The End of White Politics: How to Heal Our Liberal Divide

by Zerlina Maxwell

In the entire history of the United States of America:


We've never elected a woman as our president.


We've only had one president who is not a white man.

With two presidential campaigns under her belt, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, MSNBC's political analyst and SiriusXM Host Zerlina Maxwell gained first-hand knowledge of everything liberals are doing right--and everything they are doing wrong to make progress. Barack Obama's eight-year presidency unearthed what had always been right beneath the surface, a racism that America has struggled to leave behind. We watched as President Donald Trump effectively ran a campaign on white identity politics. He exploited race and class privileges, and successfully tapped into a white male angst. In an unvarnished, impassioned assessment, Maxwell's book lays bare, what now, liberals?

In the 2020 race, with the most diverse presidential candidates of our time having run in the primary elections, THE END OF WHITE POLITICS dismantles the past and present problems of the Left--challenging the discriminatory agendas of the "Bernie Bros" and centrist thinkers like Joe Biden--to address the liberal framework that has traditionally focused on the white working-class, specifically male. The biggest issue, Maxwell argues, is that the "liberal-minded" party still struggles to engage communities of color, even though the population majority will be non-white by 2045. Historically public policies, even those enlisted by the Left, have valued certain people's needs over others and there remains a one-sided representation at the top. But times are changing.

Ultimately, in a page-turning analysis, Maxwell skillfully examines how progressives can use factors that Trump exploited during his rise to power in 2016 to heal the liberal divide. A gradual transition of power over to those marginalized groups who haven't traditionally had one has created a shift and a growing demand for equity across all areas of American life, which is the central tension in American politics in the Trump era. Instead of turning away from identity politics, progressives can lean into it to unite in a common vision, and make progressive politics into a winning movement.


Everyone post-the 2016 presidential election has shared their "analysis" of what went wrong and what went right for liberals. Everyone is wrong but the answers are staring us right in the face.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Race, History, Social Justice, Audiobook, Feminism

224 pages, Hardcover

First published July 7, 2020

About the author

Zerlina is the Senior Director of Progressive Programming for SiriusXM. She is the co-host of the award winning radio show Signal Boost on SiriusXM. She is the author of the book The End of White Politics: How to Heal Our Liberal Divide (Hatchette, July 2020).

She is an MSNBC Political Analyst, a speaker, and writer for a variety of national media outlets. Her writing focuses on national politics, candidates, and specific policy and culture issues including race, feminism, domestic violence, sexual assault, victim blaming and gender inequality.

She was formerly the Director of Progressive Media for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She worked in the campaign’s press shop pitching coverage to progressive media outlets and curating daily messaging for online influencers. She also acted as a campaign spokesperson for the Presidential Debates.

Zerlina is one of the most influential speakers and writers on the issues of campus sexual assault and rape culture in the United States.

In 2016, Zerlina joined pop superstar Lady Gaga on stage at the 88th annual Academy Awards as part of a special performance of her nominated smash, “Til’ It Happens to You” from the film The Hunting Ground. Zerlina has been profiled in the New York Times as a top political twitter voice to follow during the 2012 election season and she was selected by TIME as one of the best Twitter feeds in 2014.

In 2015, Zerlina was also one of five journalists invited to travel on Air Force One with President Obama on his trip to Selma for the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. She has a law degree from Rutgers Law School–Newark and a B.A. in International Relations from Tufts University.

Reviews

[Lilli · Rating 3 out of 5]

MSNBC political analyst and certified practitioner of Black Girl Magic™️ Zerlina Maxwell bears down on the broken and outdated political framework of the United States Democratic party in her scathing and eye-opening book The End of White Politics: How to Heal Our Liberal Divide. She dismantles the argument against identity politics, takes "Bernie Bros," billionaires, and those benefiting from a system built on white privilege to task, and underlines the need to amplify the political voices of minorities in order to successfully make progress within the party. Maxwell's central argument is that Democrats need to shift their attention and stop giving so much of it to old crusty-ass rich white dudes—not just in which candidates are supported but also in which voters are catered to the most—and instead focus that attention on both candidates and voters that are women and people of color, especially Black women, as that voting block is instrumental in running successful and productive campaigns and candidates.

Let me start this review by stating that I identify politically as Independent. The Democratic party is way too embarrassing for me to subscribe to. It is full of corporate shills and is a party willing to compromise when the party across the aisle is not, oftentimes to the detriment of the constituents who most rely on the party in the first place. Compromise is important and a necessary part of the political process, but standing your ground is also important, especially when it comes to the issues that have been plaguing our country and its minority peoples in recent years. Democrats will bend over backwards to reach a compromise with Republicans, but moderate Dems and progressive Dems couldn't collaborate or compromise within their own party to save their lives. A good majority of Democrats in power are weak and their actions are milquetoast. They stand for nothing and accomplish little all while wearing a Kabuki mask meant to show their social liberalism and big hearts. You have politicians like Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin and Nancy Pelosi who have no idea what it's like to be Black, brown, disabled, queer, poor, or any of the other identities that make life more difficult for the very constituents that voted these politicians in and gave them their support.

That being said, I do consider myself extremely liberal. I was a huge supporter of Bernie's in both of his campaigns. And because of that, I had to try really hard not to take Maxwell's attacks on Bernie and his supporters personally. I really had to try to listen to what this woman was saying, especially because she is Black and I am white and I need to hear her perspective without asserting my own. It's imperative for all white people to second-guess our personal beliefs within the scope of our privilege. I will admit that she exposed some of my blind spots to me, and for that, I am grateful. In both the 2016 and 2020 election cycles, I was so wrapped up in the money in politics issue that I let the issues that Black people are currently facing fall to the wayside, not consciously, but that's Maxwell's exact point. I thought that my candidate cared about that and prioritized it, but never realized that maybe it was less of a priority than it ought to be. My privilege allows me to unconsciously let the issues that oftentimes mean life or death for Black people and other minority races be lower on the priority list in my life because I am not directly affected, but that's not who I want to be. A safe, clean, comfortable world for everyone should be and now is my top priority.

