181
submitted 16 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The California governor described White House reporters as ‘sycophants’

California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the media for what he described as overly deferential coverage of Donald Trump, characterizing reporters in Oval Office press briefings as “sycophants.”

The Democratic governor — widely seen as a potential contender for the 2028 presidential race — made the remarks during a Sunday interview with progressive commentator Jack Cocchiarella.

Cocchiarella pressed Newsom on what he framed as “hesitancy” within the White House press corps to scrutinize certain subjects: namely, the 80-year-old president’s health.

“You see these press conferences in the Oval Office,” the governor replied. “You maybe have one or two reasonable reporters. They ask a question; there's no chance for a follow-up. And then it’s seven sycophants from news outlets.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

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).

[-] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 2 points 13 hours ago

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.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

and a bunch of male Democrats that identify as Latin or African American didn’t vote for her because she was a woman.

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.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

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/

The largest shifts in support were seen among men, particularly men of color. Donald Trump won the vote of Hispanic men by one point (49 percent Harris – 50 percent Trump), a 35-point difference from 2020, when Joe Biden won the vote of Hispanic men by a 34-point margin. Similarly, there was a 35-point difference in how Black men voted in 2024 compared to 2020. While Black men voted for Harris in 2024 by a 47-point margin (71 percent Harris – 24 percent Trump), it was significantly less than Biden who won the vote of Black men by an 82-point margin over Trump in 2020. White men also moved toward Trump by 5 points (net +23; 37 percent Harris – 60 percent Trump), compared to his margin of 18 points in 2020 (40 percent Harris – 58 percent Trump).

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.

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:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS