#alabama senate race live coverage | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ausetkmt · 2 years ago

Text

Florida Power & Light, one of the largest utilities in the country, abruptly announced the retirement of its chief executive after a tenure marked by strong financial returns, moves toward greener energy and multiple scandals.

Under the leadership of Eric Silagy, 54, the company has been tied to allegations of campaign finance violations, media manipulation, and the surveillance of critical journalists. Silagy, CEO since 2014, will depart the company in April.

Its parent company, NextEra Energy, has commissionedtwo separate investigations - one internal, one by an outside law firm - following reporting by Florida newspapers, the non-profit news outlet Floodlight and NPR. Asked by Wall Street analysts during an earnings call on Wednesday whether Silagy's retirement was in any way prompted by those reports, the parent company's chief executive asserted that was not the case. "We're not making a connection," said John Ketchum, CEO of NextEra Energy.

The last year of Silagy's leadership was marked by high natural gas prices; the global supply chain crisis; two disastrous hurricanes; and a barrage of damning media reports.

"I think it took a toll," Ketchum said Wednesday of the multiple crises. As for Silagy's departure, Ketchum said, "It's a little earlier than ... Eric would've wanted to do it."

Allegations of campaign donations to spoilers in close races

Media scrutiny of the company's political giving began shortly after the 2020 election, when a trio of spoiler candidates tipped close state senate races toward candidates considered friendly to Florida Power & Light.

Reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and the Miami Herald tied Silagy to a group of political consultants who had spent millions of dollars to secretly further the power company's political goals. The money was allegedly funneled through a network of tax-exempt nonprofits that obscured its origin. The funds supported a total of five spoiler candidates in state senate and county commission races in 2018 and 2020, as well as efforts to foil a ballot initiative that would have deregulated Florida's energy market.

"I want you to make his life a living hell ... seriously," Silagy wrote in a 2019 email to two of his vice-presidents about one of the Democratic state senators whose 2020 electoral contest was complicated by a spoiler candidate. The state senator went on to lose re-election by six votes.

Florida Power money flowed to sympathetic media outlets

Money from the company also covertly secured favorable media coverage, investigations by the Orlando Sentinel, the Miami Herald, the Guardian, NPR, and Floodlight found. In one instance, leaked emails revealed Silagy even successfully suggested specific news coverage to one publication.

NPR and Floodlight also reported in December that people working at Florida Power & Light's political consulting firm had paid a veteran ABC News freelance producer to try to trip up politicians who took stances opposed to the energy utility's economic interests. ABC News cut ties with the producer immediately following that report.

NPR and Floodlight reported the same consulting firm did work in Alabama for that state's dominant energy utility, Alabama Power, and funneled money to news sites there that reported negatively on the utility's critics and regulators. Its CEO, Mark Crosswhite, stepped down in December. Its parent company had initiated an investigation of related media reports there. (Neither Alabama Power nor its corporate parent, Southern Company, have commented on those disclosures.)

An internal investigation clears Florida Power & Light of wrongdoing but more is to come

After an early round of reports, NextEra commissioned an internal investigation into the allegations against Silagy and Florida Power & Light in Florida. More recently, the company hired an outside law firm to look more broadly at the company's actions. NextEra officials say that investigation is close to completion.

Last June, Florida Power & Light spokesperson David Reuter wrote that the initial review had exonerated the company: "This detailed report found no evidence of illegality or wrongdoing on the part of FPL or any of its employees." That statement was made before additional rounds of damaging disclosures prompted the investigation by the outside law firm.

The media reports were cited in an October 2022 Federal Election Commission complaint against several of the "dark money" non-profit organizations that received corporate funds. The complaint implicated Florida Power & Light in election law violations because of alleged attempts to obscure the source of the political donations.

At the start of the Monday earnings call, Ketchum, the NextEra chief executive, directly addressed the media reports and federal election complaint. "Based on information in our possession, we believe that FPL would not be found liable for any of the Florida Campaign finance law violations as alleged in the media articles," Ketchum said. He added that the company would soon challenge the complaint and call for its dismissal.

Silagy is to be replaced by Armando Pimentel, a former senior executive at NextEra Energy.

#FPL #Florida Power CEO implicated in scandals abruptly steps down

1 note · View note

96thdayofrage · 3 years ago

Text

How lawmakers block progress and maintain oppressive policies

Many lawmakers, especially in the South, fought to maintain the nation’s founding principles of white supremacy.

In Alabama’s Dallas County, more than half the population was Black in 1961 but fewer than one in 100 Black citizens were registered to vote due to daunting poll taxes and other measures meant to disenfranchise Black voters.

Across the South, registrars could selectively ask Black voters to read part of the Constitution, then decide whether the text had been read to their liking, said Carol Anderson, an African American studies professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

As such, they had enormous power to block people from voting, Anderson said.

A modest civil rights act passed in 1957 had enabled the Justice Department to sue states for voting rights violations but put the onus on people whose rights had been violated, requiring them to challenge systems designed to keep them down, Anderson said. By 1963, a federal report examining 100 counties in eight Southern states found that Blacks remained substantially underrepresented at the polls.

Selma, the seat of Dallas County, became an important battleground as tensions escalated. A local judge stifled demonstrations by declaring public gatherings of more than two people illegal, drawing a visit from Martin Luther King Jr. and thrusting Selma into the national spotlight.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Southern legislators repeatedly derailed civil rights-related proposals while chairing key committees, said David Bateman, an associate professor of government at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

“Their control over these committees allowed them to gate-keep the agenda,” Bateman said.

Images of officers attacking voting rights activists – including then 25-year-old activist John Lewis – on a Selma bridge with clubs and tear gas in March 1965 helped sway public support. Days after the so-called “Bloody Sunday” incident, President Lyndon Johnson pressed lawmakers to pass broad voting rights legislation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests and other discriminatory practices while requiring federal approval of proposed voting-eligibility standards before states could implement them.

Today, Bateman said, as increasing voting restrictions continue to disproportionately affect people of color, “there’s every reason to believe voter disenfranchisement campaigns will persist.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 reversed a key part of the landmark Voting Rights Act, allowing states to alter voting rules before obtaining federal consent. This summer, the court issued a ruling that disqualifies votes cast in the wrong precinct and only allows family members or caregivers to turn in another person’s ballot.

At least 18 states have enacted laws making voting harder this year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. In Montana, legislators abolished Election Day registration. Florida curtailed after-hours drop boxes.

Georgia shortened absentee ballot request periods, criminalized providing food and water to queued-up voters and made opening polls optional on Sundays, traditionally a day when the Black vote spikes as congregants vote after church.

“We still have not dealt with anti-Blackness in this society,” said Anderson, of Emory University. “We’re really looking at the same pattern, the same rhymes.”

