Fox calls Talarico's Bible butchered as a Republican strategist says skipping the debate beats Paxton.

…(cont) Then September 9th, and two things land on the same date, which I keep going back to. Pete Sessions, a sitting Republican congressman, says on the record that Paxton has to debate Talarico to win. Same day, over on Fox, Talarico tells Martha MacCallum he 'missed the mark' saying there were six sexes. One of those is a walk-back. The other is a warning from a man on Paxton's own side of the aisle. Which one made the bigger headline that week, I couldn't tell you.

September 27th, a poll comes out — Texas Public Opinion Research, 1,007 voters surveyed the week before — and it has Talarico up five, 49 to 44. Margin of error, 3.6 points, printed right in the poll like it's supposed to be there. The very next day, September 28th, a different poll — the Big Data Poll — has Talarico up four. Same race. One day between them. A full point of daylight. And that same day, the 28th, Talarico says he'd 'absolutely' welcome an endorsement from John Cornyn, a sitting Republican senator, if one came his way.

Down at the corner store they've got two scales, one by the register for the candy and one in the back by the cold case for the deli meat. I put a bag of walnuts on both scales once, same bag, one after the other. Quarter pound of difference. Nobody's thumb was on anything. It's just two scales, reading the same bag two different ways inside of a minute. I think about that when I see two polls, one day apart, disagree by a point.

Now we're up to this week. The Times runs a piece on Democrats dreaming about Texas again after thirty years of not winning one. Fox runs a piece the same week with an expert who says Talarico is 'butchering the Bible' over his healthcare position — a step up from 'missed the mark.' Missing the mark is an error you own up to on television. Butchering is a different word entirely. And on that same Wednesday, Rove is out again, flatter this time: 'If he doesn't debate, I think he loses.'

So here's my trouble, and maybe my nephew can straighten me out on it next time he's home. Fox spent this whole week on what Talarico said about Scripture. Rove spent this whole week on what Paxton won't do about a debate stage. Neither one of them, as far as I can find, said a word about the other one's subject.

Oh — excuse me, one more thing, before you get up. My nephew's adverse inference isn't for the man who takes the stand and says something you don't like. It's for the man who won't take the stand at all. So of the two things everybody's been talking about all week, the Bible and the debate — which one does Paxton's own strategist say actually decides the race?