn't have all the California / New York $$$ Vegan boy has. His ads run constantly and it's annoying.

He sounds like he supported all conservative things in his ad but he's flat out lying about his voting record.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so

---

You have that 180 degrees backwards.

---

Bingo.

You people that think MAGA does whatever Trump says just simply don't get it. Trump is not where he is because he told us to vote for him.

He's there because we put him there. Because he represents us, not the other way around.

He's the president of the United States because he believes what we believe, not the other way around.

I'm a Conservative woman and don't fall for Talarico and as a Christian he goes against the Bible in so many ways. I'm a sinner but don't twist the Bible and accept all religions as valid as he does.

Super Duper Christian Pastor...

🚨UNEARTHED

James Talarico — who said he "hates Christianity" — praised Islam for inspiring his religious beliefs:

"I’ve learned as much about my faith from Salman’s tradition, from the Islamic mystics, from poets like Rumi, as much as I have from Christian authors..." pic.twitter.com/2UeksY9Hko

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 27, 2026

txags92 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

Yeah, you said they were ****ty, not terrible. Huge difference. Many of those ****ty candidates Trump supported would have won if they hadn't been working against the headwinds of NeverTrumpers working against them and actively helping the dems, and if they hadn't been starved of donor money by the GOP-e that controls the NRSC and other funding national level funding mechanisms. Having Lara Trump controlling the RNC and redirecting the funding to maximize effectiveness and win rate instead of funneling it to GOP-e favored political consultants made a huge difference in 2024.

We do have something in common...I voted Hunt too. I wish he would have won, but I will happily hold my nose and vote for Paxton with all his warts because Talarico can't be allowed to represent Texas.

---

Herschel Walker, Oz and Kari Lake were all objectively bad candidates that lost winnable races because they were objectively bad candidates. Paxton is a pretty crappy candidate overall but him losing seems unlikely thanks to the Dems nominating a far left psycho.

---

I think the GOP could have overcome how "bad" they were in at least 2 of those races with proper levels of national support and without the "GOP Insiders" giving press interviews and podcasts about "how bad x is as a candidate" before and during the election cycle. Those interviews and comments were weaponized and used against those candidates effectively and the candidates didn't have the money necessary to overcome those tactics because they were deliberately starved by the national level funding groups specifically because they were not GOP-e candidates. They were "winnable" races even with the candidates that were run, but not "winnable" without proper support from the party and not with deliberate sabotage of them by "insiders".

---

Sorry, even if 1% of the blame goes to the "establishment" for not supporting three crappy candidates effectively, the other 99% of the blame goes on the person and the state parties who forced those crappy candidates on the voters. McCormick winning in PA in 2024 and countless Republicans winning statewide races in GA and AZ over the last few years show that the GOP can and should hold onto those states with effective nominees. There's nothing wrong with pointing out past mistakes. If Paxton somehow loses (extremely doubtful), I would hope the Texas GOP takes a long look at who we nominate.

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

No, I don't think Trump particularly wanted Paxton. You notice he didn't come out with a endorsement until shortly before the runoff. Trump just waited till he could see which way it looked like the election would go, and went with Paxton. I honestly don't think it would have mattered to him a whit which was elected, as both were republicans, at least that's what Cornyn called himself.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

Yeah, you said they were ****ty, not terrible. Huge difference. Many of those ****ty candidates Trump supported would have won if they hadn't been working against the headwinds of NeverTrumpers working against them and actively helping the dems, and if they hadn't been starved of donor money by the GOP-e that controls the NRSC and other funding national level funding mechanisms. Having Lara Trump controlling the RNC and redirecting the funding to maximize effectiveness and win rate instead of funneling it to GOP-e favored political consultants made a huge difference in 2024.

We do have something in common...I voted Hunt too. I wish he would have won, but I will happily hold my nose and vote for Paxton with all his warts because Talarico can't be allowed to represent Texas.

---

Herschel Walker, Oz and Kari Lake were all objectively bad candidates that lost winnable races because they were objectively bad candidates. Paxton is a pretty crappy candidate overall but him losing seems unlikely thanks to the Dems nominating a far left psycho.

---

I think the GOP could have overcome how "bad" they were in at least 2 of those races with proper levels of national support and without the "GOP Insiders" giving press interviews and podcasts about "how bad x is as a candidate" before and during the election cycle. Those interviews and comments were weaponized and used against those candidates effectively and the candidates didn't have the money necessary to overcome those tactics because they were deliberately starved by the national level funding groups specifically because they were not GOP-e candidates. They were "winnable" races even with the candidates that were run, but not "winnable" without proper support from the party and not with deliberate sabotage of them by "insiders".

