From the standpoint of The New York Times, Gina Hinojosa is the “first Hispanic” governor-elect of Texas, while James Talarico is a moderate from a “deeply conservative” state—and therefore likely to join the incumbent Senate leadership against challenges from what the Times calls the “far left.”

That’s not the way it looks from here. Hinojosa—a labor lawyer!—self-identifies as a “populist” in the grand farmer-labor tradition of the late 19th century (you can read about it in a book by Tom Frank). She rejects the “culture wars” of the “liberal-progressives” in the Democratic Party. Her issues are about the power of money and the price of power. Talarico, too, focused on billionaires, oligarchs, elections bought by AIPAC, and a message of basic human decency, motivated by faith.

According to the Times, the election was primarily a repudiation of Donald Trump. But in Texas, the campaign turned on Elon Musk, data centers, public schools, and the dark atmosphere of repression that had settled over this state as the local ruling class grew old. It was about the price of gas, the price of food, the soaring rents, and about whether abundant electricity would continue to underpin life in Texas. Ultimately, it was about who was in charge.

Foreign policy influenced the outcome only through Trump’s war on Iran. Oil was $65 a barrel in February and about $100 on Election Day. Texas produces oil, and those prices brought good money to the Permian Basin. But most of that flowed to refiners and to private equity—not to the urban commuters who vote here. The gas price measured Trump’s fealty to Netanyahu and, behind that, the catastrophe visited on Palestinians in Gaza. No other foreign issue mattered much. A colleague, taking the broad view, wrote that voters were offended by how Trump treated Zelensky. There weren’t 10 votes in Texas that turned on Ukraine.

The Democratic majorities that will ride to Washington in January will be fractious. The party is still dominated by Big Money, and those who campaigned against the Republican oligarchy will shortly have to confront its Democratic twin. The campaign-industrial complex that spent $1.5 billion on Kamala Harris two years ago is still in control. It is trying to keep the focus on Trump, to spin the victories in identity terms—a Black here, a Hispanic there, and many women, of course—and to keep the narrative away from the power of money and that despised label, “populism.”

Texas populism is not “democratic socialism.” The DSA is a rebellious force in solidly Democratic states; there, it can appeal to a narrow and concentrated base. Texas is not New York City or Los Angeles or Seattle, and after 30 years of Republican hegemony, there was no Democratic establishment to overcome. Texas populism is a form of Christian community socialism—dare I use that word?—which has always enjoyed latent appeal around here. That is why Talarico and Hinojosa (and Goodwin, Johnson, Eckhardt, and every other down-ballot Democrat) won votes previously cast for Trump. Given that Texas is a resource state, Texas populism also understands the realities of the energy system as coastal city dwellers often do not.

“Affordability” was the watchword of 2026. The next phase, within the Democratic Party, will separate those for whom it is just a question of talking points from those who feel the need to deliver. Higher wages. Lower prices. Stable rents. Good public schools. Healthcare that doesn’t break the bank. Electricity that becomes, once again, cheap and abundant. Housing that is decent and, well, affordable. Roads, bridges, rails, and water systems that are built to last.

To deliver affordability means stepping on toes and breaking taboos. Not least, the economists’ cartel with its aversion to rent and price controls. Not least, the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies. Not least, the private-equity energy mafia. Not least, the budget and resource drain that is our distended, obsolete military. And not least, the shibboleth that interest rates are the sole domain of the Federal Reserve, to be raised—crushing housing while enriching the banks—on the empty pretext of “fighting inflation.” A comprehensive national affordability plan remains to be written. When it is, the Democratic donor class will be shocked.

Then there is the question of what to do about Trump. Those who tried to destroy him legally in the Biden interregnum will be back. To take up that cudgel again would be stupid. As a political force, Trump is already destroyed. His administration is breaking apart. He is also an old man in the last phase of his power. The Texas message, I believe, is to let him fade away, bring the cycle of personal political vengeance to an end—and focus on the problems of the people.

To those like Talarico, heading to Washington for the first time, the overseas trifecta—Russia, China, and Iran/Israel—will loom large. The foreign policy establishment is waiting. It will urge hectoring China, financing Ukraine, and sending bombs to Israel, come what may. The new group will have to figure out for itself that China is immune to American pressure. That Russia cannot be defeated—not on the battlefield, as US military intelligence has always known, and also not by sanctions. And that Iran, having won the war, will dictate terms in the Middle East—including on key matters to the Israelis. These facts are locked down, and the Obama-Biden foreign policy era is now over. The peace to come—which must come—will have to respect the realities of the world as it is.