In the highly polarized landscape of American politics, a critical flaw in the primary election system is coming to a head in Texas. Both major political parties appear poised to potentially nominate candidates for a crucial U.S. Senate seat who may be more focused on destroying the opposition than actually winning the general election.
The Primary Problem: Choosing the Weapon, Not the Winner
Columnist Jonah Goldberg argues that one of the worst features of the current U.S. primary system is the tendency for party voters to flock to the candidate they most want to use to "destroy" the other side, rather than the candidate best positioned to win. He uses a vivid metaphor: facing a zombie at the door, one might choose the cool but ineffective frying pan over the reliable shotgun. In the Texas Senate race, he suggests Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett and Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton are their respective parties' "frying pans."
This phenomenon is not new. Goldberg points to past Republican candidates like Christine O'Donnell of Delaware in 2010, Todd Akin of Missouri in 2012, and more recently, North Carolina's Mark Robinson in 2024, whose extreme statements or controversial pasts ultimately made them weak general election candidates. Democrats have faced similar issues, nominating ideologically pure but less electable candidates such as Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin (2022), Stacey Abrams in Georgia, and Andrew Gillum in Florida (2018).
The Texas Showdown: A Three-Way GOP Race and a Democratic Dilemma
The Republican primary is shaping up as a three-way contest. The candidates are the incumbent, moderately conservative Senator John Cornyn, two-term Congressman Wesley Hunt, and the "rabble-rousing" populist and MAGA loyalist Ken Paxton, who has faced significant ethical challenges. Most analysts believe the experienced Cornyn would be the strongest candidate in a general election.
On the Democratic side, the field shifted dramatically when Rep. Jasmine Crockett announced her run. Crockett, a sharp-tongued progressive and social media figure often compared to Republican firebrands like Marjorie Taylor Greene, prompted the more moderate candidate, Rep. Colin Allred, to bow out of the Senate race. Crockett has made headlines for her insults and controversial statements, including claiming 80% of violent crimes are committed by "white supremacists" and that Black people cannot be Republicans. While this rhetoric may energize a deep-blue congressional district, analysts doubt its effectiveness in a statewide Texas race.
The Consequence: Damaging the Party Brand and Risking Defeat
The core risk, according to Goldberg, is that by nominating "bomb throwers and crackpots," parties hurt their overall brand for the next election cycle. Even in cases where such candidates come close to winning, they often represent a strategic misstep. The lesson drawn from narrow losses is often that the party needs to fight harder, not that it needs a more broadly appealing candidate.
In Texas, the dynamic sets up a scenario where both parties could nominate candidates so flawed that they lose a winnable race. A Democratic wave year in 2024 or 2026 could make the seat competitive, but not if the nominee cannot appeal to swing voters. The situation underscores what happens in a polarized age when parties outsource their nominating process to their most ardent, and often angriest, base voters, prioritizing ideological purity over electoral viability.
The Texas Senate primary thus serves as a potent case study in the ongoing struggle within both major American political parties, where the desire for a symbolic victory over the opposition can sometimes eclipse the practical goal of securing actual political power.
