Jasmine Crockett claims voters were 'disenfranchised' following crushing defeat in key Texas primary



Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) endured a brutal electoral blow Tuesday night after her opponent James Talarico secured the nomination in the Texas Senate Democratic primary.

Talarico, a more moderate Democrat, decisively won the nomination, dashing Crockett's aspirations for higher political office. With 80% of the vote tallied on Wednesday morning, Talarico sailed through with 53.1% of the vote, while Crockett brought in just 45.6%, according to the New York Times.

Talarico's win may indicate a shift toward a more moderate platform.

Despite Talarico's decisive win, Crockett was quick to blame election fraud.

"We're about to file a lawsuit to keep the voting polls open," Crockett said. "... I can tell you now that people were being disenfranchised."

RELATED: 'Maybe I should endorse Jasmine Crockett': Lauren Boebert jokes with, praises James Talarico amid heated Texas primary

Bob Daemmrich/Texas Tribune/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Talarico embraced the blue-dog Democrat campaign style, pitching himself as a Christian and appealing to working-class voters. Crockett, on the other hand, exemplified progressivism in full force, modeling herself after Squad members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Despite Crockett's appeal to the progressive faction of the left, Talarico's win may indicate a shift toward a more moderate platform within the Democratic Party.

RELATED: 3 contentious Texas primaries that hang in the balance

Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Talarico will now face off against either Attorney General Ken Paxton or incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in November.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats No Longer In Lockstep Before Midterms, Spelling Potential Disaster For Party

'it is absolutely infuriating'

3 contentious Texas primaries that hang in the balance



With the Texas primaries fast approaching, candidates are scrambling to pitch a last-minute winning message to voters.

Primary elections are set to take place March 3, leaving Republicans and Democrats with just days to edge out their competition. Here is everything you need to know about the three major primaries that have taken center stage.

1. Ken Paxton vs. John Cornyn vs. Wesley Hunt

Felix/Bloomberg via Getty Images, Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images, Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

The three-way primary giving Republicans a headache has been the GOP Senate race with Sen. John Cornyn, the establishment-backed incumbent, fending off Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt. Cornyn and Paxton had already been facing off in the bitter primary before Hunt decided to throw his hat in the race.

Hunt's ambitions are not expected to go far, but his candidacy is forcing the GOP to pour more resources into a race that ought to be a slam dunk.

RELATED: 'Loser mentality!' Sparks fly as Texas Republicans spar to succeed Ken Paxton in debate moderated by Allie Beth Stuckey

In a two-way race between Cornyn and Paxton, the attorney general has maintained a narrow 2.3 point average lead. Three-way polls show Hunt pulling a significant portion of the vote from both candidates, with one survey showing 36% support for Paxton, 34% for Cornyn, and 26% for Hunt.

If none of the candidates are able to secure at least 50% of the vote, the Republicans will be forced into a runoff, draining more valuable resources Republicans could otherwise spend in tougher races. Notably, President Donald Trump has refrained from endorsing any of the candidates.

2. Jasmine Crockett vs. James Talarico

Photo by Alberto Silva Fernandez/Getty Images, Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for MoveOn

While Republicans duke it out in the Senate primary, their Democratic counterparts are also trying to find their footing.

Tensions reached a boiling point after Stephen Colbert's show decided not to air on TV an interview with state Rep. James Talarico, pointing the finger at the Trump administration and the FCC's "equal time" regulations. Rep. Jasmine Crockett sought to set the record straight, claiming her challenger's interview was actually canned due to a decision from Colbert or the network, saying they didn't want to have her on the show.

RELATED: 'Maybe I should endorse Jasmine Crockett': Lauren Boebert jokes with, praises James Talarico amid heated Texas primary

Crockett has become a rising star for the progressive faction of the party, while Talarico has branded himself a blue-dog Democrat with a Christian upbringing.

Although Talarico's attempts to moderate would likely give him an advantage in the general, Crockett has maintained an average of a three-point advantage against her primary opponent. It's also worth noting that polls predict that no matter the nominee, both Crockett and Talarico would have the best shot of securing the Senate seat going up against Paxton.

3. Tony Gonzales vs. Brandon Herrera

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images, by Scott Stephen Ball for The Washington Post via Getty Images

The House primary that has recently become the center of controversy has been in Texas' 23rd congressional district between incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales (R) and gun YouTuber Brandon Herrera.

