Montgomery County isn’t horrible, politically. Lots of educated professionals, lots of diversity. They’re going to vote in their economic interest ldo, but that largely means aligning with neoliberal Democrats.
Income inequality is so hyperbolic that I think it’s better to look at median income rather than mean. Interesting how that changes the picture: Santa Clara jumps up, San Francisco makes an entrance, Los Alamos drops off the map, Montgomery County… stays put? Deleaware County, Ohio? I don’t really know what’s going down in Del Co, something shady for sure.
really not sure if I should put this in the media thread or here, it kinda touches on both. This is a blatant example of not just bias in punditry, but failure to do basic research at best, and flat out lying to further an agenda at worst. If they are doing this to one candidate, you bet your ass they’re doing it to the others, as well. Just read the thread.
If you don’t care to read it, to sum up: Dr. Jason Johnson (a pundit on MSNBC) has been repeatedly spreading this false narrative, which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy. In here, he claims that Pete hasn’t hired any black people. This is patently untrue, here are the stats. As of 8/5/19 Pete’s staff is 37% POC, 28% LGBT, and over 50% female (according to the campaign, via AP) Multiple staffers in that thread who are themselves POC, as well.
This has been an infuriating narrative that influential pundits have been pushing, even to the point of flat out lying about it (by the way, that 0% number is from a poll in May. try to get MSM pundits to cite anything more recent, lol). I get that they all have their favorites, but when low-info voters turn on MSNBC and hear this all the time from pundits, it causes them to not evaluate candidates fairly.
Basically, turn off MSM, they are a bunch of biased hacks who are trying to steer people to voting by lying and misrepresenting things that are easily provable (not as easy as Trump’s fake news claims, but still, fairly easy).
I’m kind of surprised Johnson has a bad take on this, as he’s normally very good. I think this probably deserves to be in the other thread too, but watching Chris Matthews is a recipe for a coronary every day. He’s like Chuck Todd’s mentor, and Chuck far exceeded him as his protege for awfulness.
I’ll be honest I didn’t notice stuff like this until the first “Yangs supporters are nazis” stories started popping up. Now I can’t unsee it and it’s definitely happening to most of the candidates not named Biden… who is also getting wildly unfair coverage, but going the other way.
Tulsi is popular with Berners too. Reddit wayofthebern makes me sorry I ever supported Bernie in 2016, it’s so toxic. The general consensus is that Trump is way better than Warren…
I started thinking a lot about this the other day. Basically, IMO Pete’s problem with black voters is just a lack of name recognition and of understanding what he’s for because he’s a newcomer to the national scene. I think it’ll work itself out in time…
But this media narrative that he’s awful for black voters, they hate him, he’s at 0%, he can’t gain traction, they aren’t responding to his policies, etc… It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s becoming the national narrative of his campaign, and it’s going to be very hard to break through. Obviously for many pushing this narrative, it’s strategic.
Eh. Pretending like internet and news access to black people is equal to internet and news access for whites is itself kind of racist in that it ignores the real world impacts of white privilege. There’s still plenty of segregation in America so the information streams are pretty different.
Regarding the article skydiver linked on the subject, I think the analysis is bad. Pretty much all the candidates have larger “Never Heard Of” numbers among Black voters and Pete’s ratio doesn’t stand out as different. His problem with voters may well be that he’s relatively unknown, but specifically with Black voters? Not especially.
It’s problematic, but I’m guessing not for the reasons you might be thinking… Not when that candidate has poor name recognition overall, and is the mayor of a town that is only 26% black. I’m not saying black people don’t know much about him because they’re ignorant or anything at all along those lines.
I think the key distinction is that African-American voters tend to be more suspicious of candidates that don’t have a track record of delivering to them, because they’re used to people pandering for their votes and failing to deliver on policy… So the real problem is the long line of shitty, pandering politicians who didn’t actually care about people of color or other underprivileged groups that they pandered to.
I hate to say it because I know that it’s going to piss off skydiver, but Pete has a legitimate problem with blacks in South Bend. Being the white mayor of a city in the midwest that’s 26% black is hard, and he’s had a couple of stumbles.
I’m aware, but it’s way less than the average of major American cities. Maybe for cities of that size it’s around the average or even above it, but Baltimore is like 65% black, Philly is 43%.
Given that most mayors who run for president come from larger cities, most mayors running for president already have a lot of strong relationships with African-American leaders.
