Republicans are spending hundreds of millions attacking Talarico; they can’t spend it on Paxton, they call him a crook.

Republican PACs are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into political advertising aimed at tearing down James Talarico.

Just a few months ago, Republican campaigns and outside groups were throwing enormous sums of money into attacking Ken Paxton. Pro-Cornyn forces outspent Paxton’s side by more than four to one during the runoff, flooding the airwaves with attacks portraying Paxton as incompetent, corrupt, and adulterous. It did not work. Paxton defeated John Cornyn about 64 percent to 36 percent.

Now many Republicans who spent heavily telling voters how bad Paxton was are spending another fortune telling voters how bad Talarico is.

Money does not always win elections.

And if Ken Paxton is such a strong candidate, there is an obvious question: why is so much of the campaign about James Talarico instead of Ken Paxton?

Before Republicans ask Texans to forget what they said about Paxton only a few months ago, here is a reminder of what Cornyn’s own campaign and Republican allies told voters about him.

Here is the fullest list I can reconstruct of what Cornyn’s campaign itself said about Paxton. I’m describing these as campaign allegations or characterizations, not adopting them as fact.

• Corrupt / “Crooked Ken.” This was the umbrella theme. Cornyn’s campaign repeatedly called him “Crooked Ken,” accused him of believing laws and rules did not apply to him, and said he had used public office for personal benefit.
• Adultery and dishonesty about his personal life. Cornyn and allied Republican groups repeatedly attacked Paxton over allegations of infidelity and his marital problems.
• Habitual liar. Republican Senate campaign material said that “a lot of people who trust Ken Paxton get lied to,” while Cornyn’s operation repeatedly portrayed him as dishonest.
• Nate Paul corruption/bribery. The campaign accused Paxton of improperly using his office to benefit donor Nate Paul, allegations that were central to Paxton’s impeachment.
• Tony Buzbee pay-to-play. Cornyn’s opposition material alleged that state legal business awarded after Buzbee represented Paxton raised questions about political payback.
• Mortgage/financial fraud. Cornyn allies attacked Paxton over reports that multiple properties had been represented as primary residences.
• Hidden or improperly disclosed finances. Cornyn’s campaign attacked Paxton for failing to meet his federal personal-financial-disclosure deadline and cited earlier disclosure controversies.
• Getting unusually rich while in public office. Cornyn’s campaign highlighted Paxton’s growing investments and real-estate holdings and questioned the source of his increased wealth.
• A supposedly “blind” trust that wasn’t really blind. The campaign argued that Paxton remained informed about transactions supposedly separated from him through a trust.
• WatchGuard investment conflict. Cornyn’s opposition material questioned Paxton’s investment in the police-camera company WatchGuard while the company had government business.
• Funding organizations associated with liberal causes. Republican ads accused Paxton’s attorney general’s office of providing grants to organizations involved with immigration assistance and LGBTQ programs.
• Funding organizations that helped undocumented immigrants. Cornyn-aligned ads accused Paxton’s office of financing groups that challenged immigration enforcement.
• Funding LGBTQ/transgender programs. Republican ads alleged that grants administered through Paxton’s office benefited organizations involved in transgender programs.
• Hypocrisy on immigration and conservative causes. The political argument was that Paxton publicly attacked organizations that his office had previously funded.
• “Liberal ties.” Cornyn’s campaign attacked Paxton for employing lawyers with Democratic or establishment political connections.
• Conflict involving Dan Cogdell. Cornyn’s opposition material questioned Paxton’s relationship with attorney Dan Cogdell while Cogdell represented interests connected with another matter involving the attorney general’s office.
• China / Chinese Communist Party ties. Cornyn’s campaign attacked Paxton over a trip to China and meetings involving Chinese officials and business interests.
• Federal campaign-finance violations. Cornyn’s campaign alleged that Paxton improperly reused material purchased by his state political operation when launching his federal campaign.
• Failure to prosecute sex traffickers effectively. One of the most expensive outside-group attacks focused on a trafficking prosecution handled by Paxton’s office. Texans for a Conservative Majority spent $4.5 million airing an ad accusing Paxton of giving an accused trafficker a deal involving no prison time and no sex-offender registration.
• Being distracted by affairs while predators were operating. A Cornyn fundraising committee ran an ad saying that while predators hunted children, Paxton was hunting for burner phones to conceal his affairs.
• Abuse of office and impeachment. Cornyn’s campaign repeatedly used Paxton’s impeachment and the allegations involving Nate Paul against him, although the Texas Senate ultimately acquitted Paxton on the impeachment articles it tried.
• Foreign/business favoritism involving Albanian businessmen. Cornyn’s opposition material sought to portray Paxton’s dealings with foreign-connected businessmen as another example of questionable favoritism.
• Untrustworthy and personally unfit for office. By the end of the campaign, the Republican case against Paxton had become remarkably blunt: Republican Senate groups publicly described him as “incompetent, corrupt and adulterous.”

There was also a second layer: outside Republican groups supporting Cornyn, including Texans for a Conservative Majority and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

That distinction matters because some of the harshest attacks did not technically come from Cornyn’s campaign. Senate Republicans themselves accused Paxton of incompetence, corruption, dishonesty, and adultery. They attacked his handling of criminal cases and warned that putting him at the top of the ticket could hurt other Republican candidates.

So this was not Democrats inventing opposition research against Ken Paxton. It was Republicans spending millions of dollars telling other Republicans what they believed was wrong with him.

Then Republican voters rendered their verdict.

Ken Paxton: about 64 percent.

John Cornyn: about 36 percent.

Now some of the same political machinery is spending another fortune attacking James Talarico.

Maybe voters will listen this time.

Maybe they won’t.

But Texas Republicans already spent one enormous pile of money trying to convince voters whom they should fear.

The voters didn’t buy it.