Debate was pretty cordial. I do like Talarico, but I'm not finding anything to dislike about Crockett at all. (She kind of cracked me up when she ran out of time on her answers.) Both these folks should be in the federal legislature. Texas doesn't deserve either. Will support either, but I can see getting more emotionally fired up about Crockett.
I don't think they necessarily do to other than pundits. I think enough voters (enough to affect an election) would give a shit about the Dems having some specific legislation addressing ICE abuses. Having an approach and a plan matter enough to affect the vote. The fact that the Dems took a while to really push the Biden immigration bill was a big deal. It affected their credibility. ICE is mostly about jackboots at this point. Their power in the cities needs to be gutted.
Okay. So are you saying Dems would be better off: 1) Arguing to abolish ICE, without pushing a plan which highlights how they would accomplish immigration control differently from the current ICE methods focusing on disempowering ICE's abuses, or 2) Arguing to abolish ICE, while pushing a plan which highlights how they would accomplish immigration control differently from the current ICE methods focusing on disempowering ICE's abuses.