However, I do feel that Maxwell was overly biased in a lot of her points and often left out relevant context so that she could make her point (hmmm... sounds like politics to me!). She was very biased against Bernie and did little to acknowledge the work and policies he has helped to implement that support people of color. And his supporters know that he has never wavered on his support, which has been proven by his record and actions for over 50 years now. So for her to lift up Doug Jones as an example of a "good" ally but say that Bernie isn't one is just preposterous. She posits that minorities don't support Bernie, but the only minority groups who didn't overwhelmingly support him over Hillary in the 2016 primaries were Black Americans, and Maxwell notes later in her own book that much of Hillary's Black support came from her association with Barack Obama and results from what Maxwell refers to as "The Obama Coalition" in a chapter dedicated to why Obama's election meant so much to Black folks across the nation. I can't deny that your typical Bernie bro is a jackass, but there are many of his supporters that are not. Maxwell, a former staffer on the Hillary 2016 campaign, definitely stereotyped the hell out of Bernie's supporters without ever once stopping to reflect on the very real and very obvious problems with Clinton's own campaign, as Hillary supporters have always been apt to do. They can point the finger at everyone else except themselves. This is precisely what has made it very difficult for me to affiliate myself as a Democrat.

Maxwell also attacks Pete Buttegieg's privilege without acknowledging even once that he is the first openly gay candidate to see the level of campaign success that he did. It felt like an egregious error and one that an editor should have caught and kicked the hell out of this book. In fact, Maxwell's language is frustratingly binary throughout her book and does nothing to consider the LGBTQIA+ community at all, which feels like a really strange omission in the context of diversity that this book should be supporting. We also have no discussion over disabled folks, but then again, when do we ever? Talk about an overlooked minority group. Maybe this is my own privilege speaking again, though, because race is the central theme of this political discourse, and perhaps there ought to be other books speaking more about those issues. I guess you can't always pack it all into one place.

Overall, I do agree with Zerlina Maxwell's central thesis that the old white dudes are out and the young diverse crowd is in, and politics need to realign accordingly. I think this book makes crucial points that are easily digestible, and for those reasons, should be picked up by all white liberals that are serious about learning more about race in politics and the discourse around meaningful changes in our country. I can't wait for Washington to look less like the ol' boys club and more like "The Squad" which gets quite a bit of (warranted) discussion time in this book. Unfortunately, this book is already a bit dated, having come out just before the 2020 election, but it still touches upon many valid points that the Democratic party ought to consider moving forward. If the intersectionality of politics, class and race are important to you, definitely check this one out!

[Christina · Rating 5 out of 5]

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” BAM. This book is chock full of perfect summaries and aha! moments like this. I’ve been a fan of Zerlina Maxwell’s for awhile now. Her Twitter feed is my daily required reading on politics, Trump, race, class and any number of related topics. She’s incredibly smart and insightful both on Twitter and on television as a commentator, so it is no surprise that when she gets out of the bite-sized box and really lets loose in a book, it is exceptional.

This book is incisive and straightforward with facts, political trends, and truths that are sometimes hard for white people to hear. But even though the truths are tough I appreciated and absorbed and enjoyed every minute of this book. It’s one of the most important books on current political trends I have read, and should be required reading for all Democrats.

One of the most compelling arguments here that the media refuses to acknowledge is the fact that we don’t need to cater to white working class men as more valuable than voters of color in swinging an election. Here she provides tons of proof for this argument (which is also just plain logic). She also breaks down where some recent white Democratic candidates have gone wrong in a way that is brutally honest and filled with truth. And her insights on Trump are much deeper than those of many pundits.

This book is bold and some may not agree with some of her arguments about some of the current and recent Democratic candidates benefiting from and exploiting white privilege, but I agreed with almost all of them. They’re hard to read, as a white person especially, but they’re true. Even if you don’t agree it’s hard to see how anyone can ignore all the evidence she presents.

Bottom line? This book is required reading for anyone who wants to beat Trump and 2020, and also for anyone who needs more education on race (which, I submit, is ALL white people), and finally for anyone who wants to read smart and passionate discourse on politics. This is one of those NetGalley books so good that I am going to buy a physical copy to have on my shelf.

Thanks to NetGalley, Zerlina Maxwell and Hachette for the chance to preview this awesome book in exchange for my honest review.

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

The argument of this book is that the future of the Democratic Party lies not in embracing the leftist politics of Bernie Sanders but in doubling down on liberal identity politics and catering to people who are the same race and/or gender—black and female (ideally both)—as the author, Zerlina Maxwell, an oppressed SiriusXM executive and high-level 2016 Clinton campaign staffer. We're told that the reason the Democratic Party did not win the presidency in 2016 is because it did not motivate black women to go to the polls, and the person to blame for this abject outreach failure is somehow neither Hillary Clinton (i.e., the nominee, you may remember) nor Zerlina Maxwell (Clinton's director of progressive media), but Bernie Sanders. That's why the book opens with an anecdote about her entering the lion's den at Politicon, where she was booed by the unwashed masses of privileged white male millenial Bernie Bros—people who are very privileged and probably not even employed as executives in large corporations, so who are they to voice their opinions about things?

The book doesn't really address the contradiction between the author's view and the reality that young people like me (i.e., the future of the party) overwhelmingly prefer Bernie Sanders, which is something that Matt Yglesias pointed out in a 2016 Vox article titled "Bernie Sanders is (still) the future of the Democratic Party," and that the political science professor David Faris also pointed out in a recent book titled "The Kids Are All Left: How Young Voters Will Unite America." In fact, Maxwell generally doesn't really seem to seriously engage with arguments others have made about any of the issues she talks about. When she writes about her views on identity politics, she contrasts her own views with those of Francis Fukuyama, whom she cites as someone whose views are totally misguided, implying that he just doesn't get marginalized groups and that's why he doesn't understand identity politics, and it leaves you wondering whether she... incorrectly believes that Fukuyama is a white guy's name? (It's a Japanese surname, which is to say that he's Asian, i.e., a racial minority in the United States. To my knowledge, Francis Fukuyama is not white.)

