181
Gavin Newsom turns on the press for asking Trump softball questions
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
181 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30313 readers
2197 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
She'll go for Schumers seat. The Democrats need a dude to run against the republican. Shooting yourself in the foot by having a woman run is not worth the risk to the fate of the country. The handicap from the sexist assholes is just too great to overcome.
That's the frank games theory we've proven this decade.
I think it has been debunked that a woman or person of color is why we lost. Key to note: Anyone who was a true sexist racist piece of shit was already core maga and never, ever going to vote for any Democrat.
People must remember that nobody has polled higher against Trump -- ever -- than Michelle Obama. IF she wants to run (and a big if), she would win. Just need a tad bit more charisma.
(If anyone has any evidence whatsoever beyond speculation or shoddy N=2 statistics, I'm all ears, but I have not found evidence).
Uh dude like more than 5% of the party didn't show up, and a bunch of male Democrats that identify as Latin or African American didn't vote for her because she was a woman.
Both Kamala and Clinton were two of the most qualified people to have run for president, and they were fucking beaten by the worst candidate in the history of politics.
I don't want to risk it.
Uh, dude show me your evidence this was the reason lol.
I'm going to give you a hint: You won't find it. This is straight up bull fucking shit and 100% speculative.
I highly advise you not to make such blatant non-sequitur fallacies devoid of any supportive data. I can think of at least a half a dozen other reasons for why people voted or didn't vote the way they did that actually has data with infinitely less distance to connect the dots than what you're doing right now.
We don't know the why, but it was a big swing among men of color:
https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-racial-analysis-of-2024-election-results/
Without some very careful probing via polls, getting to the why is going to be harder, most likely. Not too many people are just going to be absolutely candid about being sexist.