Should Black Voters Renegotiate With Democrats?

Jasmine Crockett and Democratic Gatekeeping

Photo by Jazmin Quaynor on Unsplash. Published on April 25, 2019. Canon, EOS REBEL T4i. Free to use under the Unsplash License.

The Electability Frame

Last night’s Democratic primary for the Senate race in Texas was supposed to be another moment in a contest that Democrats have been targeting for what feels like a lifetime. Instead, it became something more familiar and haunting to American politics. Another debate about “electability,” and who gets to decide what that word actually means.

From the outset, much of the Democratic center-right commentariat, encapsulated in outlets like The Bulwark, was quick to jump on the James Talarico bandwagon and deem Jasmine Crockett unelectable. Jonathan V. Last recently wrote in his Triad newsletter, which I usually recommend except in this moment, that Crockett’s campaign amounted to unserious “shitposting” meant to turn out low-information voters. Talarico’s campaign, by contrast, was characterized as faith-based outreach aimed at Trump voters.

What You Want Doesn’t Matter

Last framed the race as an experiment, but the structure of the experiment already assumed that one candidate represented seriousness and persuasion while the other represented spectacle and mobilization.

That framing matters because it taps into a long-running tension inside the Democratic coalition. The party depends heavily on Black voters for its electoral success, yet outspoken Black politicians are frequently met with quiet skepticism about their “electability.” It’s subtle language following a pattern that is not new.

A Familiar Pattern in Democratic Politics

The long history of this kind of electability policing inside the Democratic Party often crosses unspoken racial lines.

Joy Reid recently pointed to a revealing moment from the 1988 Democratic primary, when Jesse Jackson’s historic campaign collided with the party establishment’s support for Michael Dukakis. Jackson mobilized Black voters and progressive activists at levels rarely seen in a primary campaign, but his success also generated anxiety among party elites who worried that his coalition would alienate White swing voters.

Dukakis ultimately won the nomination, and George H.W. Bush went on to win the general election during one of the most racially charged campaigns in modern American history, featuring the infamous Willie Horton attack ads that exploited racial fear as a campaign strategy.

Whether Jackson’s campaign fractured the coalition or simply exposed already-present divisions remains debated. But the episode revealed something enduring about Black political mobilization, which is often treated within the Democratic Party as both essential and suspect at once.

Texas itself offers another instructive example. Ann Richards, who would become governor in 1990, was widely dismissed early in her career as too outspoken and too liberal to win statewide office. She was frequently described as unelectable until she wasn’t. Richards’ victory demonstrated how often the boundaries of “electability” are less about objective analysis and more about the expectations of political gatekeepers.

Structural Barriers at the Ballot Box

This year’s Texas primary also unfolded amid structural voting issues that complicate the story even further.

Confusion over precinct-based voting requirements and last-minute procedural changes in some counties led to reports of voters arriving at polling locations only to be redirected or turned away for being in the wrong precinct. In Dallas County, a court even ordered extended voting hours after widespread confusion and technical problems disrupted voting on Election Day.

The Crockett campaign has since filed a lawsuit challenging aspects of the election's administration.

But in an era where voting rights protections have steadily eroded, especially after the Supreme Court’s Shelby County v. Holder decision weakened federal oversight of state voting laws, legal challenges to these kinds of procedural barriers face long odds.

Even when voter suppression is not explicit, administrative confusion and shifting rules can have the same practical effect of discouraging turnout among voters who already face structural obstacles to participation.

The Blexit Argument and Its Kernels of Truth

In the past, some activists, arguably operating in bad faith, have tried to promote a so-called “Blexit” from the Democratic Party. Many of those efforts were tied to partisan grifts or conservative political theater. Their argument was that Democrats exploit Black political loyalty while delivering little in return.

I have generally rejected those arguments, and for good reason. The modern Republican Party has increasingly aligned itself with reactionary politics and openly hostile rhetoric toward racial justice movements, making the Democratic Party the only viable political home for many Black voters.

But dismissing the alleged grifters does not mean dismissing the underlying frustration entirely.

There are kernels of truth in the critique.

The Democratic Party often signals its commitment to racial equity through messaging and symbolism while struggling to address the structural realities facing many Black communities, including widening wealth gaps, the persistence of segregation through zoning and housing markets, and the normalization of racial backlash politics within the broader electorate.

The Backbone of the Coalition

For decades, Black voters have formed the backbone of Democratic electoral success. They organize campaigns, anchor the party’s moral arguments around democracy and equality, and consistently deliver some of the highest levels of partisan loyalty in American politics.

Yet the Democratic coalition is now undergoing a transformation.

Increasingly, party strategists and commentators defer to voters who spent most of the late twentieth century aligned with the Republican Party but now reject the aesthetics of Trumpism. These voters are treated as crucial persuadable swing constituencies, while the voters who have sustained the party for generations are often told to moderate their tone or temper their expectations in the name of “electability.”

That tension raises a difficult question for Black voters: what role are we expected to play in the party’s future?

If the political system is already producing the worst-case scenarios for racial equality, resurgent White nationalism, the rollback of civil rights protections, and a judiciary increasingly hostile to anti-discrimination policy, then why should loyalty be assumed rather than earned?

Perhaps the answer is not a “Blexit” in the sensationalized sense promoted by political opportunists.

But it may require a reevaluation of the terms of engagement.

Coalitions function best when their most loyal participants are treated not as liabilities to be managed, but as partners whose political energy and perspectives help shape the party’s direction.

If the Democratic Party wants to remain a coalition capable of confronting the realities of modern American politics, it must begin by recognizing the voters who have carried it this far.