Herrera came within striking distance of unseating Gonzales in 2024, but Gonzales narrowly managed to maintain his House seat. Gonzales' odds at re-election are now looking slimmer than ever after a massive scandal broke, derailing his campaign and bringing calls of resignation from his Republican colleagues.

RELATED: 'Desperate rage': Republican accuses lawyer of 'blackmail' amid affair rumors linked to staffer's suicide

The nightmare began when Gonzales' former staffer Regina Santos-Aviles tragically took her own life by setting herself on fire in the backyard of her Uvalde home back in September. A month after her horrific passing, reports began to surface alleging that Gonzales had had an affair with Santos-Aviles.

These allegations resurfaced after new text messages were turned over to the media that appear to confirm the affair. The most recent set of alleged text messages seem to show Gonzales pressuring Santos-Aviles to send explicit photos as well as asking about her favorite sexual position.

This sparked a massive rebellion within the GOP with mounting pressure for Gonzales to resign. Notably, Trump has not yet rescinded his endorsement of the Texas Republican.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

3 debunked Democrat claims about the SAVE America Act



Democrats and legacy media have put forth several mischaracterizations and even flat-out lies about the GOP's latest election integrity bill.

The House passed the SAVE America Act Wednesday with unanimous Republican support and with even one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, joining the GOP. The bill would put in place basic election integrity requirements like providing proof of citizenship and photo ID to register and vote in federal elections.

'If you buy a 6-pack of beer you have to show an ID.'

The bill is now in the Senate, where Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is leading the effort to pass the legislation.

Although this proposal seems commonsense to most Americans, Democrats have caused a firestorm of hysteria and misconception. Here is the truth behind Democrats' most common rebuttals.

RELATED: 4 Senate Republicans evading MAGA's pressure campaign to prevent noncitizens from voting

Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

1. 'It's already illegal!'

The SAVE America Act aims to protect ballots from election fraud, particularly from illegal aliens and noncitizens. Democrats are quick to point out that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections, and those Democrats who are willing to admit that noncitizens voting does occasionally happen insist it takes place at a negligible rate.

This is partially true. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in American elections, and when it does happen, estimates show it occurs less than 1% of the time. But even if the rate is extremely low, it's not zero. And while many elections are decisive victories, some are decided by razor-thin margins, making every ballot count.

RELATED: Lone Democrat joins all Republicans to pass landmark election integrity bill barring noncitizens from voting

Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

In the 2024 election, former Republican Rep. John Duarte of California was unseated by Democrat Adam Gray by just 187 votes, chipping away at a historically thin GOP advantage in the House. But it's not just local elections that are decided by such narrow margins. In 2020, former President Joe Biden won several swing states by just thousands of votes, including Georgia by 11,779 votes and Arizona by just 10,457 votes.

There's no way to know if any of those votes were cast fraudulently, which is precisely the problem. Americans should have total confidence that every ballot counted in an election is a legitimate vote that reflects the political will of a United States citizen. The SAVE America Act would help do just that.

2. 'Jim Crow 2.0'

Democrats are no stranger to playing the race card, claiming that requiring photo ID somehow unfairly affects minorities. Perhaps most notable of them all is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who unabashedly likened the SAVE Act to Jim Crow-era rules.

"I have said it before and I'll say it again, the SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow type laws to the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate," Schumer said in a statement earlier this month. "It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to. If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown."

RELATED: Stopping the steal: Sen. Lee, Republicans demand Election Day integrity ahead of SCOTUS fight over 'rolling' ballot counts

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Apart from Schumer's soft bigotry of low expectations, his claim is simply inaccurate. The SAVE America Act offers a wide range of acceptable documents to prove citizenship, including a valid U.S. passport, a REAL ID that indicates citizenship, a U.S. military identification card that shows birthplace in the U.S., a birth certificate or other equivalent naturalization documents, and even some tribal IDs like the American Indian card.

Presenting a photo ID is also already a requirement to vote in some states as well as for countless other activities and purchases, including boarding a plane and casting a vote as a member of Congress.

"If you buy a 6-pack of beer you have to show an ID," Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee joked in a post on X. "End this racism."

3. 'It's an attack on women!'

Another claim Democrats have repeatedly made is that the new requirements disproportionately impact women who have changed their names after marriage. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said that the name change "creates a real problem" for her, implying that the legislation is the GOP's latest attempt to suppress women's votes.

