#texas primary

CBS, which has increasingly become The Trump Network, stepped in and told Stephen Colbert that he could not have Texas State Rep. James Talarico as a guest on his show because of a rarely enforced FCC rule. Seriously — when was the last time the FCC stepped in at Fox News and insisted on "equal time" for Democrats? 🤔

So Stephen, after giving a plug to the Late Show band, explained the situation in the video above. PLEASE watch it if you haven't already.

Although Stephen could not air James Talarico, he posted a conversation with him on YouTube. You can watch it below.

So here's what this incident accomplished:

It gave James Talarico far more publicity than he would have otherwise have gotten.

It again put on full display the Trump administration's appropriation of cancel culture.

It reminded everybody of the chain of smarminess which goes: CBS »»» Brendan Carr »»» Donald Trump.

It served as a reminder that you can do stuff online that you're not allowed to do on broadcast TV.

‘Capitulating AGAIN!’ CBS Under Fire for Pulling the Plug On Stephen Colbert Interview with James Talarico

It's crazy and bizarre that CBS would choose to do such a thing at this point. Stephen Colbert's contract with CBS ends in May. In terms of public relations, it would just be best to have Stephen leave quietly. Instead, they are raising his profile and making his brand worth more.

But MAGA is clearly worried about Texas – and control of Congress in general. So in panicked desperation they are pulling out all the stops to try to hold on to power – oblivious to how stupid it makes them look.

Some highlights from the article

It was interesting. Everyone was very kind and helpful and all the voters were happy to chat with each other about how its exciting to see a bunch of new first time voters. In fact, the voting volunteers had a clipboard with almost 4 sheets of listed names of first time voters. And the lady said usually its only one sheet! There were 4 this time! And i saw a loooot of young people my age and younger. It was awesome to see.

And that was for a Primary. Super Tuesday. Not the actual presidental election. Im so glad that we're all recognizing the importance of primaries now. Im thankful i got to learn about this system in college.

We had an open primary, meaning anyone could come to one place, without being registered to any party. But once you are up to vote, you have to choose one over the other, and they make it so that you can keep your choice discreet. It was a great system.

And now, as someone eho obviously looks disabled - wearing kneebraces, struggling to walk, and using a cane, a lot of people were trying to help me out and i really have a lot of appreciation for my community. It was such a nice atmosphere. I made sure i knew which spot i was, but i sat down and just watched people. But when i got up there, the volunteers almost freaked out and said that i didnt have to wait in line due to my obvious physical distress. I was surprised by this. Im glad of the knowledge now, but in retrospect i didnt mind it so much. Yes, im in a lot, a Lot of pain now due to it, but it was kind of worth it. I got to chatting with several older people about previous elections and how they've noticed a change in the people voting. There's more people for the primaries. A lot more. A lot of younger people. They were very excited to see it. It was very interesting to talk to people about stuff like this.

We all avoided talking about the actual candidates and choices, of course, but it wasnt awkward. Everyone got along and it was a good experience.

I absolutely recommend people vote in any election they possibly can. Its extremely important. And its a good experience.

No, voting isnt the be all end all, of course not. But it is still an important and extremely valuable right that we have. Do whatever you can to make sure you can vote. We can absolutely sway the tides against people like Trump.

Im thankful for my community and the capability to vote comfortably. In other places its not so easy for some people. And this is something we gotta put the work in to change.

That article may be overstating things a bit, but James Talarico's victory in the Texas Democratic primary for US Senate was certainly helped by the uproar over attempts to block his appearance on Stephen Colbert's late night show.

Texas State Rep. James Talarico’s appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert is being credited with propelling him to victory in Tuesday’s Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican John Cornyn. With 97% of the vote now in, Talarico won with 52.8% of the vote, defeating U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who received 45.9%. The outcome stands in stark contrast to polling conducted shortly before Talarico’s late-night appearance. According to The Texas Politics Project, Crockett led the race with the support of 56% of likely Democratic primary voters, compared with 44% for Talarico.

Talarico had been edging up a little in polls. White House MAGA operatives noticed and likely hinted to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to lean on CBS. CBS then told Colbert not to air his segment with Talarico. Colbert complied but then posted the banned segment on YouTube and spoke at length during his monologue about the MAGA/FCC/CBS attempts to censor him.

This drama got an enormous amount of publicity and caused donations to pour into Talarico's campaign. The attempt by Trump and his pals to hinder Talarico blew up in their faces. Talarico became a symbol of anti-MAGA resistance around the same time a Democrat comfortably flipped a Texas State Senate seat in a special election in a ruby red district won by Trump in 2024 by 17 points.

There were certainly other factors. Talarico is a progressive who sometimes uses religious language like the late President Jimmy Carter. His Hispanic heritage helped him with many voters. But it certainly helped being publicly identified as an "Anti-Trump" in a high profile way when The Orange One is tanking in the polls.