In September, Democrats introduced an elections and voting rights bill that would expand early voting options, identification requirements and access to mail-in ballots while allowing Election Day registration.

Police have long upheld racist laws, often with violence

As Blacks demanded equality during the civil rights movement, they faced hostility not just from fellow civilians but from those entrusted to protect and to serve.

In 1961, Freedom Rides occurred throughout the South as activists challenged Southern non-compliance with a Supreme Court decision ruling that declared segregated bus travel unconstitutional. The campaign met with often ugly resistance: In Birmingham, riders were attacked by a Ku Klux Klan mob, reportedly with baseball bats, iron pipes and bicycle chains.

Within the mob was an FBI informant who told the agency of the impending attack, but the agency did nothing, reluctant to expose its mole. Two decades later, a U.S. District Court judge excoriated the FBI for its inaction.

“The FBI was passively complicit,” said Diane McWhorter, author of “Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama, The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution.”

The attack occurred with the blessing of Alabama public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, who told Klan leaders that police would wait 15 minutes before stepping in.

Paul Butler, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., said he sees the links between the police violence of Birmingham and “Bloody Sunday” and the tanks, tear gas and rubber bullets employed at today’s Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

“We have John Lewis and others marching on that bridge protesting police brutality, and they get attacked and beat up by police,” said Butler, author of the book “Chokehold; Policing Black Men.” “And last summer, throughout the country there were marches on police brutality – and at these marches, police attacked the people protesting police brutality. The parallels are clear.”

People of color continue to be disproportionately affected by fatal police shootings, with significantly higher death rates than whites over the previous five years, researchers at Yale University in Connecticut and the University of Pennsylvania reported last year. “So it’s unclear whether change is actually occurring,” Butler said.

Critics note the police presence and brutality faced by Black Lives Matter protesters during the unrest following Floyd’s murder – the open-source database Bellingcat found more than 1,000 incidents of police violence – in contrast with the relatively unprepared force that was unable to stop hordes of mostly white Donald Trump supporters from breaching perimeter fencing and entering the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“There has never been a time when policing of public speech hasn’t been racially biased,” said Justin Hansford, executive director of Howard University’s Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center in Washington, D.C. “With the civil rights-era protests, most people understood that they were standing up for core American principles as opposed to Jan. 6, where they were trying to stop people’s votes from being counted.”

A USA TODAY analysis of arrests linked to the insurrection found that 43 of 324 people arrested were either first responders or military veterans; at least four current and three former police officers now face federal charges.

Education leaders have maneuvered to keep segregation, hide racist history

Education leaders have also at times sought to stall progress.

Two years after the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 decision ruling segregated schools unconstitutional, Virginia Rep. Howard Smith took the floor to address his colleagues.

There, he introduced a document signed by 82 representatives and 19 senators, all from former Confederate states. The so-called Southern Manifesto called for resisting desegregation and blasted the Brown decision as an abuse of judicial power violating states’ rights.

The gesture demonstrated how deep resistance to desegregation ran in the South. The next year, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus summoned the National Guard to prevent nine Black students from entering Little Rock’s Central High, in defiance of a federal order.

“After the ruling comes down, you have massive resistance in the South,” said Sonya Ramsey, an associate history professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “You have school boards saying they’re not going to do it. You have government officials saying they’re not going to do it. That’s a system.”

Resistance came in many forms, she said, from committees formed to study the matter in perpetuity to policies that allowed whites, but not Blacks, to transfer schools.

Some institutional leaders did make positive strides, Ramsey noted, even if for economic reasons. While many Southern cities resisted desegregation efforts, officials in Charlotte, North Carolina, eager to promote the area as a progressive business climate, constructed a districtwide busing plan designed to have schools reflect the community with the help of Black and white families and local leaders.

But institutional ills continue, Ramsey and others say – in charter schools now struggling with diversity, in faulty school funding formulas and in ongoing debates about what students should be taught about slavery and racism. Bills limiting how educators can teach about racism have been introduced this year in at least 28 states.

A 2018 Southern Poverty Law Center study of educational standards in 15 states found none addressed slavery’s justification in white-supremacist ideology nor its integral part in the economy; furthermore, the report noted, a separate survey found just 8% of high school seniors identified slavery as the Civil War’s cause.

“It’s fear of the unknown and of disruption,” said Donnor, of William & Mary. “And seeing that the status quo is no longer acceptable. One of the major parallels is in the hostility of the pushback. If you peel back the layers, you can see the similarities.”

News media shapes how Americans view race

The news media has throughout the nation’s history helped Americans understand racial issues – for better or worse.

In 1962, after James Meredith tested federal law to become the first Black student admitted to the formerly all-white University of Mississippi, the station manager of Jackson’s WLBT decried the decision on-air, saying states should make their own admission decisions.

Station officials strongly supported segregation, rebuffing calls for opposing views, avoiding civil rights coverage and notoriously blaming technical problems for interruption of a 1955 “Today Show” interview of attorney Thurgood Marshall. Ultimately, after repeated complaints to the Federal Communications Commission and a crucial federal court decision affirming public input in FCC hearings, the station lost its license.

“These are the stories we weren’t taught in journalism school,” said Joseph Torres, co-author of “News For All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media.” “They (civil rights groups) were saying, it’s a public airwave, and it’s not being fair to the Black community.”

Black media stepped up to offer different perspectives of mainstream narratives or provide coverage that wasn’t otherwise there. When 14-year-old Emmett Till was lynched in 1955 by two men who would ultimately be acquitted by an all-white jury, Jet magazine published a photo of Till’s mutilated body that helped kickstart the civil rights movement.

While some white-owned media such as Mississippi’s Delta Democrat Times and Lexington Advertiser condemned segregation and violence, others such as Jackson’s Clarion-Ledger held to the status quo. Gannett, the parent company of USA TODAY, purchased the newspaper in 1982.

“Had the Clarion-Ledger taken a leadership position denouncing atrocities going on in front of their faces, the state would be farther along in terms of getting past some of the pain,” said Mississippi Public Broadcasting executive editor Ronnie Agnew, who served as the newspaper’s executive editor until 2011.

In 1968, the landmark Kerner Commission, appointed to investigate the unrest that had exploded in national riots, faulted the media in addition to longstanding racism and economic inequalities. “The press has too long basked in a white world looking out of it, if at all, with white men's eyes and white perspective," the commission’s final report read.

“They made it absolutely clear that the white press had done a terrible job of covering civil rights,” said Craig Flournoy, a journalism professor at the University of Minnesota who has critiqued the Los Angeles Times’ “incendiary” coverage of the 1965 Watts riots, for which the newspaper won a Pulitzer.

Flournoy said the Times relied heavily on white police and white elected officials for material. In one particularly egregious example, he said the newspaper, having no Black reporters on staff, sent a young Black advertising staffer into Watts to dictate dispatches by payphone, but his notes were repurposed into sensational stories that exaggerated the supposed Black threat.

8 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Saturday was Joe Biden’s first-ever win in a presidential primary or caucus. It was an awfully big one: Biden won South Carolina by nearly 30 percentage points over Bernie Sanders. And it made for one heck of a comeback: Biden’s lead over Sanders had fallen to as little as 2 to 3 percentage points in our South Carolina polling average in the immediate aftermath of New Hampshire.

What explains the big swing back to Biden in South Carolina? And what does it mean for the rest of the race — and in particular for Sanders, who had entered this weekend as the frontrunner?

Here are five possible explanations — ranging from the most benign for Sanders to the most troubling for his campaign.

Hypothesis No. 1: This was a “dead cat bounce” for Biden because voters were sympathetic to him in one of his best states. It may have been a one-off occurrence.

Remember Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire in 2008? Left for dead by the national media after she lost Iowa to Barack Obama in 2008, she overcame a big polling deficit for an upset win in the Granite State. It didn’t do her much good, though; she won Nevada the next week but badly lost South Carolina two weeks later, eventually losing the nomination to Obama.

There are some similarities to Biden’s position in South Carolina. Like Clinton before New Hampshire, the media all but counted him out of the running after Iowa. Like Clinton in New Hampshire, Biden had a strong debate a few days before the primary along with some emotional moments on the campaign trail. Furthermore, some of the reporting from South Carolina suggests that certain South Carolina voters — especially older whites and African-Americans — felt deep loyalty toward Biden and wanted to keep him in the running.

Degree of concern for Sanders if this hypothesis is true: Low to moderate. If this were truly just a one-off sympathy bounce, then Sanders can live with it. Sure, Bernie missed an opportunity to put the race away with a win — or perhaps even a close second — in South Carolina. But voters rarely just hand the nomination to you without creating a little bit of friction. But if voters in other Super Tuesday states feel the same way that South Carolinians did, the sympathetic moment for Biden may not be over yet.

Hypothesis No. 2: The disparate results so far are simply reflective of the geographic and demographic strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. The notion of “momentum” is mostly a mirage.

If this is the case, you could wind up with a very regionally-driven primary, with Biden doing well in the South but perhaps not so well everywhere else. This is more or less what our model expects to happen, for what it’s worth; it now has Biden favored in every Southern Super Tuesday state except Texas, and he’s an underdog everywhere outside of the South.

The counter to this: Biden clearly did much better in South Carolina counties and precincts that weren’t as emblematic of his base than he had in those kinds of districts in other states. The counter to the counter: Geographic factors pick up a lot of information that demographics alone miss. So his strong performance in certain parts of South Carolina may bode well for how he’ll do in Alabama or North Carolina or Georgia. It may not say much about his performance in Michigan or California, however.

Degree of concern for Sanders if this hypothesis is true: Low to moderate. Sanders led Biden by about 12 points in national polls heading into South Carolina. Moreover, our model — which uses demographics in its forecast — has Sanders ahead. So although Biden has some strong groups and regions, Sanders’s coalition looks as though it’s slightly bigger and broader overall — although a post-South Carolina bounce for Biden or swoon for Sanders could eat into that advantage.

Hypothesis No. 3: The party is finally getting behind Biden. It may or may not work.

Almost half of South Carolina primary voters said that Rep. James Clyburn’s endorsement of Biden was a big factor in their decision. There are some questions about the cause and effect: It may be that Biden voters were pleased with the endorsement and said it was a major factor, even though they were planning to vote for Biden already. Still, Biden did get a big, late surge in the polls following the debate and the endorsement.

Clyburn is also one of the few party bigwigs to have endorsed a candidate. While lots of U.S. representatives, mayors, lieutenant governors and so on have endorsed, not many senators, governors or party leaders have. That leaves open the possibility there could be a surge of endorsements for Biden in the coming days. He’s already scored several major endorsements in Virginia, for instance, which is a Super Tuesday state.

Degree of concern for Sanders if this hypothesis is true: Moderate. The “Party Decides” view of the race treats endorsements and other cues from party leaders as being highly predictive and important. And a surge of endorsements for Biden seems reasonably likely. This could reverse a longstanding period of seeming indifference by party leaders toward Biden as they hoped for Michael Bloomberg or some other alternative to emerge.

But it’s not clear how effective an endorsement surge would be, as few legislators command the respect in their states that Clyburn does. Moreover, although we’re not going to cover it at length here, there’s plenty of room to question how empirically accurate the “Party Decides” is. Meanwhile, endorsements aren’t necessarily what Biden needs; an influx of cash would do him more good.

Hypothesis No. 4: Voters are behaving tactically. Biden was the only real alternative to Sanders in South Carolina, and he may be the only real alternative going forward.

Tactical voting is something you hear a lot about in multi-party systems like the United Kingdom’s, where voters are trying to find the most viable candidate from a number of similar alternatives (for example, from among the various parties that opposed Brexit). The same dynamics potentially hold in multi-candidate presidential primaries, and we’ve already seen evidence of it. In New Hampshire, voters flocked to Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar in the closing days of the campaign and away from Biden and Elizabeth Warren. In South Carolina, tactical voting may have worked in Biden’s favor, instead. Biden was fairly clearly the most viable alternative to Sanders, so voters for candidates like Tom Steyer and Buttigieg may have gravitated toward him in the closing days of the campaign.

Degree of concern for Sanders if this hypothesis is true: High. First, if voters are actively looking for alternatives to Sanders — but just can’t settle on which one is best — that can’t be good news for him, and gives some credence to the “lanes” theory of the race in which the moderate vote could eventually consolidate behind one alternative to Sanders. The South Carolina exit poll had Sanders’s favorability rating at just 51 percent, which is some of the stronger evidence for a ceiling on his support so far.

Moreover, Biden’s strong finish in South Carolina, along with improved debate performances, endorsements, and increasingly favorable media coverage, could make it clear to voters that Biden is the best alternative to Sanders after all, possibly with some exceptions where there are home-state alternatives (Klobuchar in Minnesota and Warren in Massachusetts). If Biden picks up support from tactical voters who had previously backed candidates such as Bloomberg and Buttigieg in polls, that could lead to a larger-than-usual South Carolina bounce.

Hypothesis No. 5: There has already been a national surge toward Biden that is not fully reflected in the polls.

It didn’t get much notice, but polling outside of South Carolina was also pretty favorable to Biden toward the end of last week, including polls that showed sharp improvements for him in states such as Florida and North Carolina. He’s also gotten better results in some national polls lately — climbing back into the low 20s — along with other, not-so-great ones.