The absurdity of Warren's claim is self-evident. Married women often obtain documentation with their new names for other processes that require identification, such as purchasing alcohol or opening a bank account. In addition, women are not limited to producing birth certificates, but also may provide other forms of acceptable ID, such as a passport or a REAL ID.

RELATED: Lone Republican defies Trump, votes to tank the SAVE Act

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Even in the rare case that a woman's ID is not updated with her new legal name, the SAVE America Act explicitly allows for name changes in documentation. The legislation requires states to establish fallback procedures for voters who have changed their names due to marriage, divorce, adoption, or another reason.

The reality is that none of the proposed requirements are novel or restrictive. They are simply common sense.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Rogue Republicans side with Democrats, revolting against Trump's key economic policy



The House of Representatives failed to protect President Donald Trump's tariffs, with three Republicans enabling any lawmaker to challenge his economic policy on the floor.

Republicans attempted to pass a rule to block Congress' ability to challenge Trump's tariff policies late Tuesday night. The GOP ultimately fell short, failing to pass the rule in a 214-217 vote after Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Kevin Kiley of California, and Don Bacon of Nebraska sided with Democrats.

'It’s time for Congress to reclaim that responsibility.'

Massie fired back at accusations that he voted simply to buck Trump, arguing that the vote was an attempt to "subvert the Constitution."

"My goal is to defend the Constitution and to represent the people," Massie said in a post on X. "Taxing authority is vested in the House of Representatives, not the Executive. The vote tonight was to subvert the Constitution and the 1976 National Emergencies Act by literally saying a day is not a day."

RELATED: Vance casts tiebreaking war powers vote after Republicans betray Trump

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Bacon, who has deviated from Trump in the past, also cited constitutional concerns with the vote.

"I don’t like putting the important work of the House on pause, but Congress needs to be able to debate on tariffs," Bacon said in a post on X. "Tariffs have been a 'net negative' for the economy and are a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying."

"Article I of the Constitution places authority over taxes and tariffs with Congress for a reason, but for too long, we have handed that authority to the executive branch. It’s time for Congress to reclaim that responsibility. I also oppose using the rules votes to legislate. I want the debate and the right to vote on tariffs."

RELATED: Exclusive: Republicans pen OMAR Act, targeting lawmakers who have 'blurred' ethical lines

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Although the vote failed, Trump allies like Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) continued to defend tariffs.

"This is life with a razor-thin majority as we have, and sometimes this happens," Johnson said on Fox News Wednesday. "We had three defections. ... I think it's a big mistake."

"I don't think we need to go down the road of trying to limit the president's power while he is in the midst of negotiating America First trade agreements with nations around the world."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Exclusive: Republicans pen OMAR Act, targeting lawmakers who have 'blurred' ethical lines



Republican lawmakers are pushing new legislation on Capitol Hill aimed at reining in members of Congress who take advantage of campaign finances for personal gain.

Wisconsin Republican Reps. Tom Tiffany and Tony Wied introduced the Oversight for Members And Relatives Act on Friday, known as the OMAR Act, which would prevent candidates' campaign funds from benefiting their spouses. The legislation would also mandate the disclosure of campaign-related payments made to their immediate family members, according to the bill text obtained exclusively by Blaze News.

'The American people are sick of it.'

"Public office should never be used to pad a family's bank account," Tiffany told Blaze News. "For years, members of both parties have blurred ethical lines by paying their spouses with campaign funds and labeling it 'campaign work.'"

"The OMAR Act ends this practice and restores integrity to a system that's been abused for far too long."

RELATED: Exclusive: SAVE Act hangs in the balance as Republican Study Committee pushes for Senate passage

Exclusive: GOP lawmaker Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

A prime example of these "blurred ethical lines" is none other than Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who reportedly paid nearly $2.8 million to her husband's political consulting firm during the 2019-2020 election cycle.

According to Fox News, these payments accounted for nearly 70% of her disbursements during her third quarter, exceeding the total amount all congressional candidates combined paid their immediate relatives during the 2012 election cycle.

"Members of Congress are sent to Washington to represent the interests of their constituents — not to line their spouses’ pockets with campaign funds," Wied told Blaze News.