---

Sorry, even if 1% of the blame goes to the "establishment" for not supporting three crappy candidates effectively, the other 99% of the blame goes on the person and the state parties who forced those crappy candidates on the voters. McCormick winning in PA in 2024 and countless Republicans winning statewide races in GA and AZ over the last few years show that the GOP can and should hold onto those states with effective nominees. There's nothing wrong with pointing out past mistakes. If Paxton somehow loses (extremely doubtful), I would hope the Texas GOP takes a long look at who we nominate.

---

Ummm... I'm not really sure you understand the election process. The state party didn't force any one on anyone. All the candidates decided independently to run for that particular office. They were then voted for by the people of their state, or party. They won their primaries by collecting the most votes, by actual voters. It's the democrat party that selects candidates not voted for by their voters.

Were it not for his affair and the fake Democrat scandals, Paxton would be a great candidate. He actually has a conservative record.

The fake charges and impeachment are used as cudgels against him, but it's what democrats and fake republicans love to do to anyone who will cower from them.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

This poll is not even remotely believable. It has Talarico leading non-college educated voters by nearly double digits and it has Paxton/Talarico tied among college educated voters. If both of those results happen, I will eat my own big toe. https://t.co/r8AP3SVb87

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 28, 2026

agent-maroon said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Well, I can see now why his brand of "Christianity" is a lie and wrong.

Quote:

---

"I know personally that I've learned as much about my faith from Salman's tradition, from the Islamic mystics, from poets like Rumi, as much as I have from Christian authors and Christian writers," said Talarico.

---

---

His "faith" is nothing more than a cynical tool to influence weak minds into voting for him. He "practices" Christianity the same way that a psychopaths practices human emotions and empathy. He really doesn't understand it or feel any of it, but he can learn to go through the motions well enough to gain other's trust.

---

Don't be so hard on Paxton. He's good people.

Talifreako's a heretic, a liar, and promotes the surgical mutilation of children's genitals. Anything this side of a Medieval-style burning at the stake IS taking it easy on him IMO


Edit because I completely missed the shot at Paxton and read it as talifreako instead. MAJOR misread on my part so here's the correction

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

Yeah, you said they were ****ty, not terrible. Huge difference. Many of those ****ty candidates Trump supported would have won if they hadn't been working against the headwinds of NeverTrumpers working against them and actively helping the dems, and if they hadn't been starved of donor money by the GOP-e that controls the NRSC and other funding national level funding mechanisms. Having Lara Trump controlling the RNC and redirecting the funding to maximize effectiveness and win rate instead of funneling it to GOP-e favored political consultants made a huge difference in 2024.

We do have something in common...I voted Hunt too. I wish he would have won, but I will happily hold my nose and vote for Paxton with all his warts because Talarico can't be allowed to represent Texas.

---

Herschel Walker, Oz and Kari Lake were all objectively bad candidates that lost winnable races because they were objectively bad candidates. Paxton is a pretty crappy candidate overall but him losing seems unlikely thanks to the Dems nominating a far left psycho.

---

I think the GOP could have overcome how "bad" they were in at least 2 of those races with proper levels of national support and without the "GOP Insiders" giving press interviews and podcasts about "how bad x is as a candidate" before and during the election cycle. Those interviews and comments were weaponized and used against those candidates effectively and the candidates didn't have the money necessary to overcome those tactics because they were deliberately starved by the national level funding groups specifically because they were not GOP-e candidates. They were "winnable" races even with the candidates that were run, but not "winnable" without proper support from the party and not with deliberate sabotage of them by "insiders".

---

Sorry, even if 1% of the blame goes to the "establishment" for not supporting three crappy candidates effectively, the other 99% of the blame goes on the person and the state parties who forced those crappy candidates on the voters. McCormick winning in PA in 2024 and countless Republicans winning statewide races in GA and AZ over the last few years show that the GOP can and should hold onto those states with effective nominees. There's nothing wrong with pointing out past mistakes. If Paxton somehow loses (extremely doubtful), I would hope the Texas GOP takes a long look at who we nominate.

---

If they were "winnable races" as you say, then the national party should have supported the candidates the state voters selected via primaries to run in them. I put WAY more than 1% of the blame for their lack of support on the national party establishment. When you have "party strategists" going on national news shows and podcasts and bad-mouthing candidates while you refuse to give them financial support you would normally give to a candidate in a competitive (but "winnable") race, you bear a much larger share of the blame than 1%.

And the reason McCormick and those other national level races did win is that they weren't blacklisted from funding by the national fundraising groups and didn't have GOP-e folks on the sunday news shows talking about how terrible they were. They were in winnable races and received proper support from the national establishment.

txags92 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

I know all polls are fake on here, but this is the latest

New - Senate poll - Texas

🔵 Talarico 45%
🔴 Paxton 40%

Last poll - Talarico +3

Texas POR #B - LV - 7/17 pic.twitter.com/H3c7r8BitN

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) July 28, 2026

---

Texas Opinion Research has a known leftist bias. They've had the Democrat always ahead in the Senate race since the start, whether it was Paxton/Cornyn vs. Crockett/Talafreko.