The data isn’t comprehensive enough to know for sure. Between the dense cluster of events on the campaign trail (primaries, debates, etc.) and the different races that pollsters are surveying (South Carolina, Super Tuesday, national polls), everything is getting sliced pretty thin. But we do know that Biden made big improvements since the debate in South Carolina polling, the one state where we did have enough data to detect robust trendlines.

Degree of concern for Sanders if this hypothesis is true: High. Suppose that Biden gained 5 or 6 percentage points across the board nationally and in Super Tuesday states as a result of this week’s debate (or other recent factors such as voters’ reaction to coronavirus), but it’s gone largely undetected because there hasn’t been enough polling. If that’s the case, then Biden may already be in a considerably better position than current polling averages and models imply — and then he could get a further bounce from winning South Carolina on top of it. This is a scary possibility for Sanders, and although there isn’t enough data to prove it, there also isn’t much that would rule it out.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Nate Silver

5 notes · View notes

pakberitatv-blog · 7 years ago

Photo

https://goo.gl/am4nMq

سینیٹ انتخابات کیلیے تمام جماعتوں نے اپنے نام فائنل کر لیے ہیں

لاہور: سینیٹ کا چناؤ نزدیک آیا تو گہمی گہمی بڑھ گئی ۔

مسلم لیگ نون نے بھی امیدوار فائنل کر لیے ہیں اسحاق ڈار جنرل سیٹ پر امیدوار ہوں گے،مصدق ملک،آصف کرمانی اور کامران مائیکل کو اقلیتی سیٹ سے الیکشن لڑایا جائے گا ۔

پیپلز پارٹی نے بھی 20 امیدواروں کے کاغذات نامزدگی جمع کرا دیے جن میں مولا بخش چانڈیو،رضا ربانی،بیرسٹر رضا وہاب شامل ہیں ۔

اس کے ساتھ ساتھ پی ایس پی اور مسلم لیگ فنکشنل نے بھی کاغذات نامزدگی جمع کرادیے ۔

0 notes

nbamont20ahsgov · 5 years ago

Text

State and Legislative Action

a. Assembly member Kahan: On March 7, 2019, Kahan announced her first hearings of the newly created Select Committee on Women’s Reproductive Health that will focus on the federal government’s attack on reproductive health. Kahan supports the protection of reproductive health and access of abortions to all women.

b. I agree with Assembly member Kahan’s position because I believe it is important for everyone to have health care, as well as women to have easy access to contraceptives and abortion. They should be able to do what they want with their bodies.

c. Kahan has not sponsored any bills relating to abortion and reproductive health, but she is getting involved with the hearings on the Select Committee on Women’s Reproductive Health that will focus on the federal government’s attack on reproductive health.

a. State Senator Glazer: He supports every woman's right to safe and legal abortion under the terms set out in the Roe vs. Wade decision. He also supports public funding for abortion services for low-income women. I oppose targeted restrictions on abortion access, including to teenagers.

b. I agree with Senator Glazer because I believe it is super important for all incomes to be provided with the health care that they need. Women should all have access to healthy and safe abortion at all times.

c. Senator Glazer has sponsored bills relating to abortion or women’s reproductive rights including; requiring paid maternity leave for teachers, requiring public universities to offer and cover the cost of abortion and drugs, prohibits firing employee for getting an abortion. He is also rated 100% by Planned Parenthood which he is very supportive of.

a. Bill number: SB 24.

b. Introduced on December 3, 2018.

c. The last major action on the bill was on October 11, 2019 when it was approved by the governor. On the same day, it was chaptered by the Secretary of State. Chapter 740, Statutes of 2019.

d. I feel that the bill is a great opportunity for Cal State and UC students. It gives them the safety of abortion that they need. I feel it may be a stretch with how much money it requires, but I think it is necessary for the women to readily have access to abortion. College often has rape cases and unwanted pregnancies, so this bill would help women in these situations. I would definitely encourage my representatives to support this bill.

a. Congressman Desaulnier: He believes that women should have access to abortion and health services. He is a strong supporter of the Women's Health Protection Act that blocks unnecessary abortion restrictions being pushed forward in state legislatures. He also sponsored the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance to remove the bans that prevent women from receiving coverage for abortion services through Medicaid. This way, all women have access to the full range of reproductive health care services.

b. Congressman Desaulnier has sponsored the Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 1322), and Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act (H.R. 771). These bills are targeted to remove restrictions on abortion services for women. He wants them to have easy, safe, and fair access to abortion. I support these bills because like I’ve said before, I believe that all women should be able to choose what they do with their body. Just because certain women are in low-income classes, or a certain race, they shouldn’t be denied reproductive health care.

a. Senator Harris: She supports the reproductive rights of women. She strongly believes that women should have access to reproductive health care and make their own health care decisions of their own body.

b. A resolution that was sponsored by Harris and multiple other Senators all over the United States. It was a response to the legislative efforts in Georgia, Alabama, and other states that intended to undermine women’s reproductive rights and ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade. I support this bill/resolution because it is backed by a lot of Senators around the US and promotes my similar view of pro-choice for women and their reproductive rights.

a. Senator Feinstein: She holds very similar views on abortion as Kamala Harris. She strongly pushes in legislation to protect women and their reproductive rights. Feinstein is a strong advocate of pro-choice, but also incriminating people who try to deny people health care.

b. Feinstein and Harris both were major contributors to the sponsoring of the response to Georgia and Alabama’s abortion restriction laws. With the many actions she’s taken to protect women and their reproductive rights, she also signed a bill to enforce existing criminal statutes and aggressively pursue violations of laws that protect abortion providers and their patients. I support this because it is unconstitutional to deny people their rights of health care and reproductive rights.

a. Yes, there are 8 bills on the issue of abortion and reproductive rights.

b. There is no bill number, but it is a case where the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Food and Drug Administration over its restrictions on the abortion pill Mifeprex.

c. The ACLU disagrees with the FDA about the availability of the Mifeprex drug that can be used within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy as an abortion pill. They believe that it should be available by prescription in pharmacies because now, it can only be dispensed by medical providers and you must register for it.

d. The bill proposed with have an impact on a lot of low-income women who do not have ready access to a health care provider where they can register for the abortion pill. It will give them more access to it along with women who live in an area without abortion facilities. The number of unwanted pregnancies will drastically decrease as well.

e. Though I believe that the drug could be abused and used constantly where women are not making sure they don’t get pregnant, I would vote yay on this bill because I think it is important for women who would have to fly to another place to get an abortion to have easier access to an abortion.

f. The bill didn’t originate in the House or the Senate. It was proposed by a special interest group, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The lawsuit is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee. Right now, the bill is not making any progress, but there are similar bills regarding the abortion pill that are, like having it available at Universities.

