The Politics of Race, Gender, and Electability

The autopsy is underway. Political pundits, strategists, and researchers will review U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett’s bold campaign for the US Senate seat in Texas. As the merits of her campaign are debated, make no mistake that her journey underscores the persistent and complex challenges faced by African-Americans, especially African-American women, running for statewide office in America. This moment in history offers a unique opportunity to explore issues of race, gender, and the evolving dynamics of electability in statewide races, not just in Texas, but across the nation. It is particularly appropriate as we enter Women’s History Month.

Crockett’s campaign brought to the forefront the question of who Americans, and more specifically, who Texans, believe is “electable.” Historically, African-Americans have faced significant barriers to running and winning in statewide races, especially in Southern states like Texas. However, these challenges extend to all regions of the nation. Right here in our own backyard, African-Americans have also struggled to secure statewide victories. We’ve had two in our state’s history…Vel Phillips (Secretary of State) and Mandela Barnes (Lieutenant Governor). And Phillips, a trailblazer of many firsts, achieved this in 1978.

Today, Black women, regardless of resume, qualifications, education, and a proven track record, are frequently questioned about aggressiveness, ambition, attitude, and competency. Crockett’s Senate campaign illuminated how race and acceptability intersect. Despite her credentials, passion, and advocacy for critical issues like voting rights, healthcare, and economic justice, she undoubtedly faced implicit biases about what kind of candidate could win over a broad coalition of voters.

While African-American candidates are frequently expected to perform political miracles, galvanizing coalitions and delivering victories in ways that white candidates are not expected to do, this pressure is particularly acute when these candidates are women. In advocating for critical issues, whether reproductive rights, racial justice, or economic equality, they are often labeled as “loud,” “argumentative,” or “angry.” Meanwhile, male politicians who exhibit similar passion and tenacity are praised as “strong”, “principled,” and “determined.”

These issues are included within political parties. For example, the Democratic Party often calls for candidates who will “fight for the issues that matter.” Yet, paradoxically, when African-American candidates step forward as fighters, they are frequently met with resistance from within their own party. This contradiction reflects a discomfort with the very qualities that are celebrated in other candidates. African-American candidates like Jasmine Crockett are asked to bring the fire, but when they do, they are often accused of being “too much.”

Bottom line, women walk a tightrope: assertive but not “too assertive,” passionate but not “too emotional,” relatable but not “too ambitious.” For Black women, this tightrope is even narrower. They must navigate the intersection of racism and sexism, often finding that their authenticity and passion are weaponized against them. They are even judged on their physical looks, dress, and style.

I’ll be honest, this dynamic is exhausting. The playbook feels increasingly outdated and unfair. Progress is happening, but not happening fast or equitably enough. As a country, we must reckon with our own biases and contradictions. It’s time to truly support fighters for the issues that matter, regardless of their race or gender. We know that women still face systemic barriers. We will continue to fight. We will accept no less.