The Texas primary turnout should worry Republicans.

^^^ The total number of Democrats who voted in the Texas primary was notably higher than the number of Republicans who voted in the same primary. This hasn't happened in decades in a midterms primary there. And BOTH parties had very high profile races.

Some perspective on the Texas primary results.

May 28, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell

Trump dealt a serious blow to the GOP hopes of holding the Senate by helping toxic Ken Paxton defeat incumbent John Cornyn in Texas. Cornyn’s defeat creates an opportunity for James Talarico to be the first Democrat to win a statewide office in Texas since 1994. To be clear, any Democrat running for statewide office in Texas must be viewed as the underdog, but the 2026 midterms present a unique combination of a historically weak president, a corrupt Republican candidate, and a generational talent in James Talarico.

Objectively, Paxton’s win was a positive development for Democrats, but the breathless reporting about the margin of Paxton’s victory could create the misimpression that Trump is getting stronger. Not true. Trump is maintaining his death grip on a shrinking minority, even as he is losing support nationally across all demographics.

Moreover, the turnout in Texas was pathetic, making it dangerous and foolhardy to draw conclusions about the relative strength of Trump, Republicans, and Democrats among Texas voters. Only 8% of Texas registered voters participated in the run-off election.

In some counties, Paxton and Cornyn received votes in the single or double digits. For example, in Zapata County, Paxton garnered 22 votes, while Cornyn won 6 votes, making it appear that Paxton crushed Cornyn 79% to 21%.

See this screenshot from NBC:

Given the tiny number of votes cast in Zapata County, it would be easy for the Law of Small Numbers to lead observers to incorrect conclusions.

For example, the latest available data from the Texas Secretary of State shows there are 7,886 registered voters in Zapata County, meaning the turnout in the Republican runoff—28 voters—was very close to 0%.

Moreover, because Zapata County is predominantly Latino (93%), someone not paying attention to the low turnout could erroneously conclude that Paxton has very strong support in counties with large Latino populations.

Instead, the most reasonable inference to be drawn from the Zapata County results is that in a county that is overwhelmingly Latino, there was virtually no support for Paxton or Cornyn.

Paxton’s crushing defeat of Cornyn occurred the day before more bad news for Trump on the polling front. In Wednesday’s YouGov / Economist poll, Trump's favorability rating reached a new low (34%). In especially bad news for Trump, his approval rating among Independents was 20%. (Independents were the largest voting bloc in 2024).

Key points from the poll:

Among registered voters, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they are more motivated than usual to vote in 2026 (60% vs. 36%)

Among registered voters, 84% of Democrats say they will definitely vote in the November elections, compared to 73% of Republicans

Opposition is twice as high as support (49% vs. 24%) for paying $1.776 billion to people who claim to have been mistreated by the federal government.

See Trump hits new low for job approval, congressional corruption and unpopularity, and more: May 22 - 26, 2026 Economist/YouGov Poll.

The $1.8 billion slush fund is opposed by a majority of every political party or voting bloc. See chart below:

I have gone on too long to make three simple points: (a) We should view analyses of the Texas primary results with caution and skepticism (including my analysis); (b) Democrats have broad national momentum on every signature issue of the Trump 2024 campaign; and (c) the challenges we face are daunting, but winnable.

Texas is the paradigm: Democrats are underdogs but have a realistic chance at an upset; if we succeed, Democrats could claim control of the Senate in 2026, an unthinkable outcome nine months ago.

There is a lot of political noise in the system, and it will get worse as the midterms approach. Trust your own political compass and instincts. What you see, hear, and feel is real. While we should not over-rely on personal experience and anecdote, pollsters and political operatives are not in touch with what people are feeling at the grocery store and at the gas pump, in town halls and on street corners, and on the job and at the dinner table.

Trump is historically unpopular. Most Americans are outraged and horrified. They are motivated as never before to defend democracy. We have every reason to be hopeful, but no reason to be complacent.

Trump’s DOJ opens criminal investigation of E. Jean Carroll

E. Jean Carroll obtained two judgments for defamation against Trump when a jury determined that Trump falsely denied that he sexually assaulted Carroll. During one of Carroll’s two civil suits, she was asked during her deposition whether she was paying her counsel’s fees. She truthfully answered, “This is a contingency case.”

Carroll was then asked,

Q. So you’re not paying expenses or anything out of pocket to date; is that correct?

A. I’m not sure about expenses. I have to look that up.

Q. Is anyone else paying your legal fees, Ms. Carroll?

A. No.

All of E. Jean Carroll’s answers appear to have been truthful. On the eve of trial, Carroll recalled learning that her attorneys (not Carroll herself) had secured funding to pay expenses and fees associated with trial preparation. Carroll’s attorneys then informed opposing counsel and the judge of Carroll’s subsequent recollection of the funding arranged by her counsel. The judge allowed additional testimony on the subject and then ruled the issue irrelevant to the trial.