1 note · View note

coffee-books-and-roses · 6 years ago

Text

FAQ about American politics for those who do not live in America (and also Americans who don’t keep up with the news). This is a long fucking post heads up.

I’ll start by saying that if you want to keep up with American politics, listen to Pod Save America. It was created by former Obama officials.

One last thing, when I saved this as a draft, a lot of the words turned to emoji’s, So incase you see clapping hands, that means p a r t y.

Ok, now to begin. Incase you didn’t know, America is more or less one shit show when it comes to our politics right now. Most Americans are struggling to keep up with the news, so I can’t even imagine what it’s like for those outside the US, who have no cultural context.

(Some notes before we go: We go by a two party system (1) Democrat = liberal. The party of Obama. (2) Republican = conservative. The party of Trump. Also, GOP stands for “Grand Old Party.” It’s another name for Republicans)

For the last two years (2016-2018) Republicans have controlled all three branches of government. The three branches: Judicial, Executive, and Legislative. However, that turned a few days ago when Democrats took control of one of the two Chambers in the Legislative branch called “The House”. This is the first time in eight years that they have taken control of the house.

This will now be conversation form, making it easy to follow along

“What are the midterms?” America holds presidential elections every four years. Meanwhile, every two years we have an election in the legislative branch, also known as congress. The mid terms are the elections between presidential elections. Every election, all 435 house seats are open. Mean while, the number of seats up in the senate range in the mid 30′s. This year in 2018, 35 seats were up and open. (It is the same during the presidential election. Again. all 435 seats in the house are open, and somewhere in the mid 30′s senate seats are open.)

“How are the 435 house seats distributed among the states?” It’s all proportional, based on state population. The more people in a state, the more house seats they get. For example, California with 39 million, get 53, while places like Alaska, with only 700,000, gets just one representative. Each state will, at a minimum have one representative.

“Wait- how are the representatives divided up with in the state?” I’ll explain that when we get to gerrymandering.

“How many seats do Democrats need to take in order to get control of the house and senate?” For the house: 23. For the senate: 2.

“Wait- you only won 194 house seats in 2016. Wouldn’t you need 24?” Democrats won a special election in Pennsylvania in 2017 after the Republican guy who held the office quit.

“Same with the senate, you only won 46 seats in 2016.” There are two independents in congress, although they vote almost always with the Democrats. We had a special election in Alabama, which we won, making us need only two seats.

“Let’s say that Democrats with 50 seats and Republicans with 50 seats. Being that they would vote along party lines, what will happen to the bills?” The vice president- aka Mike Pence, will get to cast a vote on any bill that is half and half. Being that he is republican, he will side with his party. This is the only time the vice president is allowed to vote on issues in congress.

“Back to the 2 seats in the senate. 2 seats don’t seem that hard” We had to defend 26 of the 35 seats, and then gain two more. In 2018, Democrats had to win 80% of the seats to take control, which, of course, didn’t happen.

“So, what were the results?” Well, they are still counting a few races. However, regardless of those outcomes, we know for a fact that Democrats have taken at least 225 seats, seven more than the 23 needed. As for the senate, Republicans have at least 51, so even if the rest come out democrat, it won’t matter.

“What will American politics be like for the next two year?” Democrats can put a pause on Trumps agenda. Without control of both houses, he won’t be able to get his bills passed. Also, we will have subpoena power, meaning that we will finally investigate corruption that Trump has ignored.

“Why did it take so long to get back control of the House?” Voter ID laws and gerrymandering

“Voter ID laws? Don’t those protect against people from illegally voting? Okay, I tried writing about it, although it got to long. I’ll give you a 3 minute video for the shortened version. Just a heads up, when there are voting fraud attempts, they are mainly done by mail, not in-person. More democrats vote in-person, which is why they are doing this.

“Gerrymandering ?” I don’t know how to explain it, so just watch this 3 minute video , it will explain the next questions below.

“How often do the gerrymandered districts get re-drawn?” Every 10 years. See, the republicans took control in 2010, a census year. The next time states get re-drawn is in 2020

“What the heck happened in 2010?” The TEA party was formed

“What is the TEA party?” It stands for “Taxed Enough Already”. The name also is a reference to the “Boston Tea Party” in 1773, when the American colonies dumped a bunch of British Tea into the Boston Harbor.

“So what were the political views of the tea party?” They were a far fringe in the Republican party. The tea party argued for lower taxes, and reducing the amount of debt America had to other countries

“Well, that doesn’t sound so bad. Why is that a problem?” Because in reality, it had very little to do about taxes or debt. While certainly people did joined because of financial reasons, in reality, it was more about racism than anything else. A bunch of old white people lost their goddamn shit because Obama, an African American, was in office. To them, he was a communist-atheist-Muslim-socialist-gay-Kenyan who was here to take away your guns and It’s not just me saying that. There has been evidence to suggest that racial resentment played a part in the tea party.

“Yeah, well, didn’t they make good on the promise of lower taxes? After all, they just passed the largest tax cut in decades.” Yes. For the rich. As for the middle class and poor, they get almost nothing. The over whelming majority- 83%- will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

“What about caring for the debt?” Their tax cut actually expands the deficit- exactly opposite of what they promised.

"Where, then. are they going to get the money to pay for the debt?” Republicans now want to cut funding Social Security and Medicare, programs designed to help the poor.

“What does the American public think about this?” 60% of Americans think the tax cuts help the rich, not the middle class. That would probably explain why Republicans really didn’t talk that much about their tax cut during the 2018 midterms

So what could they run on if they didn’t talk about the tax cuts? Two things, first “pre-existing conditions” regarding Obamacare, and, or course, racism

“Wait- before we go any further- what’s this whole Obamacare thing?” Obamacare allows people to get health insurance. In America, health insurance is a for-profit business. Of course, there is Medicare and Medicaid, but those are for really old people or really poor people.

“I thought that program was called ACA?” Obamacare goes by many names. The official title is “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” although people shortened it to “affordable care act” then shortened it even more and abbreviated it to “ACA”. People gave it the nickname “Obamacare” because it was passed by Obama.

“So how does everyone else get health care?” Two ways: though their employer, or by a single plan. This means you can, on your own, shop around for the best price.

“What was the point of Obamacare then?” Prior to Obamacare, while you could get insurance through your employer, you couldn’t always get it on the single market. There are these things called “pre-existing conditions”, which means that you were sick before you bough their health care. This could mean anything from cancer to acne. If you had a pre-existing condition, the company could charge you more money since you have a history of medical problems, and might cost them more money in the future. In some cases, they would deny allowing you to buy their health care at all.

“Holy shit. Is it possible to buy health care while your sick?” Technically, yes. However, most insurance companies would not do that. If you had cancer, then went looking for health care, almost always it would be too expensive for people to get. In most cases, they would just deny you insurance. Of course, you could get it through work insurance, however, you have to work full time for a month before you can get the health care.

“So what problems of the health care system were solved with Obamacare becoming law?” Now companies couldn’t charge you more or deny you coverage if you had a pre-existing condition. Also, it gave more money for medicaid and medicare, so more people could be covered. It did a lot of other things, like help fund rural hospitals, although I don’t have to go into all, but those were the main ones.

“Why the fuck would the republicans want to repeal Obamacare? Why the fuck would anyone want it repealed!?” Because repealing it would give a major tax cut to the rich. Again, all about tax cuts.

“How did the American people support this?” Fox news and the right wing nut jobs created fear. Pundits and Republican law makers were on tv (including CNN) telling people that this was a government take over of health care. (It wasn’t. We still have the private health care industry.) They told bullshit stories of “death panels”, that the government would line people us and decide who was most deserving of cancer treatment.

Did the Republicans at least show their version of improving healthcare? Nope. For seven years, they ran on “repeal and replace”, yet never once showed what the “replace” part would be. They just kept telling people that once they got both chambers and the presidency, they would replace it with something better.

“Why wouldn’t they get a plan together before the 2016 presidential election?” They wanted to push it off another four years, since all the polls were showing that Hilary Clinton would win

“So when Republicans held onto both chambers and won the presidency, what did they do?” They made two major attempts, both in 2017, and both ended up failing

“What was the first one?” In late February of 2017, almost a month after Trump came into office, they tried to write a bill. Of course, the democrats wanted a copy, but the Republicans wouldn’t give them one. So on March 2nd, Democrats went on a legit scavenger hunt trying to track down a copy of the bill. They finally revealed it on March 6th. The bill ended up being too moderate for the right wingers, and to right wing form the moderates. Anyway, the bill got pulled before it could get a vote on March 24, just a few weeks later.

“The second one?” On June 22nd, 2017, they revealed another bill called “The Better Care Reconciliation Act.” They wanted to vote on it by the end of July. Just so you know, health care is 1/6 of the economy. In one moth, they wanted to recreate 1/6 of the fucking economy. Long story short, we got a few republicans to switch sides and vote with us. However, we needed just one more vote, In come John McCain, one of the few decent Republican left. On July 28, just after midnight around 12:30 AM, John McCain voted no, and you can watch it in this dramatic video

“So why did they vote no?” Americans put a ton of pressure on their senators and representatives.

“Wait- I heard that Republicans supported protecting people with pre-existing conditions this elections?” They lied. Most still wanted to get ride of protecting people with pre-existing conditions, but Obamacare has become too popular. For example, Republican Scott Walker, who just lost his seat to the Democrat Tony Evers, told people he supported the pre-existing conditions part of Obama care, all while he was part of a lawsuit challenging it in court.

“You mentioned them running on racism?” Yup. If you want a deeper dive in all the examples of racism in the 2018 midterms, read this Atlantic article

“How did the Republican party get so full of racist people?” It started with the TEA party in 2010, but took off with Trump. It has gotten so bad that In the 2018 elections, they had a white nationalist run in North Carolina.

“Are you saying that all republicans are racist?” No. Many republicans don’t hold these views. The republican base is shrinking, with those who just want tax cuts leaving. For example: Ana Navarro, a hispanic republican, decided to vote democrat in the Florida election. She was the hispanic chairwoman for the John McCain campaign in 2008.

“How did Trump play into the racism for the 2018 election?” He lied about the migrant caravan in South America. Basically, they the caravan is made up of people fleeing government oppression and violence in South America. Once they reach the US boarder, they are going to request asylum. This, of course, is legal. Yet Trump lied, falsely calling them an “invasion”. saying they there all a bunch of gang members who were going to kill Americans the moment they arrived. He said democrats were “too dangerous” to govern falsely saying that they would have “open boarders”

"I don’t hear much about the caravan now.” That’s because it was a political stunt- he din’t care about the caravan. He just used them to stir up fear for the elections. Of course, he still doesn’t want them in America. Yet he’s not going to talk about it because the elections are over.

“Obviously not all Americans fall for his lies, but why do I see Americans tweet and support his lies?” A lot, but certainly not all, are Russian bots trying to divide people

“Speaking of Russia, how did this whole Trump-Russian thing start even?” TL;DR He was being investigated way back in July 2016, fired the FBI investigating him in March 2017, and then a special prosecution council was made in May of 2017, with Robbert Muller being the lead prosecutor. Supposedly Muller is going to write his final report soon, but it hasn’t been confirmed.

“Shouldn’t this whole Russia thing all over the news?” There is so much going on that it is hard to just focus on the Russia investigation. The midterms, tax cuts, health care, immigration....all the things I listed above. Now it is only reported on if something massive happens- like an arrest or if someone is called to testify before congress.

“Wow, man, this shit show is really bad. The whole thing could have been avoided if Hilary got the majority of the votes.” She did. She won the popular vote by 2.5 million. If we were in any other democracy, be that Canada or Australia, she would be president right now. This also happened in the 2000 election, when George W Bush lost the popular vote yet became president

“Wait” You say “How the fuck does something like that happen?” Welp, get ready for your head to explode in anger [Part one] [Part two]

So....the guy who is trying to take away health care and give tax cuts to the rich is also they guy who lost the popular vote and could be working with Russia? Yup.

“Any good news?” We won the house, and for the next two years, we will make Trumps life a living hell.

Anyway, I’ll end here. This is about 2,700 words and I’m exhausted.

4 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

What Percentage Of Republicans Are White

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-percentage-of-republicans-are-white/

What Percentage Of Republicans Are White

Racial Differences In Vote Choice Are Still Huge

Since American presidential elections are so close, fairly small shifts in the electorate really matter in affecting who wins. But I worry that the medias understandable emphasis on those shifts often overshadows longstanding patterns in American politics that include the overwhelming majority of voters, who arent swinging between the two parties. Despite the news coverage that sometimes implies that non-Hispanic white voters with college degrees are all flocking to the Democrats, about 42 percent of that group backed Trump in 2020, according to the recently releasedCooperative Election Study. About 64 percent of Hispanic Americans backed Biden, per CES, which might be hard to remember amid the intense coverage of Trumps gains among that voting bloc.

related:Why The Recent Violence Against Asian Americans May Solidify Their Support Of Democrats Read more. »

In many ways, the 2020 election was basically like every recent Americanpresidentialelection: The Republican candidate won the white vote , and the Democratic candidate won the overwhelming majority of the Black , Asian American and Hispanic vote. Like in 2016, there was a huge difference among non-Hispanic white voters by education, as those with at least a four-year college degree favored Biden , while those without degrees favored Trump.