I just think her arguments aren't really well supported at all. She seems to argue that simply expanding the welfare state is somehow white identity politics. She can't resist speculating that most of the Bernie supporters who are impolite to her on social media may be Russian bots, apparently not realizing that, if this were true, it would mean that toxic white privilege is not the reason her interactions on social media are unpleasant and her whole chapter on Bernie Bros is basically meaningless. She also never acknowledges the fact that polls consistently showed Bernie beating basically everyone else with LGBT voters (only Warren came close), Hispanic voters (including me and all the Hispanic people I know in real life, perhaps in part because I got them interested in Bernie if they weren't already), etc., which means she's being dishonest about where the enthusiasm for Bernie comes from. She says, without evidence, that Bernie voters must be misogynists because whatever poll she was looking at (she doesn't cite it or even mention the name of the polling organization she got the data from) indicated that their preferred second choice was Biden and not Warren. This wasn't actually true according to any of the Morning Consult polls I remember reading, but even if it were, this is a ridiculous argument. She assumes Bernie supporters were just this hivemind of white male millennials who must have the same opinions about everything when, in reality, we were a pretty diverse group drawn to Bernie for various different reasons. My understanding is that many of the voters who were on the fence between Bernie and Biden were working class types, not really Warren's base. Biden was also one of the most popular candidates for much of the primary season (indeed, he ended up winning it), so it probably shouldn't be that surprising if, at some point, the candidate who ended up being the most popular among the overall Democratic primary electorate was also the second most popular among the set of people for whom Bernie was number one. Bernie supporters also had many reasons to sour on Warren over the course of the primary, including the fact that she embraced the help of an extremely well-funded SuperPAC (Resist PAC) at the last minute so that her campaign could hobble along through Super Tuesday.

It's also telling that, in a book about how the Democratic Party needs to emphasize representational politics even more than it currently does, the author mentions Kamala Harris more than thirty times but never mentions Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang even once. Is Asian representation not important? She also casts Bernie as this random old white dude, and the fact that he's Jewish and could've been the first Jewish president doesn't seem to count for anything in her view. She only mentions Pete Buttigieg to criticize him for being unpopular with people of color (even though Warren polled at roughly the same level, if not slightly below Pete, with PoC voters) and for being audaciously privileged, which gets me thinking that all this emphasis on representational politics is insincere. I can't help but wonder if she believes that, if a gay person is a white male, they are automatically more privileged than Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, etc. I personally didn't really like Pete at all (even though I'm supposed to be ecstatic about the possibility that someone who is in the same minority group as me could be president), but the author's opinion seems hypocritical here.

The only thing I like about this book is that it talks up some people I like, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who endorsed Bernie Sanders and NOT Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, by the way, although I don't believe this is ever mentioned in the book). That isn't really a good reason to give this book more than the number of stars it deserves though (i.e., the lowest number possible). Also, the author aligns herself with Hillary Clinton, who "amplified the historic nature of her glass-ceiling-shattering candidacy," yet the author also approvingly namedrops Angela Davis for her views on intersectionality, even though Davis is a very cool Marxist who is explicitly opposed to Clinton's bourgeois feminism. How can you stan Clinton and Davis at the same time? It's all kinda confusing, probably because #VoteLikeBlackWomen (which is essentially the message of this book) is neither a coherent political ideology nor a useful guiding principle.

[Nathalie · Rating 3 out of 5]

My first review!

There are astute insights in the book, and I agree with the author's general theory on identity politics, which has been so misrepresented and twisted over the years. I did have trouble getting past some of the personal biases in the book relating to the 2020 candidates. Others have mentioned the specific biases around Bernie Sanders' politics which I agree were there, despite not being a supporter of his during the campaign (and despite being more likely to agree with the author on his politics).

One of the more egregious examples was the author's decision to devote a section of the book to analysis of Pete Buttigieg while never once noting that he is queer. As she discusses in the book, it is certain that Buttigieg benefits from white male privilege, as every other white male candidate did, but it is confusing to me to single out the only candidate to ever have to campaign under the shadow of homophobia while never once mentioning it in the chapter devoted to him. In that very same chapter she names Elizabeth Warren as a history-making candidate. How is the first gay candidate to run (and win a state) not history-making? In a book that discusses representation in politics, that omission is bizarre. This was just one of the things that caught my eye. There were several misrepresentations of his campaign in that section that just left a bad taste when considering the rest of the book.

I understand that the book is meant to reflect the author's personal analysis of the direction of politics today - i just found myself confused by some of the takes.

[Adri · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 Stars

This was an insightful and powerful look at the flaws of our current political system. Maxwell is absolutely correct when she says that American politics are white politics, and that there is no neutrality when it comes to policies that seek to destroy or unseat human rights. Her point that politicians and policy makers should have specific platforms targeted on concrete policies informed by their lived experiences absolutely rings true.

Where this analysis fell short for me was in its biases, its toxically binary language, and its inability to factor in America's perpetuation of ableism and anti-queerness and other -isms that contribute to marginalization.

Maxwell focuses in on certain candidates from the early 2020 race, critiquing some of them and highlighting others who she personally feels are conducting themselves well on the national stage. This is not to say I disagree with her character assessments, just that there wasn't a balance between who was discussed and who was left out.

As the title suggests, this book's primary focus is on the prominent whiteness inherent in America's politics, from corporate interests and private donations to platforms built on white nationalism. But it fails to address how America's candidates are not only white men, but straight cis white men. As other reviews have cited, Maxwell heavily criticizes Pete Buttigieg, rightfully so, for his arrogance in not crafting clear policies and his willingness to be carried by his own white privilege, but it never mentions the fact that he was one of the only openly queer presidential candidates and how America's vote is historically homophobic. While race may be the focal point of this analysis, I think it's important to confront all of America's -isms and how they impact who we vote for and how.

Lastly, I was hoping this book would provide a more concrete answer to how we, as citizens, can help end the legacy of white politics. But it doesn't. It has a lot to say about campaigning and policy making, which is great if politicians or presidential hopefuls are reading this book, but not so much about how the every day person can absolutely ensure a more diverse ballot. Of course it does serve as a reminder that we should make concentrated efforts to be as informed about candidates and their policies as humanly possible, but I'd wager most readers know that going into this.

All in all, this is a passionate and well-informed look at why the processes and systems that land people on the ballot are important to understand. While it's not perfect, I think it's still worth the read and could be helpful, especially when coupled with and further contextualized by other political readings.

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

I snagged this while browsing the library offerings in between shifts GOTV canvassing for last-minute voters. I'm not super familiar with Zerlina, though I have seen her name pop up here and there, so I figured what the heck, let's see what her book is about.