RELATED: Biden DOJ's probe into Ilhan Omar's finances dropped same year her net worth surged

Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

"We’ve seen far too many egregious examples of politicians exploiting loopholes for personal gain, and the American people are sick of it," Wied added. "I’m proud to stand with Rep. Tiffany to introduce the OMAR Act and put a stop to these shady practices once and for all.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hakeem Jeffries Backs Impeachment Push Against Kristi Noem

'We can do this the easy way or the hard way'

88-year-old Democrat brings campaign to a screeching halt



The congressional representative for Washington, D.C., has filed to end her re-election campaign after 18 consecutive terms in the House.

Democrat Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has served as D.C.'s representative since 1991 and is now retiring at 88 years old. Norton's career was commended by her Democrat allies, but several colleagues have privately expressed concerns about cognitive decline leading up to the suspension of her re-election campaign.

'I will retire at the end of this term.'

"With fire in my soul and the facts on my side, I’ve raised hell about the injustice of denying 700K taxpaying Americans in DC the same rights given to residents of the states for 33 years," Norton said in a post on X.

"Now, with pride in our accomplishments, gratitude to DC, and confidence in the next generation, I announced I'll retire at the end of this term."

RELATED: 'Fixing the mess': Retired Navy SEAL aims to flip Connecticut congressional district red

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Notably, Norton officially filed paperwork to suspend her campaign on Sunday and didn't release her official statement until Tuesday.

"The privilege of public service is inseparable from the responsibility to recognize when it's time to lift up the next generation of leaders," Norton said in the statement. "For D.C., that time has come. With pride in all we have accomplished together, with the deepest gratitude to the people of D.C., and with great confidence in the next generation, I announced today that I will retire at the end of this term."

RELATED: Case against man who threw Subway sandwich at federal agent during DC surge goes awry

Photo by Tom Brenner for the Washington Post via Getty Images

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) congratulated Norton on her career, which spanned over three decades, calling her "our Warrior on the Hill."

"From securing shutdown protection for the city and the creation of DCTAG, to defeating continued attacks on Home Rule and leading historic votes in the House for DC Statehood," Bowser said in a statement. "Her work embodies the unwavering resolve of a city that refuses to yield in its fight for equal representation."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Politico's New Comms Chief is Veteran House Dem Operative Who Called Trump's First Term an 'Unmitigated Disaster'

Politico's new head of communications is a longtime House Democratic operative who boasted of "knocking on doors for Democrats" at the age of six and called President Donald Trump's first term an "unmitigated disaster."

The post Politico's New Comms Chief is Veteran House Dem Operative Who Called Trump's First Term an 'Unmitigated Disaster' appeared first on .

'Total RINO': Trump vows to oust Indiana Republican leader over redistricting betrayal



President Donald Trump has vowed to "take out" the Republican leader in the Indiana Senate for failing to enact the administration's preferred congressional map.

With the 2026 primaries fast approaching, Republicans and Democrats have been gone head-to-head in several states over congressional redistricting. While both parties have seen some success in redrawing districts to their partisan benefit, Indiana Senate Majority Leader Rod Bray's chamber struck down a new map that would have created two red congressional seats.

'Republican's House majority continues to shrink.'

"I was with David McIntosh of the Club for Growth, and we agreed that we will both work tirelessly together to take out Indiana Senate Majority Leader Rod Bray, a total RINO, who betrayed the Republican Party, the President of the United States, and everyone else who wants to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump said in a Truth Social Post.

"We’re after you Bray, like no one has ever come after you before!"

RELATED: Vance casts tiebreaking war powers vote after Republicans betray Trump

Kaiti Sullivan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

McIntosh confirmed Trump's statement, saying he and the president are "aligned."

"Rod Bray is going down," McIntosh said in a post on X.

Trump's frustration with Bray comes as the Republicans' House majority continues to shrink with resignations, impending retirements, and the tragic death of GOP Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California.

Because of the successful redistricting efforts of blue states like California, many Republican seats are rated "toss-ups" by the Cook Political Report, leaving a lot of wiggle room for Democrats to regain control of the House. Just four Democrat-held seats are currently rated "toss-up," while 14 Republican seats share the same electoral uncertainty.

RELATED: California Republican suddenly dies at age 65

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

There is also a trend of alternating between unified and divided governments every Congress, with the latter half of a president's term often being paired with an opposing Congress. Although this is not the case for every modern presidency, it is an observable pattern that pundits and political operatives are bracing themselves for.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!