It is also run by Democrat strategist Luke Warford, who has close ties to Talafreko.

Same crap these pollsters pull in Texas every 2 years.

---

I assume it will be a close vote but Paxton is unbelievably unpopular in a way even Cruz isn't. He has baggage. And it is a non presidential mid term which Republicans are terrible at

If Talarico were to win, how much soul searching does the Texas Republican Party have to do?

---

Paxton was selected by MAGA because Trump said so, and Trump has cost the GOP more than a handful of winnable Senate seats in the past 10 years by backing poor to downright ****ty candidates.

That is where the blame would lie more than with the Texas GOP.

---

And here. we. go. with the "he lost because he was a terrible candidate" schtick. Paxton was going to win the runoff with or without Trump's input. Trump's endorsement helped widen the margin, but it wasn't going to be close even before Trump stepped in.

And every freaking time we vote out a GOP-e candidate in favor of a better conservative option, we go through all these gyrations from the moderate squishes in the middle about how terrible they are as a candidate. Then the GOP-e PACs and groups like the NRSC refuse to support the conservative candidate and starve them of donor money that they normally would have committed to the race. The "moderates" stand on "muh principles" and refuse to vote for the non-establishment candidate and they lose. Not because they "were a terrible candidate" or "Trump endorsed them", but because the moderate wing of the party starved them of the cash they would have otherwise spent on the defending the seat and stayed home to let the dems win instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate.

And then we have to listen to the moderates tell us it is our fault or Trump's fault for running a "terrible candidate" and not the squishes' fault for refusing to support or vote for a non GOP-e candidate. They are already starting to run the uniparty playbook and I fully expect to see the NRSC and other national level groups that would have otherwise sent money to Texas to counter the democrat spending, instead refuse to send any money to Paxton because reasons. What they are really saying is that they are not republicans. They are uniparty controlled opposition and they will punish the voters of any state that dare to nominate a conservative republican candidate instead of a uniparty squish like Cornyn.

---

That's not what I said, but you do you.

Trump wanted Paxton and Trump has a history of backing crappy Senate candidates. Both statements are true.

Whether Paxton wins on or not will be decided in November.

And for the record, I voted for Hunt in the primary. I was never a Cornyn supporter.

---

Yeah, you said they were ****ty, not terrible. Huge difference. Many of those ****ty candidates Trump supported would have won if they hadn't been working against the headwinds of NeverTrumpers working against them and actively helping the dems, and if they hadn't been starved of donor money by the GOP-e that controls the NRSC and other funding national level funding mechanisms. Having Lara Trump controlling the RNC and redirecting the funding to maximize effectiveness and win rate instead of funneling it to GOP-e favored political consultants made a huge difference in 2024.

We do have something in common...I voted Hunt too. I wish he would have won, but I will happily hold my nose and vote for Paxton with all his warts because Talarico can't be allowed to represent Texas.

---

Herschel Walker, Oz and Kari Lake were all objectively bad candidates that lost winnable races because they were objectively bad candidates. Paxton is a pretty crappy candidate overall but him losing seems unlikely thanks to the Dems nominating a far left psycho.

---

I think the GOP could have overcome how "bad" they were in at least 2 of those races with proper levels of national support and without the "GOP Insiders" giving press interviews and podcasts about "how bad x is as a candidate" before and during the election cycle. Those interviews and comments were weaponized and used against those candidates effectively and the candidates didn't have the money necessary to overcome those tactics because they were deliberately starved by the national level funding groups specifically because they were not GOP-e candidates. They were "winnable" races even with the candidates that were run, but not "winnable" without proper support from the party and not with deliberate sabotage of them by "insiders".

---

Sorry, even if 1% of the blame goes to the "establishment" for not supporting three crappy candidates effectively, the other 99% of the blame goes on the person and the state parties who forced those crappy candidates on the voters. McCormick winning in PA in 2024 and countless Republicans winning statewide races in GA and AZ over the last few years show that the GOP can and should hold onto those states with effective nominees. There's nothing wrong with pointing out past mistakes. If Paxton somehow loses (extremely doubtful), I would hope the Texas GOP takes a long look at who we nominate.

---

If they were "winnable races" as you say, then the national party should have supported the candidates the state voters selected via primaries to run in them. I put WAY more than 1% of the blame for their lack of support on the national party establishment. When you have "party strategists" going on national news shows and podcasts and bad-mouthing candidates while you refuse to give them financial support you would normally give to a candidate in a competitive (but "winnable") race, you bear a much larger share of the blame than 1%.

And the reason McCormick and those other national level races did win is that they weren't blacklisted from funding by the national fundraising groups and didn't have GOP-e folks on the sunday news shows talking about how terrible they were. They were in winnable races and received proper support from the national establishment.

---

I don't think any amount of money would have helped Herschel Walker win in Georgia.

Dang! Lead is outside the margin of error for likely voters. This thing might be close.