And, though I definitely have some disagreements and issues with some of her opinions and criticisms, I think on the whole, I agree with her premise here, which is that the old guard - old white men - are on the way out, and the electorate is getting younger, more progressive, more accepting, and more diverse, and the Democrats should start paying attention to those groups instead of catering to the "moderates" who want to keep the status quo just as it is... Though at least they aren't trying to take us back to how it was 70 years ago.

Or 200 years ago.

Listening to this was a kind of fascinating process, because it was written just before/during the 2020 primaries, and so a lot of the focus was on the players in that arena at the time, and specifically Democratic ones.

She had a lot to say on a lot of issues, and candidates, but one in particular bugged me because I had literally just finished listening to his memoir (and had previously read his follow up book, AND his husband's memoir as well) and that was her criticism of The Audacity Of Pete. She did not like that Pete Buttigieg had the audacity to think, as a nobody 37 year old, that he could and should be able to step onto the stage and apply for the highest job in the land. She took serious issue with the way that he was able to hold off on specific policy positions during early debates, while other candidates like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren had to have policy bumper stickers already printed and in gift bags under each audience member's chair, Oprah style. (YOU get a policy and YOU GET A POLICY!)

AND WHILE I DO agree with her frustration with the heightened and unfair expectations of non-male candidates (and the sexism she rightly sees in that), that isn't Pete's fault. He was literally doing what we tell every 3rd grader they can aspire to do and be. Her criticisms of the system in place are not his to shoulder, and his "audacity" as she calls it is nothing more than her mad at that system and his playing within the established rules:
1) He is at least 35 year old.
2) He is a natural born citizen.
3) He had lived in the US for at least 14 years prior to running.

She had other criticisms, namely his handling of race-related situations... yet there wasn't a candidate running that didn't have those kinds of skeletons in their closets - EVEN the ones she worked for (Hillary). Yet she made zero mention of Pete being the first openly gay candidate to run for Presidential office, and ignored the reality that LGBTQ+ Americans are also a underrepresented demographic, a group that should also have representation and a voice. She portrayed him as an unprepared, undeserving white moderate. It seemed... manipulative and cherry-picked to support her position, rather than the reality of who he is and what he could bring to the table.

Maybe I'm a little biased because I am a white woman and I like Pete Buttigieg - I just said so in my review of HIS book less than an hour ago. But context matters, and the context that she presented here of who he was and what and WHO he represented was skewed. It's public record that Pete is gay, and it was two years ago as well. So not mentioning it seems to be intentional.

Still, that being said - I do support her core premise. I want more representatives to take the time to listen to marginalized communities and demographics and represent their interests. And I agree with her that if they don't... someone else will.

[Susanna Sturgis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whether The End of White Politics will really help "heal our liberal divide" I don't know, but as a white longtime feminist who's relatively new to electoral politics (like so many of us I jumped in with both feet in 2016), I value and recommend this book.

Plenty of pundits, journalists, and other commentators have tried to explain what happened in 2016 and the succession of catastrophes that have followed. Zerlina Maxwell brings to the table her perspective as a young (b. 1981) black woman with a keen eye and extensive campaign experience. It's a reminder of how hard it can be to find book-length commentary from similar perspectives. (Aside: If you haven't read it already, seek out For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Politics, by Brazile, Caraway, Moore, and Daughtry. Maxwell is their direct descendant.)

Putting the title and subtitle of this book together, you'll probably infer that it deals with identity politics and intersectionality. You would be right. In political discourse the phrase "identity politics" is misrepresented all over the place, most famously on the right but also on the left, notably by those who feel threatened by the notion that "white" isn't universal. Identity politics shouldn't be all that controversial. Essentially it means that who you are -- your life experiences, how you're treated in the world, how you're seen -- matters. It especially matters when it comes to representation in government: if you aren't seen by the elected officials who are supposed to represent you, you aren't going to be well represented.

The word "intersectionality" isn't quite as well known, which has the advantage that it's not as widely misrepresented. It, like "identity politics," is really a no-brainer. It means that all of us fit into several categories, which is to say we exist at the intersection of those categories: sex, race, class, age, ethnicity, sexuality, and so on. Tension can arise between these various parts of ourselves, and it's almost inevitable in intersectional coalitions -- which, as Maxwell emphasizes, are key to healing the liberal divide and restoring sanity to our government.

I've learned over the years that anything intersectional will probably piss me off, at least at first. If it doesn't, it generally means I'm missing something. So hardcore supporters of Bernie Sanders should be prepared to be pissed off by Maxwell's first chapter, which describes a Politicon panel discussion in which Kyle Kulinski, a hardcore Sanders supporter, declares that Sanders "is the candidate best positioned to engage black women." Maxwell pushes back; the mostly white male audience boos and heckles her and will not listen when she tries to explain why Sanders's message generally doesn't go over well with black women.

Which led to the writing of this book. In 2016 and again in 2020, and occasionally in the years in between, I ran into exactly the kind of silencing Maxwell describes. The hecklers may never read this book, but at least the rest of us get the opportunity to do so.

In the chapters that follow, Maxwell walks us through the last dozen years or so: what happened, what didn't happen, what needs to keep happening if Democrats are not only going to take back the Senate and the White House but also implement the policies that will save the planet, repair our society's deep-rooted racial inequities, recognize women's rights as human rights, reduce income and wealth inequality, and all the rest of it. She calls the Democratic Party to task for, among other things, stacking the primary deck in ways that favored white men with money. Here she makes a serious misstep in the intersectional department, justly calling Pete Buttigieg out for his white male privilege but never once mentioning that he was also the first out gay person to run for president.

Her observations offer plenty of solid strategic advice, along with correctives to the usual media narratives, for instance the ones that for several years now have been obsessing about Obama -> Trump voters and the "economic anxiety" of the white people who went gung-ho for Trump. She suggests paying closer attention to the four million 2012 voters who stayed home in 2016. They could have swung the Electoral College to Clinton -- so why didn't they turn out? Perhaps because they weren't motivated to deal with all the obstacles that get put in the way, from inflexible work schedules to hard-to-reach polling stations, from lack of early-voting and vote-by-mail options to overt suppression tactics?

