Thank you for watching! In the face of unrelenting disinformation and authoritarian actions, clear truth-telling and independent media are a necessity. If you value pro-democracy journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to my newsletter. Paid subscribers empower this work and gain access to exclusive benefits. Your support makes a difference.
In our latest Substack Live conversation, Common Power Executive Director Charles Douglas and I dove into the data coming out of the Texas primary election and why it’s bad news for the Republican Party.
The midterms are starting to take shape right now, and Texas gives us some new insight into it. Democrats are showing up in huge numbers. Republicans are not matching that energy. And because Texas is an open primary, that gap might be telling us something even bigger: some voters who used to live inside the Republican coalition are looking for a way out.
We also zoomed out to the fear that’s hanging over everything: Trump trying to sabotage the next election. We took it seriously, but we also walked through the mechanics and why it’s harder to pull off than people think, especially as Trump’s support and institutional leverage keep eroding.
And then we turned to the media landscape: the looming Warner Bros. purchase and what it could mean for CNN, and why the squeeze on legacy media might accelerate the next phase of independent media, which needs grassroots support now more than ever.
You can watch our full conversation above and read key takeaways below.
Texas Turnout Is A Warning Sign For Republicans
Texas primary turnout isn’t just a “Texas story.” It’s a signal. Charles and I walked through VoteHub data that shows Democrats massively outdoing their 2022 midterm primary pace, while Republicans lag behind. In a midterm environment, that kind of enthusiasm gap is meaningful.
Key takeaways
Democratic turnout is exploding compared to the last midterm primary. We walked through the VoteHub comparison, showing Democrats already far ahead of their 2022 midterm-primary turnout before election day, surpassing 1 million ballots cast.
Republicans are not matching the energy. On the GOP side, turnout was up relative to 2022 “as of today,” but it’s lagging Democratic turnout.
The enthusiasm gap matters more than any single headline. If one side is fired up and the other side looks flat, you don’t need perfect polling to understand the direction this could go.
This does not look like equal-energy polarization. Charles made the key point: it would be one thing if both sides were surging. This looks asymmetrical.
This is happening beyond Texas. We talked about similar dynamics showing up in other states, too, including Oklahoma, Arkansas, and North Carolina, which pushes this from “interesting” into “pattern.”
Open Primary Dynamics: Who’s Crossing Over, And Why It Matters
Texas is an open primary. That matters. It creates a plausible explanation for part of the Democratic turnout surge that’s not just “Democrats are energized” but also “some Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary because they’ve lost faith in their own options.”
Key takeaways
Texas being an open primary changes the meaning of turnout. Charles made the case that large numbers of Republicans or former Republicans may be voting in the Democratic primary because the GOP candidates and institution feel broken to them.
Not MAGA voters. He was clear: the hard-core base remains. But the “classic conservative” bloc that became independent, disengaged, or begrudging voters may be searching for a political home.
This is what coalition movement looks like. We talked about how these turnout patterns can reflect not just mobilization, but migration.
Turnout is a proxy for faith. High turnout in this context suggests something deeper than candidate preference: it suggests voters believe participation matters right now.
Tallarico vs Crockett: Two Theories Of How To Win Texas
We discussed the Democratic primary choice as a strategic contrast: different styles, different coalition theories, and different paths to victory, especially in a state with voter suppression dynamics and a general election electorate that’s not the same as the primary electorate.
Key takeaways
Crockett’s theory: fight hard, speak truth to power, and activate low-propensity voters who don’t usually turn out.
Tallarico’s theory: build a bigger coalition in a red-leaning environment by making room for moderates, independents, and disaffected Republicans to come into a Democratic coalition.
Charles’ take: You need fighters nationally, and Crockett has played that role. But Texas may require coalition language that feels less like partisan warfare and more like “all of us” versus corruption and self-dealing.
The real opportunity is unity after the primary. We both emphasized that the biggest win scenario is whoever loses campaigning hard for whoever wins, keeping both constituencies engaged and channeling the energy into November.
Ken Paxton as a general election accelerant. We flagged how a Paxton nomination could make the seat even more competitive, and how a GOP runoff could drag their side into a messy internal fight.
The Bigger Story: Voters Are Rejecting Trump’s Coalition
Charles framed what I think is the core thesis of the moment: this doesn’t just look like people choosing a Democratic candidate. It looks like people are moving away from Republicans as a party and away from Trump as a power center. It’s for this reason that his efforts to interfere in the midterms will likely fail.
Key takeaways
Election sabotage requires a lot of people to cooperate. Charles and I argued that what got Trump close in 2020 was the willingness of individuals in key states to go along with him. That willingness depends on Trump being perceived as powerful and inevitable.