As they say, “That was that.” Until Trump’s DOJ decided to open a criminal investigation of E. Jean Carroll for allegedly lying during her deposition.

Although I do not have all of the facts, I have reviewed the letter by Carroll’s attorneys to Judge Kaplan disclosing Carroll’s subsequent recollection of her attorney’s funding arrangement. Based on that review, it appears the most likely outcome of the criminal investigation is that the US attorneys conducting it will be disciplined or disbarred.

E. Jean Carroll had a contingency fee arrangement with her attorneys, meaning that she owed them no fees unless she obtained a judgment against Trump. In a contingency fee case, the attorneys have significant financial exposure if their client loses because there is no judgment to pay the contingency fees.

Many lawyers seek “litigation funding,” i.e, a loan against their future prospects of recovery. If there is no recovery against the defendant, the attorneys (not the client) are on the hook for the litigation funding loan. Thus, no one is “paying” the client’s legal fees; the client’s attorneys are borrowing money secured by a lien on a future judgment against the defendant.

I don’t know the specifics of the “funding” referred to in the CNN story, but my hunch is that E. Jean Carroll’s attorneys obtained litigation funding described above. But even if the “funding” was a direct grant to Carroll’s attorneys, her testimony was corrected as soon as the additional recollection was identified. Under those circumstances, no jury would ever convict E. Jean Carroll of perjury. Indeed, I doubt that she could be indicted, and if indicted, the claim would likely be dismissed by the judge on a pretrial motion for vindictive prosecution.

The opening of the investigation is itself an act of retribution and bad faith. The US Attorney who opened the investigation, Andrew Boutrous, is the same person who presided over the scandal-plagued indictment and prosecution of the Broadview Six—a case that will likely lead to the disbarment of several attorneys who serve under Mr. Boutrous (for tampering with the grand jury and deceiving the court).

E. Jean Carroll has acted courageously throughout Trump’s assault on her. Moreover, her counsel, Roberta Kaplan, is a well-respected, highly ethical attorney whose conduct in the two trials was beyond reproach. E. Jean Carroll will prevail, again. The real question is which US attorneys may lose their licenses to practice law when the facts are explored in a court of law.

Trump threatens to “blow up” Oman—a US ally in the war against Iran.

During a “Dear Leader” cabinet meeting, Trump commented on the fact that Oman might work with Iran to establish a toll collection system for the Strait of Hormuz. Trump said,

Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we’ll have to blow them up. They understand that. They’ll be fine.

See NYTimes, Trump Threatens Oman Over the Strait. (Gift article, accessible to all.)

In the before times, when a US president threatened to “blow up” another country, that was headline news. Not any longer. Trump says many things each day that are unhinged, false, or reckless. No one takes Trump’s statements at face value because they know he is mentally unstable and impulsive. But that fact deserves headline treatment every time Trump threatens to blow up another country.

On the off chance that any headline writers for major media outlets are reading this newsletter, the appropriate headline on Wednesday should have been, “Mentally unstable, impulsive president threatens to blow up U.S. ally.”

Speaking of a mentally unstable and impulsive president, last week, Trump was teasing a peace agreement “within hours.” Today, the US attacked Iran, and Iran retaliated by attacking a US military base that launched the attack against Iran. See NYTimes, Iranian Military Says It Targeted a U.S. Base in Retaliation for Strikes.

Trump can’t find a way out of his war of choice. We need to help him—by raising our voices in protest so that Trump (and Republicans) understand that the biggest threat to their political futures is from the American people, not from Iran.

Concluding Thoughts

I received a regular update from Democracy Docket on Wednesday about the efforts by Marc Elias’s firm to stop the disclosure of private voter information held by states. See Democracy Docket, Ashley Cleaves, Trump’s DOJ voter roll losses are getting louder.

As Ashley Cleaves writes, the states have consistently defeated the Trump administration's efforts to obtain voter roll information. Like many things in Trumpworld, the initial announcement is touted by Trump, but the defeat of Trump’s effort is buried in the back pages of the newspaper.

Per Cleaves,

Trump’s Justice Department proudly filed 31 lawsuits against 30 states and Washington, D.C., demanding access to sensitive voter roll data. They bragged about their assault on every social media platform and podcast that they could. But lately, they’ve been very quiet. That’s because they have come up empty-handed in every case in which there’s been a ruling: California, Oregon, Michigan, Arizona, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine and Wisconsin. Last Thursday, federal judges in those last two states handed the DOJ consecutive losses within minutes of each other.