The "Obama coalition" motivated infrequent and first-time voters. The Clinton campaign, for myriad reasons, wasn't able to do that. Maxwell believes, and I agree, that the 2018 midterm "blue wave" seems to signal a resurgence and broadening of the Obama coalition, as did Doug Jones's special-election victory in December 2017 (which Maxwell erroneously places as part of the 2018 blue wave). Maxwell identifies black women as key to Jones's victory and as a factor in Clinton's loss: black women not only vote, they turn out other voters. In the 2018 midterms black women's turnout "surged 16 percentage points from that of previous midterm elections, from 41 percent to 57 percent."

Another key component of the 2018 elections was candidates, some of them first-timers, who knew their districts well and were able to defeat long-entrenched incumbents (some of them Democrats) by listening to and communicating with their constituents. Being heard can be a powerful motivator.

And that brings us back to chapter 1. The "Bernie Bros" (I call them Berniebots) are not big on listening. It's impossible to listen to the people you're shouting down, and before long most of the people you're shouting down are going to walk away (though they probably won't tell you why because, you know, they're sick of being shouted down). Acknowledging that Sanders himself has gotten better at listening in the last four years, she notes that his hardcore supporters have not, and that this "is a failure of his leadership . . . This lack of evolution illustrates why someone like him is not the right leader for a future where women and people of color are looking to take their places as equal members of society."

True, and the message is important to all of us, especially those of us who feel a certain, well, entitlement due to color, or sex, or education, or some other factor. Being heard matters. So does listening.

[Jessica Haider · Rating 4 out of 5]

The End of White Politics is full of passionate writing about American politics and in particular, what is ailing the Democratic party and liberals. Zerlina Maxwell worked on Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential Campaign and includes thoughts on that campaign and election as well as Obama's election and the 2020 primaries. There is a lot of discussion of identity politics and how this concept becomes more and more relevant as time goes on and America becomes more and more diverse. We all know by now that our political system has LONG been run by primarily white men. It is predicted that in the next 25 years, Caucasians will no longer be a majority and therefore for better representation of the American people we will need more diverse representation in the government. This book was very well thought out and delivered in an energetic way.

I recommend anyone interested in discussion of where the American political system could be headed. Very interesting read particularly in the current social and political climate.

I received an advanced review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

[Ryan Suskey · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought a lot of her points were well taken and really should be something to inform the future of the Democratic Party. The future of our country is more diverse, not less, and it's time that we recognize and embrace that. I also appreciated that she quickly dispatched criticisms of identity politics with the reality that we have always engaged in identity politics... we just didn't feel the need to call it that since the identity at the center was white! Overall I thought this book was good and thought provoking in the way that a political book should be. It should make you want to call a friend and ask them their views on a passage, or bring to mind other resources that can shed more light on a subject it raises. If a book puts you on a path to exploring an issue in more depth... I'd call that a win!

Some of her conclusions, however, I found to be a bit too facile. And in these instances, it felt like the author wasn't opening the door to a conversation, but was rather shunning you if you see it remotely differently. For all her talk in the beginning of wanting to have honest conversations, it too often felt like she saw her conclusions as incontrovertible statements of fact that could not and should not be challenged (even when she failed to lay out the argument that brought her to said conclusion).

As just one example, Maxwell takes issue with Trump voter apologists who point to economic fears as some of their motivation. She dismisses this possibility out of hand and simply declares it racism. In reality, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. While certainly plenty of Trump supporters latch onto his racism and wholly support him for that reason, others buy into his message of economic populism because their race gives them the privilege to ignore his racism. Essentially, they don't have anything at stake except their pocket books because things have always been fine for their race and it will continue to be so regardless of who is president. This is a different form of racism, and an extraordinary indicator of white privilege.

It is reductionist to ignore the nuance in this distinction and provides no framework for moving forward. The journey back looks different from these two very different starting points, as does the conversation I would (or perhaps could) have for these very different voters. Slapping the same label on them both and pretending it is the exact same thing does nothing for progress.

However, given other messages in the book, I'm not sure that Maxwell would consider either group worth conversing with at all. She bemoans campaigns that try to coddle white voters or slow-walk progress for the sake of making them comfortable. I certainly won't defend delaying progress to make other people comfortable, but that doesn't mean that messages can't be carefully crafted for different audiences to help them understand! Because some people lack the lived experiences of others, they will need different messaging to bridge the gap in their understanding. This isn't a bad thing, it is a form of progress!

[claire]

hm.

while this book hits a lot of points right on the head (we don’t need the white male voter! we have surpassed the need as a society!), i took issue with some of the comparisons.

as someone who sees mayor pete’s value as a young candidate, i don’t think it’s fair to equate his “lack of experience” to trump’s lack of experience. like, at all.

also, bernie got a lot of hate. and some of it was definitely warranted. but i don’t think making bernie out to be the villain of the 2016 election when he literally has been fighting for the common good for many many years doesn’t serve as great as a purpose as the author intended. and she obviously respects aoc who has been a major bernie supporter, so i think her whole breakdown of the bernie bros is a misrepresentation of his supporters as a whole. i mean, obviously we don’t need another old white man in office. but as far as old white men go, bernie’s woke. he was by far the most progressive candidate for the democratic nomination, and i think boiling him down to one facet of his support is not an accurate view of what he stands for or what he intends to accomplish as a political leader.

biases aside, it’s an interesting view of politics and i would recommend it.

[Briayna Cuffie · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you need an intro with recent/current events to “why the way to dismantle the flawed, colonial system created by cis-het white men is to learn from and elect Black women and listen to BIPOC,” then this is for you.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Listened to on audio.

I have complicated feelings about this one. I 100% agree with Maxwell's central thesis that the Democratic Party must de-center white voters as their target and prioritize diverse representation in candidates and their campaign staff. But even though I agree with her overall point, I felt like some of her case was either irrelevant or honestly a bit disingenuous.

I hold biases as a Bernie supporter so any books that starts by calling out Bernie bros is going to immediately put me on the defensive and this certainly did. I found all the content about Bernie bros to honestly be totally irrelevant to her argument. But aside from just the criticism of Bernie bros, I was continually struck by how Maxwell argues that we need bold progressive policy from our candidates that actually addresses the needs of the people and she routinely cited various candidates as embodying this type of candidacy while only ever disparaging Bernie and even reducing his policies to being about "banking," which any casual political observer would know is untrue. And she notably almost completely left out Warren, who is a woman and does speak to various identities and how her policies would impact folks with those identities - much better than Bernie does. She held up Clinton and Harris as examples of doing things the right way in terms of their candidacy while at the same time repeatedly calling for bold policy solutions, which those two simply don't have.

