I’m not a Texan, but it’s hard to ignore what’s happening in the Democratic Senate primary in the state. We’re all clocking it, right? Let’s start with what should be obvious: whoever wins the Democratic nomination, we Dems should support him or her. 🧵

Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico are both strong Democrats that we can be proud of. Debate is healthy. Competition is healthy. That’s how primaries are supposed to work. But what’s happened here hasn’t felt very healthy. 2.

From jump, the moment Jasmine Crockett entered the race, I saw some deeply ugly, coded, and at times outright racist attacks. And not just from the right. A lot of it came from the far left, who suddenly discovered a set of “standards” they never seemed to apply to her opponent. 3.

Enter the litmus test. A purity test that, strangely, only seems to activate when the candidate is a Black woman. Most of us saw what they were trying to pull. What makes this even more absurd is that Crockett and Talarico’s platforms are functionally the same. 4.

Same priorities on healthcare, labor, climate, reproductive freedom, democracy protection, and opposing MAGA extremism. On policy, this is not a left-vs-center race. It’s vibes and targeting. 5.

Here’s the real difference that keeps getting ignored. Jasmine Crockett has a congressional record. She’s had to take real votes, under real pressure, with real consequences. She’s been in the arena, voting against MAGA abuses, calling out corruption, defending democracy, and taking heat for it. 6.

Talarico hasn’t had to do that at the federal level. It’s easy to sound perfect when you haven’t had to cast hard votes yet. And there’s more history people seem eager to forget… 7.

When TX Dems famously left the state together in 2021 to block quorum, Talarico was one of the first to return. It caused friction w/in his caucus. Not a moral judgment, but it’s relevant. It’s interesting how loudly people talk about “purity” while skipping over that part of the record. 8.

Now let’s talk about money, since that’s where the hypocrisy really shows. Crockett has been dragged for her fundraising as if she invented Citizens United. In reality, she’s running the way most modern federal campaigns run: a mix of small-dollar support plus big checks… 9.

…from people and PACs who want access, with public filings showing she rolled over major money from her House account into the Senate race and still pulled in millions more. Meanwhile, Talarico’s funding “purity” storyline is missing a big chapter. 10.

He has a self-imposed corporate PAC ban in his current Senate run which is to be respected. but purity is something else. reporting shows his largest 2024 donor was the Texas Sands PAC, funded by casino billionaire Miriam Adelson. 11.

He’s also taken money tied to billionaire Charles Butt. That gets waved off like it’s nothing, even while people clutch their pearls about Crockett. 12.

Until Citizens United is overturned, every serious statewide campaign requires a lot of money. The real question isn’t whether money exists, it’s whether a candidate changes positions because of it. If that happens, fair game, expose it. That should be the red line. 13.

I agree there should be clear “no-go” donors. The NRA is an obvious one. But a blanket “no PAC, no corporate, no big donor ever” rule for all candidates is a fantasy. What matters is independence and consistency. If someone sells out, expose them. Fair game. 14.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about purity tests. It’s about Texans deciding who best represents their values, their priorities, their future. Especially in the moment we’re living in, my deciding factor for candidates, when the platforms are virtually the same, the question is simple: 15.