Key findings
· The state that has remained Republican at the statewide level since the Ann Richards era, despite repeated Democratic claims that Texas is on the verge of turning blue, claims that consistently fall short at the ballot box.
· Early filing deadlines eliminate meaningful independent or third-party alternatives, meaning that once nominees are chosen, voters have little recourse even if both choices are polarizing
· Many Texans appear to vote reliably Republican not because of enthusiasm for the Republican band but more because of dislike of the Democrat option.
· The 2026 Senate primary process could lead to the nomination of both a Democrat and Republican on the political extreme.
· A mid-decade redistricting may increase the number of Republican seats but the new map also increases the number of House seats in play.
U.S. Senate (2026)
There is a real possibility that the two 2026 nominees for Senate in Texas will be from the extremes of both parties, if Jasmine Crockett becomes the Democrat nominee and Ken Paxton the Republican one. This outcome leaves centrists in Texas without a voice in the general election contest for Senator.
In the Democratic primary, Rep. Jasmine Crockett has consolidated support among progressive activists through aggressive, highly visible criticism of former President Donald Trump. Her rhetoric—often framing Trump and his supporters as a direct threat to democracy—plays effectively with a Democratic primary electorate but is poorly aligned with the broader Texas electorate, where Trump remains popular and Republican identification is strong.
Crockett has also endorsed progressive positions such as abolishing or sharply reducing funding for immigration enforcement and has taken strongly critical positions toward the Israeli government in the context of the Gaza conflict, positions that place her well to the left of the Texas median voter and invite nationalization of the race.
These positions are likely to dominate a general election narrative. Republicans would have little difficulty portraying Crockett as hostile to law enforcement, dismissive of border enforcement, and aligned with the most critical elements of the pro-Palestinian movement at a time when Texas voters remain broadly supportive of Israel. Even where her statements emphasize humanitarian concerns, the cumulative effect is to anchor her candidacy on cultural and foreign-policy issues that test poorly in statewide Texas contests.
Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville has publicly warned that Crockett’s political style prioritizes viral moments and personal brand-building over broad electoral appeal, arguing that such an approach may win attention and a primary but is ill-suited to winning statewide in a conservative-leaning state. That critique echoes quieter concerns among Democratic operatives that Crockett could plausibly win a low-turnout primary while struggling to assemble the cross-partisan coalition required to compete in a Texas general election.
State Rep. James Talarico brings a profile that aligns unusually well with the kind of coalition Democrats would need to compete statewide in Texas. His background as a public school teacher is a tangible political asset in a state where education remains a high-trust profession, particularly in rural communities that have grown uneasy with aggressive private-school voucher and school-choice initiatives advanced by Gov. Greg Abbott. While Abbott’s education agenda has energized conservative activists, it has also generated backlash among rural Republicans who see local public schools as civic anchors and are skeptical of policies that could drain funding or weaken small districts.
Talarico’s teaching experience allows him to speak credibly to those concerns without sounding ideological or confrontational. Combined with his low-key demeanor, faith background, and emphasis on affordability and service, he presents a political style that is culturally legible to conservative and Republican-leaning voters even when they disagree with him on policy.
Unlike more nationalized Democratic figures, Talarico does not project as a partisan combatant; his appeal is rooted in competence, restraint, and moral seriousness. In a state that has been solidly red for decades, that posture may not be sufficient on its own—but it is meaningfully better suited than a confrontational progressive profile to attracting rural voters, soft Republicans, and independents who are uneasy with both ideological extremes.
Republicans face a very different internal choice. Sen. John Cornyn is one of the most experienced and institutionally powerful Republicans in Congress. Having served more than two decades in the Senate, Cornyn is among the chamber’s senior members and has held some of the party’s most consequential leadership roles, including Senate Republican Whip, where he was responsible for vote-counting, message discipline, and floor strategy. Earlier in his tenure, he chaired the National Republican Senatorial Committee, playing a central role in shaping the GOP’s Senate majority strategy.
Substantively, Cornyn’s committee assignments reflect both trust and influence. He has long served on the Judiciary Committee, where he helped shape conservative legal priorities and federal judicial confirmations, as well as the Finance Committee, giving him leverage over tax, trade, and entitlement policy. His service on the Intelligence Committeeplaces him within a small group of senators trusted with national security oversight. Collectively, these roles make Cornyn one of Texas’s most effective conduits for federal influence, constituent services, and policy outcomes.
From both a governing and electoral perspective, forcing Cornyn out would be a major unforced error. Substantively, Texas would be trading seniority, committee power, and leadership reach for uncertainty. Politically, Cornyn represents the safest available option for holding the seat in the general election: low-drama, well-funded, and difficult to caricature. While his style may frustrate segments of the Republican base that prize confrontation, removing a seasoned institutional actor in favor of a more volatile nominee would unnecessarily increase general-election risk and weaken Texas’s position within the Senate.
Attorney General Ken Paxton is among the most polarizing figures in Texas politics, combining strong support from the Republican base with an unusually long record of controversy and hard-line policy choices.
In 2023, Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives, including by members of his own party, on charges stemming from allegations that he abused the powers of his office to benefit a political donor, retaliated against whistleblowers, and engaged in improper conduct. Although he was acquitted by the Texas Senate, the trial aired extensive testimony from former aides and senior officials, reinforcing public perceptions of ethical risk even as it failed to meet the high bar for conviction.
As Attorney General, Paxton has pursued an aggressively ideological agenda that has placed Texas at the forefront of national conservative legal battles. He played a central role in enforcing and defending Texas’s near-total abortion ban, including legal strategies that deter providers from offering care even in medically complex cases. Paxton has also led multistate lawsuits challenging federal immigration enforcement, environmental regulations, and administrative authority, often framing policy disputes as existential conflicts with the federal government. These actions have elevated his national profile and energized conservative voters but have also positioned him well to the right of the general Texas electorate, particularly suburban and business-oriented Republicans.
Electorally, Paxton has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to survive scandals and win statewide by consolidating grievance-driven and ideological voters. At the same time, his record ensures that a general election campaign would center less on partisan policy differences and more on judgment, institutional integrity, and the appropriate use of public power. That dynamic creates higher volatility than a conventional Republican nominee and introduces material downside risk in a general election, even in a state that remains structurally favorable to the GOP.
Rep. Wesley Hunt provides Republicans with a third option. A West Point graduate and former Army Apache helicopter pilot, Hunt combines military credentials with service on committees relevant to Texas’s economic interests, including energy and small business. While he currently trails Cornyn and Paxton, his presence increases the likelihood of a runoff and prolongs internal conflict, potentially weakening the eventual nominee.
The central Senate reality is that Texas Democrats remain heavy underdogs. Republicans have not lost a statewide race since Ann Richards. Any Democratic upset would require a nominee who minimizes ideological caricature and shifts voter attention toward competence, character, and Republican risk rather than partisan identity.
Author’s Note
Economic and Political Insights is running a weekly focus on the 2026 political races and how electoral outcomes intersect with real-world economic policy. The prior installment examined New York.
My broader work focuses on economic and financial policy affecting households, with particular attention to health care, student debt, retirement savings, and Social Security. A recent essay argues that neither political party is adequately addressing the economic pressures facing families.
https://bernsteinbook1958.substack.com/p/neither-party-is-solving-the-household
I also publish practical personal-finance guidance aimed at helping readers make better saving, investing, and planning decisions, often saving many times the cost of a subscription.
https://bernsteinbook1958.substack.com/p/personal-finance-in-the-real-world
A discounted subscription is available here:
https://bernsteinbook1958.substack.com/subscribe?coupon=4d9daaf9
U.S. House (2026)