Overall it felt to me like she made a strong case for her thesis in a lot of ways but when she talked about candidates specifically she was picking and choosing what to highlight and what to leave out in a way that didn't accurately represent the full picture in my opinion. She also said or implied multiple times that all Democrats broadly are on the same "side" or have good motives and I just blatantly disagree with that assessment.

I am glad I read this because it was a great reminder of some key things - like the fact that Dems don't need the majority of white people to vote for them to win elections nationwide, and that we need to be explicit and purposeful about building a multiracial cross-class coalition. Plus this made me realize I really like political content in books and I'd like to read more in this genre.

[Claudia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't know Maxwell had worked on Hilary Clinton's campaign, and I appreciated the backstage information of meetings and strategy.

As an audible book, I so wish she had narrated her own book...because I kept hearing her voice superimposed on the narrator's. Like two voices in my head.

Maxwell makes the point that Black women and POC are the future of our party, and it's time to acknowledge that and make a place at the table. She is rough on the two older white men in the 2020 primary race, and laments that the field narrowed down to the 'usual suspects' pretty quickly.

She is quick to slice Dems and candidates from her vantage point, and I'm now going to have to see what she's saying about the Dem ticket now that we have a woman of color on our ticket. It seems to have energized many of the voters she says the party needs to continue to be relevant.

[Heidi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I should have read this last year. I am surrounded by many women of color who are the backbone of the Democratic Party, and this book discusses how the party needs to do better to include this very important voting bloc. Our national demographics are changing, and the party needs to get with the program.
Zerlina Maxwell made this a very easy to read book, and she really tells it like it is. So glad I read it.

[Courtney Sieloff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Required reading for anyone in Dem politics. It’s past time to change the messaging, targeting, and focus of campaigns. Maxwell outlines exactly what has been missing and what should be done to fix campaigns. It took a lot of self control to not tweet every other line. This is smart writing.

[Julia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be required reading in the lead up to the 2020 election. Zerlina Maxwell clearly and eloquently analyzes where our politics are right now, and where they need to go. This book so perfectly articulates the need for progressive identity-based politics that aren't white politics, and she looks at all of the major and minor political players to make her case. Maxwell's perspective on electoral politics will definitely invigorate readers and voters, so please please please put this on the radars of everyone you know!!

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were some parts I really liked, but this book definitely came with a huge bias that started overshadowing what she was saying. She worked on the Hillary campaign and found a way to blame the 2016 loss on nearly everything except for any of their actions. I think the first time she admitted to a fault from Hillary was the last chapter? I loved Hillary and wanted nothing more than for her to be president, but feel like we can all take a step back and realize some faults from the campaign along the way.

This book should have come with a disclaimer of 'I hate Bernie Sanders'. I got a little lost at first of her saying that Bernie lost the election for Hillary, but then went on to say that ignoring people of color will lose you elections, but then said Bernie never connected with people of color (insert meme of girl trying to do equation in her head). It kept going in circles, but always came back to Bernie hurting the campaign and being horrible. It didn't really add up, just felt like it was her redemption from being attacked online by Bernie bros. While I agreed with the overall analysis of Pete being allowed to come up with a plan along the way while women had to explain every detail, it seemed bizarre to not acknowledge how he was the first openly gay candidate to run. Her analysis on Joe Biden was pretty fair, though some may find harsh. I did find it interesting that she said "he still does not seem open to that level of self-examination and reflection", when some could argue the same for Hillary.

I really appreciated her acknowledging the money in politics and how rich people and corporations are the driving force behind elections. I did find it interesting that she praised Warren for not taking PAC money until the end, but couldn't even bring herself to acknowledge that Bernie ran a grassroots campaign. Especially looking at this book through the lens of a post-2020 election, the role of black women in politics could not have been more important. She interviewed Stacey Abrams, Ayanna Pressley, and Bree Newsome for the book; three people you want to hear more from. Overall some strong points, but pretty hard to overlook the bias.

[Jeremy]

I have a few quibbles with individual points and some of the material hasn't aged well given the last two elections, but overall this is a convincing argument about the path forward for the Democratic party.

[Edward ott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Biden may have actually read this book. his picking Kamala Harris as his running mate give me hope. But honestly the leaders of the democratic party need to read this book.

[Loverly Reads · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review to follow

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting ideas. Sometimes the writing felt a little redundant. Glad I read this book though!

[Roxanne Evans]

I first began reading it too close to the 2020 election and I was not in a frame of mind to spend a lot of time thinking about Bernie Sanders (who is not a Democrat, last I checked) and the Bernie Bros.

I gave it a second shot recently, because I am a big fan of Zerlina Maxwell.

It became clear why she had to spend so much time on Sanders and his acolytes.

The book, both the writing and the cogent arguments and the historical references were all spot on.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book and think it should be a roadmap for Democrats for future elections.

[Taneka · Rating 2 out of 5]

The subject was boring, but only because I was familiar with it. I didn't really learn anything new. May be worth the read to someone new to the subject matter.

[Collin Flaxman]

For good order’s sake please do not take Comment as Hate-Writing, or Hate-Comment, lest Hate-Review, rather as Constructive Opinion.

Who knows might inspire Author to “design” her next, hopeful, Best Seller.
Immediate feeling one gets is that of someone, passenger or crewmember, who’s abandoning a sinking ship, dashing to lifeboats, amidst desperate shouts of: “Abandon Ship!”

Suddenly decides to quickly go back down to lower hold in a futile attempt to patch up an enormous hole in the hull.

There is other analogy for abandoning a sinking ship but wouldn’t read educated, adequate, appropriate, anyway out of context now.

Overall opinion is that book sucks because of additional feelings of reading a Contrition Book; or Redemption Book; of Repent; Conscience Cleansing; on and on.

Not really surprising considering people Author work with and for, people Author got entangled to, especially Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic Party is still crawling through acute Negative Projections of Image since the days of JFK. And not only Image.

As seen by ignorant Outsiders:

President James Carter is up to play détente with the Russians while Russians are going on his back doing what the Communist do best.

