Good Riddance, Jasmine Crockett

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

The results of Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Texas delivered a clear political message: voters are tired of listening to Rep. Jasmine Crockett.

And thank f**king god she lost, because I am too.

Crockett, who spent much of her short national career cultivating a reputation as the politician who can constantly be wrong the loudest and with the most attitude, was defeated by Texas state Rep. James Talarico, who was nowhere near as prominent on national television and who many people have likely ever heard of.

Crockett quickly blamed everyone but herself, chalking up the loss to confusion over polling locations and a late court decision involving Dallas County as factors in the outcome, but the result likely reflects something deeper than a single election-night dispute: people have just had enough of her bullshit.

Crockett’s style, to the best of my understanding, has been to create a massive annoying self-centered spectacle first, then address the actual issue and facts later, if at all.

This led her to become a frequent presence on cable news and social media, where sharp insults and dramatic soundbites tend to travel faster than detailed policy proposals. It’s an approach that can be effective for building a national following, particularly among activists whose supporters are also activists looking for any unjust cause to scream about without understanding.

The problem, however, is that viral moments apparently don’t translate into confidence at the ballot box. Eventually voters start wondering whether their representative is spending more time crafting the next viral clip and doing their nails instead of performing the less glamorous work of actual governing.

The contrast between Crockett and Talarico was difficult to miss. Talarico ran a campaign that emphasized policy and a more conventional tone. Crockett leaned into the fiery persona that made her a social media favorite. And hey, there is certainly an audience for that brand of politics, but apparently not quite enough of one in her own district.

And thank god, because we can all tolerate idiots in politics — and we do, on both sides of the aisle — but an idiot with the volume turned up to 11? That’s unbearable.

Who can forget some of Crockett’s public statements over the last few years? During one television appearance discussing immigration policy, she delivered a line that quickly circulated across the internet.

“It is not a criminal violation to enter the country illegally. It’s not. It’s not criminal. It’s not a crime. It’s not a crime,” she said on MSNBC in March of last year.

Critics immediately pointed out the obvious contradiction: the word “illegal” tends to imply that a law is, in fact, being broken. For many observers the moment raised an uncomfortable question. If a member of Congress — and a practicing lawyer, no less — sounds unsure about a basic point of federal law, voters are entitled to wonder how carefully the rest of the argument has been thought through.

Then there was recently, while attempting to criticize Republicans for alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein, Crockett referenced donations from someone named Jeffrey Epstein to Lee Zeldin and other GOP figures. Unfortunately for the narrative she was building, the donor in question turned out to be a completely different person with the same name as the infamous financier. The real Epstein had died years earlier, as The Hill pointed out:

She attacked Mitt Romney, John McCain, Sarah Palin and Lee Zeldin — all Republican officials — for having contract with Jeffrey Epstein.

There’s just one problem: The Jeffrey Epstein who donated to Zeldin, Romney and other Republicans is not THAT Jeffrey Epstein — i.e., the one who died in prison under mysterious circumstances and has embroiled various associates in scandal, including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Larry Summers. The Jeffrey Epstein whose political donations Crockett is highlighting is an entirely different person.

The mix-up was the kind of error that might have been avoided with a quick fact check, but by the time the correction arrived the damage was already done. Political opponents had a field day with it, and even neutral observers were left shaking their heads.

And how about when she took to CNN to flail her arms, nod her head and suggest 80% of the worst crimes in America are committed by “white supremacists”?

Or when she took to The Breakfast Club to confess her allegiance to America Mexico and Canada:

“The fact that I’m rooting for Canada and I’m rooting for Mexico a lot is really wild, but they are really the ones that are speaking truth to power right now. They can see what it is, and they were like, we are not messing with this crazy regime from Mar-a-Lago and basically calling them thugs…”

Maybe that didn’t play as well in Texas as should would have liked.

Regardless, these moments reinforced a growing perception that Crockett’s political approach prioritized Instagram stories and outrage over precision. In the age of social media, that can seem like a winning strategy. Outrage travels fast, nuance does not. But elections have a funny way of rewarding the politicians who still take the time to get the details right.

Crockett also aligned herself firmly with the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, embracing rhetoric and policy ideas that energize activists but can alienate voters who prefer a more pragmatic approach. Positions that sound good in a viral clip do not always sound as appealing when voters are deciding who they want representing them in Washington. Talarico, by contrast, positioned himself as a more measured voice — someone interested in governing rather than constantly sparring on cable television.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

On election night, after a humiliating loss, Crockett suggested the outcome might have been shaped by confusion surrounding polling locations and a legal dispute in Dallas County. After a lower court briefly allowed voting hours to be extended, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the decision and instructed officials to separate ballots cast after the original closing time. Crockett argued that voters had been disenfranchised and predicted the results might take time to become clear.

“Unfortunately, this is what Republicans like to do,” she said in her non-concession speech after getting trounced. Ah, that’s right, it’s the system’s fault. It’s the GOP’s fault. It’s everyone but Jasmine Crockett’s fault.

More often, losses like this are the product of a longer political trend. Voters watch how their representatives behave in public. Over time those impressions accumulate. Eventually voters decide whether the person they elected is representing them — or simply performing for an audience and for themselves.

In Crockett’s case, Tuesday’s result suggests that many voters had simply grown tired of her traveling circus. Political theatrics may generate applause on social media and enthusiastic segments on cable news, but they don’t always age well with constituents who expect their representative to take the job seriously.

Now read:

• Stuck In Another Disastrous Middle East War: Ron Paul
• How Justice Gorsuch Helped Save Us From a “Climate Emergency”
• The Fed Is Adding $20B A Month To The Balance Sheet
• The Private Credit Collapse Accelerates
• An Uncomfortable, But Justified, Column About War

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.