That perception is weakening. The “faith in Trump” is what’s been chipping away. Even among people who still like him, fewer believe he’s going to make their lives better.
Trump’s leverage relies on belief, not just bravado. For a national election subversion effort to work, people across multiple institutions have to believe their fate is tied to his. If that belief decays, the scheme gets harder to execute.
You don’t need only Democrats to resist. Charles pointed out that pushback can come from Republicans too, and cited the SAVE Act as an example of something that would have sailed through if the party were fully behind Trump.
The throughline is institutional slippage. The more Trump loses credibility, the more “mechanisms” that would be required to help him start breaking down.
Voter Suppression And The Intimidation Question
We also touched on the darker edge of the turnout story: Texas turnout is happening despite suppression tactics, and fear itself can change participation patterns, especially among targeted communities.
Key takeaways
Texas has suppression baked into the system. Charles pointed to voters being dropped from rolls in heavily blue districts and the pattern of targeting Black and Latino communities.
“Imagine without the hurdles.” We talked about how the turnout is remarkable even with obstacles, and what Texas could look like if the playing field were fair.
A warning sign in Hispanic turnout. We noted VoteHub demographic breakdowns showing Hispanic turnout lagging, and discussed how threats and intimidation can suppress participation even among eligible voters.
Fear doesn’t care about your paperwork. Charles’ point was blunt: people don’t want to risk being detained while bureaucracy “figures it out,” even if they’re legally entitled to vote and be here.
This is why organizing matters. We connected that intimidation risk to the need for strong on-the-ground infrastructure and community defense at the ballot box.
Trump’s Approval Collapse Is The Backdrop Of Everything
We pulled up The New York Times approval tracker and talked through the arc: Trump started the term above 50%, then steadily bled support as the “shine” wore off and the overreach set in.
Key takeaways
Trump once had a real opening. We both acknowledged that early 50s approval was the moment where you could imagine him consolidating power if he had chosen restraint.
He chose overreach. We connected the decline to early chaos and escalating backlash: DOGE-style moves, government cuts, public spectacle, and policy shockwaves.
Inflection points mattered. We noted the Zelensky meeting as one potential pivot moment, alongside broader public realization that “Project 2025 is real” once the purges and department shutdowns hit.
Once a president drops below water, everything gets harder. Approval collapse doesn’t just change the mood. It changes how willing institutions and individuals are to take risks for you.
This is why midterm fear can’t be separated from midterm math. If Trump were still sitting comfortably in the 50s while escalating, I’d be more alarmed. But a widely unpopular president creates a different environment for election interference attempts and for voter backlash.
The Warner Bros. Deal And The Next Phase Of Independent Media
We closed with a media conversation that felt like a preview of the next few years: consolidation pressure on legacy media, potential political capture, and the paradoxical result that could accelerate independent media’s growth.
Key takeaways
Charles’ fear: consolidation could mean less real debate, less independent oxygen on mainstream platforms, and a programming future that’s more propaganda-friendly.
My counterpoint: the deal isn’t necessarily immediate or inevitable. We talked about the California Attorney General’s potential role, antitrust timelines, and how litigation can slow or block outcomes.
The larger prediction: independent media could move from “individual creators” to “independent media houses.” Charles predicted the next wave will be major names forming their own collectives and companies rather than disappearing.
The squeeze creates clarity for consumers. As legacy networks package “the bullshit,” it becomes easier for people to stop watching and build a new media diet elsewhere.
Funding is the missing piece. I made the case that Democrats raise massive sums for campaigns that vanish after election day, and that even a fraction of that energy, redirected into subscriptions and support for pro-democracy independent media, could build a long-lasting truth-telling ecosystem.
Why this matters strategically: Trump can target one outlet or one figure, but he can’t effectively suppress thousands of independent voices supported by millions of subscribers. He’d be stuck playing whack-a-mole.
Bottom Line
Texas is giving us a glimpse of a national environment that looks increasingly hostile to Trump’s coalition: higher Democratic engagement, lower Republican enthusiasm, and signs of voter migration in places where the primary rules allow it.
At the same time, the fear of election sabotage is real, but the mechanisms require buy-in from people and institutions that are less willing to take the leap for Trump than they were when he was stronger. Trump’s approval decline isn’t just a headline. It’s a structural weakening.
And if legacy media continues to consolidate and contort, it may accelerate the very thing that scares authoritarians most: a sprawling, decentralized independent media ecosystem that can’t be captured with one acquisition, one lawsuit, or one pressure campaign.
Thanks to everyone who showed up live! If you’re catching it now, appreciate you! Stay tuned, we’ll be back next week.