Abusing, cheating, lying, oppressing, repressing. Including “Perfidy and Treachery.”

And stealing secrets on his back.

Next he leaves all those people behind in the American Embassy in Tehran – including Marines – whereas no man should be left behind.

Military or Civilian.

Next goes for a botched Rescue Operation. Negative stories abound circa, from fresh-scrap Equipment used through to Organization.

Followed by a desert storm.

Millions of Americans – and not only Americans – had never read the word “Fiasco,” had no idea of what the word meant, until International Magazines started printing the word Fiasco on the cover.


Enter President Bill Clinton.

He approves Laws that shouldn’t be approved and would lead to unnecessary Select Abuse inflicted on African-Americans.

Who used to be gross part of Electorate. Or ex Electorate...

Along tour or term process he would get stroppy on Monica’s Soap Opera.

Next he appoints James D. Wolfensohn for President of the World Bank.

To fulfill part of their secret Agreement Wolfensohn causes the collapse and devastation of Mozambique’s cashew nut industry aka Cashew Nut Saga Scam.

Concurrently with the Road Construction and Coastwise Shipping (ROCS) Program Scam.

Meanwhile Wolfensohn meets twice with International Fugitive Criminal Viktor Kozeny, aka “Pirate of Prague” and vouches for him in writing.

Kozeny fresh out of crooking Czech taxpayers out of a Billion Dollars would then go and swindle investors in Azerbaijan in around US$182 Million.

“Under normal circumstances” vouching for an International Criminal could be considered Treason. High Treason?

As if all that wasn’t enough Enter Chief Big Hope turned Chief Big Disappointment.

Such Facts NOT Speculation build up, brew up, settle and simmer, backfire sooner than wanted.
Thereby a soft estimate of 4.4 Million people who did not vote whereas when they should have voted.
Conclusion from Outsiders is that America has been going, is going through clichéd Unprecedented International Bad Image for a long time.

No big wonder both sides panic when of a sudden “boost” in Independent popularity.

And frank, honest, reckoning that would be only a matter of The Right Financing for the tide to turn Ocean Green Independent; Blue; Rainbow; whatever.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book. Maxwell is articulate and passionate about her points, and she is undoubtedly right.

However, there is a herd of elephants in the room, pretty much almost one per chapter, and it led me to start skimming part way through.

I am really glad to hear someone on the inside say that Hillary Clinton was walking the walk on race and racism within her campaign, I always felt like Clinton was better overall than we were allowed to know and this confirmed this.

After that, we start getting elephants.

Others have mentioned the segment on Pete Buttigieg, which talks about the role of white male privilege in his presence in the race at his age and level of experience (all true) without ever mentioning that he's proudly gay. That fact doesn't really play in the issues she's focusing on, but it seems to me it should be acknowledged.

The book was written during the 2020 primary season, so the chapter on Biden was what prompted me to begin skimming. Yes, like almost every white politician with decades of presence on the scene, he's said and done some questionable things, and I hope he has them top of mind now. But the fact remains that it was black voters who made the difference in elevating him to be the front runner and now the president. I wish that the cycles of book production or the preference of the author would have allowed a bit more attention in this chapter to the makeup of the coalition that elevated him to the White House, not to mention the puzzling lack of support from those same black voters for the actual POC candidates like Booker and Harris who had stellar qualifications.

There is a bit of attention paid to the women of The Squad and how they disrupt the business as usual in Congress and promote progressive agendas. I have more mixed feelings about these women, because of how legislative actions have been going in the past year and who's really actually accomplishing things, but I agree that we need more people like them to challenge the status quo. The elephant for me here is that these women have been publicly disrespectful of Hillary Clinton whom Maxwell clearly and rightly respects. While I read these parts, there were certain boos ringing in my ears.

The conversation about the growth of the Millennial and GenZ voting populations and their more progressive attitudes was optimistic, but (a) until those people reliably vote their influence will be limited, and (b) we always believe the young are more progressive and then we find that racism and sexism continues to flourish even so. Will this particular demographic really improve matters? As a late baby boomer I remember the 70s and how we thought that young people would improve everything once the old died off, but look at us now reproducing the behavior of our parents.

In the end, the biggest elephant is that I don't see current Democratic leadership embracing this viewpoint. She is 100% correct that embracing the ongoing changes in demography are essential to keeping democratic priorities in charge, but will the party embrace them? Racists gonna racist. I think they are going to be hard pressed to take this viewpoint given that they still think they need to chase the voters who look like them. But I wish they'd read this book anyway, keeping an eye on those elephants.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book, and it opened my eyes to a lot of things I hadn't previous considered.

Many political observers (myself included) believed that the keep to a Democratic victory in 2020 for the presidency was reclaiming the working class vote in the rust belt states of PA, WI, and MI. These are three states that President Obama carried, but were flipped by President Trump by a combined sub-80,000 votes. I considered this a key to winning. What I had no considered was the drop in the turnout of African-Americans from 2012 to 2016. Maxwell argues that this voting bloc, the voters who sided with Obama but turned a cold shoulder to Clinton, is the most valuable for the party moving forward.

As the nation becomes more diverse, and with it, registered voters, both parties will have to figure out how to adapt and change to court the votes of the changing demographics. Based on statistics alone, it would appear that the Democratic Party is currently better suited to do this, as they consistently receive higher support of current minority voters. Maxwell, who worked for Clinton and covered the Obama campaign, pulls no punches in her critiques of the current (written in 2020) Democratic field, especially President Joe Biden.

One of the things I found most interesting was Maxwell's analysis of Kamala Harris and the treatment she received in the 2020 primary. Harris took the first debates by storm, going right after the front runner, Joe Biden. I was impressed by Harris, because at the time I knew very little about her (I only REALLY started to pay attention to politics in 2018 - my how far I've come!) Harris was (and still is, in my opinion) very impressive! However, as Maxwell notes, this did not contribute to fundraising numbers, forcing Harris to drop out relatively early. I will never forget the video of Joe Biden, walking into a building for an event, when a member of the press told him Harris had dropped out. He was stunned. I knew it was not a show for the cameras, he was legitimately caught off guard. A comparison Maxwell makes is one of the crime records of both Biden and Harris. Both have their faults, but Biden was given a free pass in many instances, while Harris was continually nagged by her prosecution record.

