As the Democratic Party continues to spiral in the aftermath of failed messaging, fractured leadership, and unpopular policies, one of the most visible signs of its dysfunction now has a name and a microphone: Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). Her recent remarks at a SiriusXM “Urban View” town hall underscore just how deeply the party is mired in identity politics, internal confusion, and tone-deaf rhetoric—a combination that could spell further disaster heading into the next election cycle.
Speaking on the subject of the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, Crockett lamented that voters within her own party are hesitant to support a female candidate. “Every time we voted for a woman, we’ve lost so far,” she said, attributing Democratic losses to gender-driven hesitancy rather than candidate quality or policy. But it was what followed that lit up social media.
“So there’s a lot of people that are like, ‘You know what? Let’s go find the safest White boy we can find,’” Crockett added. She wasn’t joking. In fact, she doubled down, claiming donors have already “chosen” their favorite—and it’s “not a Black person, nor a woman.” That’s a claim that borders on accusations of racial and gender bias within the Democratic donor class.
The problem for Democrats isn’t that Crockett said something impolitic. The problem is that she said out loud what many voters already suspect: the Democratic Party isn’t unified, and its internal battles over race, identity, and electability are eroding its credibility.
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett says that the major donors in the Democrat Party want to go out and find the “safest white boy we can find” to represent them in 2028. She is the gift that keeps on giving & relishes the spotlight. pic.twitter.com/Z3NTqnEtV7
— Bobby (@BobbyWilson1004) May 11, 2025
Her “white boy” remark wasn’t just unprofessional—it was divisive, diminishing, and derogatory. Imagine the political firestorm if a Republican had uttered the same phrase in reverse. Crockett’s attempt to “speak plainly” is the kind of misstep that doesn’t broaden the base—it shrinks it.
Crockett’s remarks also suggest she thinks the problem is the packaging, not the policies. But the reality is voters haven’t rejected Democrats’ female candidates because they’re women—they’ve rejected them because they didn’t like what those candidates were offering. Whether it’s Hillary Clinton’s cold elitism or Kamala Harris’s chronic incoherence, the failures weren’t rooted in gender. They were rooted in a lack of results and a surplus of arrogance.
And Crockett’s implication that the donors’ early alignment is racially driven—rather than merit- or electability-based—shows just how far the Democratic conversation has shifted from issues to optics. That kind of rhetoric may play well in activist circles, but it alienates moderates and hands Republicans a golden opportunity.
Crockett didn’t name names, but her comments suggest there’s already a front-runner among the elite. Most speculation centers around California Gov. Gavin Newsom, with his Hollywood polish and national profile, or possibly Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Pete Buttigieg, or even Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
But none of these figures are “safe.” Newsom’s record is marred by California’s homelessness crisis and sky-high cost of living. Pritzker is a walking emblem of big-government excess. Buttigieg has proven ineffective under pressure, and Walz is hardly a national figure.
The Democrats can try to play identity chess all they want, but no amount of demographic box-checking can paper over the failure of their policies. What voters care about isn’t the race or gender of the candidate—it’s whether they can deliver lower inflation, secure borders, and safe neighborhoods.
