Transcript: Why Crockett v. Talarico Is Down to the Wire in Texas

I think so, it’s presented as this unique thing – a Christian Democrat is sort of this completely unique thing, which obviously, as you said, is not the case. I think his use of his religion and quoting scripture and everything else to advance a progressive agenda intrigues many Democratic voters. Especially, perhaps, non-Christian voters who see this as something they imagine will convince well-informed voters in the middle, and even staunch Republicans. This is obviously a pretty big proposition and one that hasn’t been tested so far.

Bacon: So I’ll be frank: I’m often wary of electability arguments in a primary, because I think they often work against women and people of color. And Jasmine is a black woman. So I want to talk about it in a subtle way. First, is he benefiting from the perception that he is more “electable” than she is? And second, is this based on things beyond race and gender? Because I think it could be here. Talk about it.

Miller: Yes, I think he absolutely takes advantage of this inherent assumption that a white man who is well-spoken, has viral moments, and talks about religion in an eloquent and compelling way is automatically going to lend himself to electability in a general election in Texas. And I think there’s absolutely a lot of that dynamic that plays into that. People cover themselves. They could support Jasmine Crockett and say they would love to vote for her. But at the end of the day, they really think Talarico is more electable.