This book was eye opening, and named dropped two others I have on my shelf: White Identity Politics by Ashley Jardina and The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. I definitely want to give those a read.

"The End of White Politics" certainly does not have the highest Goodreads reviews of any book I have ever read (currently at 3.9). However, its message is important from a political standpoint but also, and more importantly, a moral standpoint. As the electorate changes, we the voters must demand that our elected representatives look like us, and have the shared experiences of the people who vote them in.

[Miguel · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of those short books which was honestly engaging to read but one that’s difficult to have an open and honest conversation and critique. While I fully understand Maxwell’s assertions and concerns about having the needs and issues of minorities addressed and adopted into the Democratic platform (and all platforms), one has a troubling sense running through the book of being too doctrinaire and risking being non-inclusive. At the beginning, she states pretty clearly that she wouldn’t want to share the same political party with those whose past views are too problematic (in one example Joe Rogan, and though Rogan mainly comes across as an under-informed intellectual lightweight, he does happen to sway opinion on seemingly millions of potential voters). In this light and in many other parts of the book, the hard dogmatism on display doesn’t lend itself well to a major political party that by its nature has to encompass a very wide tent. These purity tests that the right wing loves to complain about (and which they of course always exhibit as well) are not a recipe for party success. Given the US demographics, they seem to be a recipe for never having Senate control and ceding the Presidency most of the time saddled with the current rules of the Electoral college.

In addition, the diatribe against Biden seems to have problematic timing – perhaps she should have delayed the timing of publication, or does she think that providing oppo-level research against the Dem nominee would be a good idea at this time? Perhaps she lacks the ability to ‘read the room’ as she did at the political convention in which she was booed at?

She does make noises toward the end that more defines needs and issues by class division rather than by melanin / culture issues: it seems that if the Dems will focus much more in this area they have more of a winning set of issues and another issue is that the conversation makes a major assumption that certain demographic groups will be future monolithic blocks, which history has shown not to be the case.

[Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

A timely read that authoritatively tackles the issue of whiteness being at the center of every debate in politics. Whether it's Republicans pandering to white populism or Democrats taking black voters for granted in order to court the elusive "forgotten" rural white voter, Maxwell addresses America's blaring political blindspot in a bold, unflinching manner.

I'm an online political junkie and have gotten into scuff ups a time or two. So what instantly attracted me to this book was the story Maxwell told about being on a panel discussion with Political Youtuber Kyle Kulinski.

He's a brash, young white male and Bernie supporter with a broad white male following who, I would say, embodies the spirit of the Bernie Bro. Zerlina tells about her encounter with his fans and their resistance to what is called "identity politics". When she insisted that black women (who vote 90% Democrat) are the key to future success of the Democratic party, she was booed relentlessly. Booed by self-proclaimed progressives no doubt.

This moment apparently stuck with her as it did with me. I know the experience of going online and being overwhelmed by white males being aggressive and cocky. Not saying anything of substance but since they say it loudly they are reassured of their denial of systemic racism or whatever the issue of the day is.

Certainly, in so short a space, Maxwell is not able to thoroughly dismantle all of the arguments made against the existence of white supremacy in politics on both left and right. But she does speak boldly and intelligently on key issues that continue to go unaddressed because black issues are often deemed invisible by society at large. Sometimes it just feels good to have a singular voice speak out in a crowded room where everyone is catering to whiteness. Zerlina Maxwell is that voice and she will NOT be silence.

A wonderful audio read that I would probably buy for my book shelf. I highly recommend this The End of White Politics.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started this book two weeks ago, and found it hard to concentrate. Maxwell runs through the 2016 and 2018 elections and the 2020 Democratic primary--five years of crazy politics, but I was just reading stuff I already knew. After about 50 pages, I put a bookmark in this book and shifted to 'Caste: the Origins of our Discontents' (Isabel Wilkerson), which I found magnetic and compelling. So I have to be very careful that I don't compare Maxwell's political analysis, which is all about campaigns and candidates and Things People Say--and Wilkerson's book which tells a centuries-old story, with power and eloquence.

Maxwell's book is a rehash. It's like reading a 200-page op-ed piece on what the Democrats are missing. I think she's right; she offers a few insider tidbits on the Obama and Clinton campaigns, a smattering of data to reinforce her opinions, and her writing is lively. Her core point--again, absolutely true--is that the electorate is no long white, male and mature. Diversity of opinion and demographics will strengthen the party, and move it in a progressive direction. So get going, she says.

The book was completed right after Super Tuesday, and so the epilogue rings absolutely true: How did we get to a point where all the women and all the people of color were knocked out before the billionaires and septuagenarian white men? It was also nice to hear someone else dissect Bernie Sanders' fans as elitist and unwilling to make policy that represented compromise, and she also goes after Joe Biden. Maxwell was a Kamala Harris fan, so I am thinking perhaps the constituencies she advocates for in this book will also see Harris as the right running mate.

There's not much new in the book, but it's a quick read, and you come away thinking Maxwell herself has a political future. Three-plus or four-minus.

[Happyreader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Would that it were the end of white politics with the majority of whites now voting Republican. No disagreement that Democrats need a stronger focus on issues that will engage a more diverse citizenry. What’s frustrating is that many of the examples cited as more enlightened political engagement at the presidential level have not led to victory. We still ended up with two old white men who may leave more progressive voters unengaged. After a chapter devoted to ripping Biden apart on race issues, including rightfully pointing out that Harris was skewered for her prosecutorial past while Biden was given a pass on actually legislating the crime bill Harris was sworn to enforce, Maxwell simply chalks up black support of Biden to a generational divide.

While the author disparages the Democratic party for trying to court white working-class voters when black women vote at higher rates, activated white voters are still needed for progressive victories. Just as there are no progressive victories without black (and Latinx voters who are not discussed beyond AOC, despite being the larger voting block), there are no national progressive wins without coalitions with whites. Even with the white majority going Republican, the white minority aligned with others can ensure victory. Yes, only 36% of whites voted for Obama in 2012 but they accounted for over 50% of his 65 million votes. Obama truly was a coalition president. May the silver lining of the pandemic be that more white voters are ready to support more progressive candidates. May the recent protests and progressive primary victories bode well for November.