Hillary Clinton lost. Joe Biden won. Kamala Harris lost. Over the past decade, and despite the boundaries broken by Barack Obama’s presidency, as the Democratic Party has tried to steady itself after the shocks of 2016 and 2024. In doing so, a quiet premise has hardened into conventional wisdom in certain corners of liberal America: it takes a straight white man to win. Not because of superior ideas or broader vision, but because white male identity is treated as inherently more electable—more broadly palatable.
This logic shaped the 2020 primary in ways that were rarely stated but widely understood. As the field narrowed, consolidation around Joe Biden was framed as sober pragmatism: he could win back moderates and reassure older white voters uneasy with cultural change. He would be a safe bet. It was a much-needed chance for course correction after four years of Trump’s damage. Beneath it, though, sat an assumption about which identities were neutral and which were liabilities. Biden’s ultimate victory and Harris’s recent loss seemed to validate the theory.
In congressional and statewide primaries, “electability” now operates as a pre-screening device, shaping donor behavior and media narratives before voters have fully engaged. In Texas, for example, the Democratic Senate primary between Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico explicitly revolved around questions of “electability.” Talarico framed the contest around who could win statewide, elevating general election viability as the central question, and qualification. It worked—last night, he won out against the rising-star congresswoman.
The post Opinion: James Talarico, Jasmine Crockett and Democrats’ Dangerous ‘Electability’ Debate appeared first on The Daily Beast