With all that said, however

Gender Gap In Party Identification Remains Widest In A Quarter Century

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the changes in partisan identification over time as well as the changing composition of the U.S. electorate and partisan coalitions. For this analysis, we used annual totals of data from Pew Research Center telephone surveys among registered voters. Due to smaller sample sizes in 2018 and 2019, the data from those years has been combined in Chapter 1. The surveys were conducted in both English and Spanish. Each survey reflects a balanced cross section of the nation, with the data weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, age, education, race and ethnicity and other categories.

Republicans hold wide advantages in party identification among several groups of voters, including white men without a college degree, people living in rural communities in the South and those who frequently attend religious services.

Democrats hold formidable advantages among a contrasting set of voters, such as black women, residents of urban communities in the Northeast and people with no religious affiliation.

With the presidential election on the horizon, the U.S. electorate continues to be deeply divided by race and ethnicity, education, gender, age and religion. The Republican and Democratic coalitions, which bore at least some demographic similarities in past decades, have strikingly different profiles today.

Johnson Declines Vaccine Most Wisconsin Gop Congressmen Mum

Even in Congress, some members have declined to get their shots. The Washington-based political site Axios reported on Sunday that only 75 percent of the House is confirmed to have been vaccinated against the coronavirus.

On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson said he had declined the vaccine because he had COVID-19 in October. That’s against the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I think that probably provides me the best immunity possible, actually having had the disease,” Johnson told CBS 58. “I don’t feel pressure that I need to get a vaccine. I’d rather let other people who want to get the vaccine get it before I do.”

The CDC says a vaccine provides better protection, and scientists dont yet know how long immunity from having had the disease lasts. Vaccinations for elected leaders started in December, and a supply of the drug was set aside for Congress.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., steps into an elevator as the Senate holds a voting marathon on the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill that’s expected to end with the chamber’s approval of the measure, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, March 5, 2021. When the Senate took up the measure on Thursday, Johnson forced an extraordinary half-day holdup on the bill by demanding the chamber’s clerks read aloud the entire 628-page measure which took 10 hours and 44 minutes and ended shortly after 2 a.m. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photos

What Is Happening To The Republicans

In becoming the party of Trump, the G.O.P. confronts the kind of existential crisis that has destroyed American parties in the past.

Save this story for later.

Content

But, for all the anxiety among Republican leaders, Goldwater prevailed, securing the nomination at the Partys convention, in San Francisco. In his speech to the delegates, he made no pretense of his ideological intent. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, he said. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Goldwaters crusade failed in November of 1964, when the incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, who had become President a year earlier, after Kennedys assassination, won in a landslide: four hundred and eighty-six to fifty-two votes in the Electoral College. Nevertheless, Goldwaters ascent was a harbinger of the future shape of the Republican Party. He represented an emerging nexus between white conservatives in the West and in the South, where five states voted for him over Johnson.

Shopping

agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

The Changing Composition Of The Electorate And Partisan Coalitions

The demographic profile of voters has changed in important ways over the past two decades. Overall, the electorate is getting older, and this is seen more among Republican voters than among Democrats.

In addition, the electorate, like the U.S. population, has become much more racially and ethnically diverse. This shift is reflected much more in the demographic profile of Democratic voters than among Republicans.

A majority of all registered voters are ages 50 and older. This is little changed from 2012 , though is much higher than in 2004 or 1996 .

The shares of both parties voters who are ages 50 and older have increased over the past two decades.

However, while a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters are ages 50 and older , a smaller share of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are in that age group . In 1996, the age composition of the two parties looked more similar. Roughly four-in-ten voters in both parties were at least 50 years old .

Nearly a quarter of voters are ages 65 and older, up from 20% eight years ago; by comparison, the share of voters who are under age 30 has remained relatively stable . Voters who are 65 and older make up larger shares in both parties than do voters under age 30. However, the difference is much larger among Republican voters than among Democrats .

Wide Divides In Partisanship Persist By Race And Ethnicity

Some of the largest differences in partisanship continue to be seen across racial and ethnic groups.

The GOP continues to maintain an advantage in leaned party identification among white voters . By contrast, sizable majorities of black, Hispanic and Asian American voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. Among black voters, 83% identify or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with just 10% who say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP.

The Democratic Party also holds a clear advantage over the GOP in leaned party identification among Hispanic voters , though the margin is not as large as among black voters.

Among English-speaking Asian American voters, 72% identify or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with just 17% who identify with or lean toward the GOP.

The balance of partisanship among white, black and Hispanic voters has been generally stable over the past decade. However, English-speaking Asian American voters have shifted toward the Democratic Party.

Black Leaders Were Gradually Pushed Out

For a generation after Reconstructions end, these Southern state parties had a significant number of black Republicans in leadership positions. In Texas, for example, Norris Wright Cuney a black man was the state party boss between 1884 and 1896.

But over time, white-supremacist Republicans known as the Lily-Whites pushed black leaders like Cuney and their white allies known as the Black-and-Tans out of the party.

Although this fight was mostly over control of federal patronage, the Lily-Whites argued that the only way for the GOP to win elections in the region again was to become a white party and purge its black leaders. This was because black voters were largely disenfranchised and white Southern voters were unwilling to vote for a Negro party.

To find out how and when Lily-Whites took control of each Republican state party organization, we collected data on the race of all Southern delegates to Republican National Conventions between 1868 and 1952. Our data shows a common pattern: Most Southern states saw a major decline in black leadership at some point in the early 20th century.

In some states like North Carolina, Alabama and Virginia the purge of black leaders was quick and lasting. Other states fended off the Lily-Whites for a time. Mississippi, for example, remained under the control of Perry Howard, a black man, until 1960 and consistently sent majority black delegations to the GOP convention.

Percent Of Republican Men Have Favorable View Of White Nationalists

Benjamin Fearnow, Newsweek, July 31, 2021

Anew poll shows that nearly a quarter of Republican men surveyed said they have either a very or somewhat favorable view of white nationalists in America today, while a double-digit percentage of the GOP male voters have a very favorable view of white nationalist groups.

A Morning Consult national tracking poll of 2,000 registered U.S. voters was released Friday and found that voters overall reject white supremacist groups by overwhelming percentages.

But among Republican-leaning male voters, 23 percent responded that they have a favorable view of white nationalist groups. Eleven percent of Republican men surveyed said they have a very favorable view while 12 percent said they are only somewhat favorable to white nationalists in the United States.

Seventeen percent of Democrat men in the survey said they have some form of favorable view of white nationalist groups.

