u/Due-Fold697

I love Talarico and I want to explain why every progressive should think the same. I'm not in Texas, so I regrettably can't vote for him. If he wins and does well in the Senate (actually passes progressive policies), he would be my easy choice to run for President.

The reality is, we need to get, at least, the moderates on board. As a progressive surrounded by conservatives who don't really have strong beliefs, its become clear to me that progressive policies can actually convince people to flip under the right conditions.

If you're like me, you want these progressive policies in place immediately. Free healthcare for citizens, minimizing the influence money in politics, and a progressive tax plan (specifically on that top 0.1%), among other things, are everyone's dream here. But voters who could be flipped need something to latch onto in order to actually go to the polls, and we need progressives to actually get elected in order to make change.

There is a constant push and pull between having strong progressive policies and electability. Most people just aren't willing to stake their vote on someone deemed too "radical" (righteously or not).

For me, Talarico is an almost supernatural balance of the two. He's a through-and-through American with strong Christian beliefs, but still is an advocate for the top issues of progressives. He has an entirely clean voting record and is an amazing orator (he reminds me a lot of Obama). He's a faithful man but advocates strongly for the separation of church and state. He's actually a public servant and has nothing to do with massive corporations. He unabashedly calls out the woes of MAGA and the top 1%. He has made a name for himself working for bipartisan deals and is relatable to those across the aisle. He's not a million years old and is willing to publicly defend himself. The fact he even stands a chance (never mind leading in the polls!) in this race is emblematic of how perfect he is.

Look at how Texas Republicans are attacking him. Low-T Talarico? He's vegan? He doesn't have a girlfriend? The reality is, conservatives can't use their normal attacks on him because he still has strong Christian beliefs and a deep Texas lineage. Their level of pettiness has to descend to a level even below racism and Christian-nationalism, and I think the average person is seeing how sad that is. I can't wait to see this debate because he's going to blow Paxton out of the water, and if we learned anything from 2024, that really matters.

Think seriously about the average voter who really doesn't care about politics. Would they get out of bed for another "Californian democrat" who says they're going to change a million things? We've heard this story a million times. Talarico is the most agreeable, electable candidate that holds strong progressive views. It sucks that being Christian still matters in our elections. It sucks that having an anglo-saxon name still matters in our elections. But, its also ignorant to assume it doesn't for some voters. And its counterproductive to ignore that it does.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We're far from that first step, but we still have a long way to go. Talarico is the leader that we need in our current political climate. I know a lot of people here probably want an even more progressive candidate to hitch their wagon to, but I think a candidate who still resembles an average American while being very progressive is exactly what will win elections and further our cause.

In the United States, we have a political culture where our president's retire and act as elder statesmen. Our last two administrations have, obviously, been horrible examples of this: Trump had no legislative experience and clearly wanted to run for a second term after 2020, and Biden was certainly incapable of attempting to return to the Senate. Even before Obama, Bush was probably too controversial and unpopular to be taken seriously.

That said, I've always wondered this why able and popular politicians don't return to legislation. Particularly about Obama, who was still young and popular at the end of his two terms. Elder statesmen serve a noble function, but presidents people were elected for a reason, especially those who served two terms and remained popular-- they're at the top of their party in both popularity and policy guidance.

Imagine the prestige that would come from a former president submitting a piece of legislation. Even if the executive administration flipped parties, I think some moderates/independents would be more akin to the other side if they had previously supported that president. It seems beneficial for that party to have a former president still active.

I can think of two main objections. First, the president would be tired of public life. This is fair and we should by no means force someone to be in an office they don't seek. Second, it could be an aversion to a concentration to power. But, then again, doesn't an elder statesman still exercise that influence frequently whenever they speak publicly? And, this isn't unprecedented: way back then, former presidents reentered legislation or, in Taft's case, the Supreme Court.

The first objection is fine, but otherwise it seems odd that this is in our tradition. Interested to hear what people think.