Post

Conversation

I'm a little bit of a broken record on this, but the issue is that people mistake *partisanship* (D vs R, and the extent to which you cheer for your "team") for *ideological* positioning (left vs right). Crockett wasn't particularly left-wing, but she was very *partisan*.
Quote
Daniel Denvir
@DanielDenvir
This constant misunderstanding of Jasmine Crockett as somehow to Talarico’s left is mindblowing.
Image
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Also think may the most important axis here that gets ignored or alternately conflated with partisanship and ideology is tonal/temperamental/attitudinal
Right, and he's probably a 7 or 8 on the charisma scale (certainly not a 10, but better than say Hillary Clinton) so he gets away with a little bit more. But the primary process is a marathon and can probe for superficial strategies.
Common dynamic when talking about Black voters in general. A lot of districts are VERY “blue,” but not necessarily very “progressive.”
Often the same mechanism for when Trump endorses Republican primary challengers. They’re not “further right” — they’re more MAGA.
Yep, the classic case was Tom Dewey. He was a hardball partisan, but an ideological moderate. On civil rights, in fact, he was to the left of most Democrats at the time.
Trying to put Crockett on the normal axes of politics is still fundamentally flawed. Crockett is a single-issue ideologue. Not left or right, not Democrat or republican. The only thing that matters to Crockett is Blackness.
If you're a part of the 15% of people who are furthest to the left in America, then - yes, she might not appear to be left-wing. But, to the rest of us, she and that entire 15% (which likely includes you) are "particularly left-wing".
In fact, Crockett is both to Talarico's right and also not even partisan enough to support her party's nominee.
Crockett was a selfish harpy that made SJL palatable. She didn't have a political compass, she was only in it for herself. As to "how left" her and Talarico are, Talarico is pretty freaking far left but he tries to hide it. He doesn't hide it well, mind you, but he puts on
So is your point that being more ideological but less partisan is more helpful in elections than being less ideological but more partisan?
I think everyone is missing the point here. Crockett traffics in extreme idpol which is the part of the left wing that people in the center hate the most. THAT is why she's seen as being further left than she actually is.
It's basically really dumb to stuff people with varying views on different issues & policies onto a single variable scale. Makes political coverage and discussion less coherent and more intractable.
No, Crockett actually claims to be progressive and was in the Progressive Caucus at both state and federal level. Talarico is a member of "Majority Democrats," which is all moderates, and doesn't claim to be progressive. She's not that left-wing but still more progressive thn him
She is also very black, which people automatically assume is very radical. She’s very smart but since she’s black she is caricatured as a loud mouth stupid leftist.
I think we've found out she wasn't really a partisan either. She is about her own personal brand.
Look at how right wing media positions any D woman, particularly those of color. This misunderstanding is a result of branding coming from the right…
News media’s constant conflation of partisanship & political ideology drives me insane. It’s a disservice to my discipline & the general public tbh.
both factors are important. In fact, i'd argue that how partisan she is mattered more than where she was positioned ideologically.
"crockett wasnt particularly left wing" We're done here. Like, theres nothing that can be to the left of ANY mainstream Democrat in 2026. Theres literally not a position too far left. theyre ever redefining the scale of human history.