Texas Democrats just gave Republicans a gift-wrapped hypocrisy story

After nominating James Talarico for the Senate in Texas, are Democrats now racists and misogynists?

It’s a reasonable question. Democrats chose James Talarico, a white man, over Jasmine Crockett, a black woman. That choice also collides head-on with what Democrats told the country after Kamala Harris lost the presidency: that racism and misogyny decided the outcome.

Democrats can’t keep changing the rules depending on who wins.

In Texas’ recent Democratic Senate primary, Talarico, a member of the Texas House since 2018, faced Crockett, a two-term member of Congress from Texas’ 30th District. On paper, Crockett looked like the stronger Democrat brand: a young, outspoken black woman with far left-wing views and national visibility.

Yet Talarico won handily, 53% to 45%, after a primary season marked by intraparty drama — including fights that centered on race.

If identity politics commands the party, the result looks odd. Even sympathetic Democratic observers described the two candidates as ideologically similar. MSNBC analyst John Heilemann said Talarico is “not a moderate” and that he and Crockett held “basically the same positions on almost every issue.” In other words, voters didn’t choose a centrist over a firebrand. They chose one firebrand over another — and they chose the white male.

Democrats will reply that the answer is “electability.” They’ll say Talarico gives them a better shot in November. Maybe that’s what many primary voters believed. But Democrats have spent years insisting that “electability” talk is often a cover for bias, a way to push women and minorities aside while keeping the old hierarchies intact.

That’s why the question won’t go away.

Democrats routinely portray themselves as the party most attuned to race and sex. The 2024 numbers underline that self-image: Exit polls showed Harris won overwhelming support from black voters and strong support from women, including black women. Democrats treat those blocs as moral proof of the party’s mission.

They also treated Harris’ loss as moral proof of the country’s failure.

Former President Joe Biden blamed the 2024 defeat on sexism and racism, saying voters “went the sexist route” and wouldn’t accept “a woman of mixed race.” When candidates for DNC chairman were asked whether racism and misogyny played a role in Harris’ defeat, all eight raised their hands. David Axelrod said bluntly that the campaign included appeals to racism and that “anybody” who thinks bias didn’t affect the outcome is wrong.

Rank-and-file Democrats echoed the claim. NBC News’ post-election interviews featured Democrat voters attributing Harris’ loss to the country’s unwillingness to elect a woman, with race layered on top. “Regardless of race,” one black Democrat from Pittsburgh said, “they didn’t want her to win.”

RELATED: James Talarico found a verse — and twisted the meaning

Mark Felix/Bloomberg/Getty Images

So Democrats have made this argument, loudly and repeatedly: When a woman loses at the top of the ticket, the country’s sexism and racism bear much of the blame.

Then Texas Democrats faced their own test. They could nominate the black woman — especially in a race where ideology wasn’t the separating line — and they didn’t.

Democrats might point out that Harris flamed out early in the crowded 2020 presidential primary and that the party still elevated her to vice president and then the 2024 nomination. That’s true. But that history cuts both ways. It suggests Democrats will showcase race and sex when it serves the coalition — and set it aside when it doesn’t.

And this time, they aren’t even pretending they didn’t set it aside.

Talarico’s profile rose fast, aided by a national media moment. Stephen Colbert posted an interview online after CBS declined to air it over “equal time” concerns, and the clip drew millions of views. The controversy boosted Talarico’s visibility and fundraising — and helped turn a state primary into a national narrative.

Democrats are now framing their choice as pragmatic. They’re saying: We picked the candidate who can win.

Fine. But Democrats don’t get to treat “electability” as an illegitimate dog whistle when Republicans use it — then invoke it as a clean, neutral justification when Democrats do.

Here’s the bottom line: When America chose Trump over Harris in 2024 — in a race with major policy contrasts — Democrats blamed racism and misogyny. When Texas Democrats chose a white male over a black woman in 2026 — in a race Democrats say offered little substantive contrast — the party expects everyone to treat it as smart strategy.

That double standard is the point.

Either identity is decisive and bias explains outcomes — or voters, including Democrat voters, sometimes make other calculations and deserve to be treated like adults.

Democrats can’t keep changing the rules depending on who wins.