Only 7 percent of overall registered U.S. voters said they have a favorable view of white supremacistsseveral percentage points lower than so-called white nationalists.

On the other hand, the survey found a more than two-thirds majority of both Republican men and women said they have a very unfavorable view of Antifa. And even among Democrats and Independents, Antifa barely registered any support above single-digit percentiles.

Percent Of Republican Men Have Favorable View Of White Nationalists: Poll

A new poll shows that nearly a quarter of Republican men surveyed said they have either a very or somewhat favorable view of white nationalists in America today, while a double-digit percentage of the GOP male voters have a “very favorable” view of white nationalist groups.

A Morning Consult national tracking poll of 2,000 registered U.S. voters was released Friday and found that voters overall reject white supremacist groups by overwhelming percentages. And large majorities say they’ve either never heard of or have no opinion of Antifa, a loose-knit group of anti-fascists.

But among Republican-leaning male voters, 23 percent responded that they have a favorable view of white nationalist groups. Eleven percent of Republican men surveyed said they have a “very favorable” view while 12 percent said they are only “somewhat” favorable to white nationalists in the United States.

Seventeen percent of Democrat men in the survey said they have some form of “favorable” view of white nationalist groups.

The poll showed that Republican men outweighed self-described “conservative” men in offering support to white nationalist groups by sizable percentages. And only about half of GOP women who were surveyed expressed any positive views of white nationalists compared to their male counterparts.

Only 7 percent of overall registered U.S. voters said they have a favorable view of white supremacistsseveral percentage points lower than so-called white nationalists.

National Polls Show Lower White And Older Support For Trump

Exit polls released by the national election consortium Edison Research allow for national- and state-level comparisons with those from 2016. Figure 1 shows the shifts in Democratic minus Republican voter margins for racial groups.

While whites continued to favor the Republican candidate in 2020as they have in every presidential election since 1968it is notable that this margin was reduced from 20% to 17% nationally. At the same time, the Democratic margins for each of the major nonwhite groups was somewhat reduced. The Black Democratic marginwhile still high, at 75%was the lowest in a presidential election since 2004. The Latino or Hispanic and Asian American Democratic margins of 33% and 27% were the lowest since the 2004 and 2008 elections, respectively. These shifts do not apply to all states, and are not applicable to most battleground states where voters of color were crucial to Bidens win

It is clear that white voting blocs start at different levels of Democratic or Republican support. In fact, there was a modest decline in Republican support in a key Trump base: white men without college educations. This group showed a reduced Republican advantage from 48% to a still sizeable 42% between 2016 and 2020.

When Will Republicans Face Demographic Reality

In 2013, after the Republican Party had lost the popular vote for the fifth time in six elections, the Republican National Committee issued its Growth and Opportunity Project report better known as the autopsy report calling for the GOP to recognize and respond to the nations changing demographics. Under the heading America Looks Different, the report observed that whites would become a minority sometime in the 2040s. Unless greater numbers of Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans could be persuaded to vote Republican, the reports authors warned, demographic changes would tilt the playing field even more in the Democratic direction.

Donald Trump, as the Republican presidential candidate in 2016, rejected virtually every recommendation advanced by the autopsy report and still managed to win, even while losing the popular vote. Although the movement toward the majority-minority crossover has continued apace during Trumps presidency, the proposition that demographic change will deliver the Democrats an enduring electoral majority no longer seems as imminent as it once did.

The report refrains from making predictions about which party is likely to benefit from the shifts that it describes. Two papers that accompany the report, however, do speculate on whether these changes will prove baneful or beneficial for the long-term political health of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party Is Getting Even Whiter

The House’s only black Republican will not seek re-election.

Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

Representative Will Hurd applauds before NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addresses a Joint Meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill.

Will Hurd apparently had enough. The Texas congressman announced last week that he will not run for re-election, one of a string of Republicans to do so in recent days. Perhaps it was that being in the congressional minority is no fun, or perhaps Hurd felt isolated as a relative moderate . Or perhaps it was the fact that as the lone African American Republican in the House, Hurd could no longer stand being asked to defend Donald Trump.

Whatever the reason, Hurd’s departure was just the most vivid recent illustration of the fact that the Republican Party, already extraordinarily white and male, is getting even more so. There are only 13 women among the 197 Republicans in the House of Representatives, making their caucus an incredible 93 percent male. Two of those women have already announced that they won’t be running for re-election in 2020 either. And as it stands now, the GOPs congressional representatives in Congress are 95 percent white.

Keep this site free and open for all to read…

Discrimination Against Whites Needs More Attention Say About Half Of White Republicans In 3 Southern States

In Georgia, white likely voters are divided along party lines on their views of the attention given to discrimination against Black people. Some 77 percent of white Republicans say “too much attention” is being paid to the topic, versus 14 percent of white Democrats, according to a CBS News/YouGov poll of about 3,500 voters in the Southern states of Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.

About half of white registered Republican voters in those states say more attention needs to be given to discrimination against white people in their communities. Black voters polled in the states overwhelmingly say President Donald Trump is paying “too little attention” to the “needs and problems” of Black people.

Among white likely voters in Georgia, Democrats largely agree with Black voters’ views on racial discrimination against Black people, with 58 percent say “not enough” attention is focused on it, versus only six percent of white Republicans. Black likely voters in Georgia are predominately in agreement, at 74 percent, that “not enough” attention is given to discrimination against Black people. Only 11 percent said “too much” attention is being given to it.

Although white people in Georgia are widely divided along party lines in terms of their racial discrimination views, gender distinctions reveal men are more likely to approve of Trump’s views on discrimination than women.

Newsweek reached out to both presidential campaigns for additional remarks Sunday afternoon.

Republicans Can Govern Without Winning A Majority That Threatens Our Democracy

Other surveys and precinct-level data suggest that the Trump swing among Hispanics could have been larger than CES found, with Trump gainingin the upper-single digits and winning the support of over 35 percent of Latino voters. But generally, the story of 2020 is that Trump did better with Asian American and Hispanic voters than in 2016, while Biden did better than Hillary Clinton among non-Hispanic white voters.

And these shifts had electoral consequences. Republicans flipped two U.S. House seats in California with Asian American candidates running in those districts, which have relatively high shares Asian American voters. Gains by Trump and GOP congressional candidates among Miami-area Latino voters helped flip two more House seats to the GOP, according to a new analysis of Latino voters by Equis Research. Arguably the most important shift in the electorate was Bidens gain with white voters, since white voters are both the largest bloc in the electorate and make up a disproportionately large share of the vote in swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Southern Black Voters Used To Support Republicans

Right after the Civil War, black voters were the Republican Partys main supporters in the South. When formerly enslaved blacks became eligible to vote and run for office, they voted for the party of Lincoln, and GOP state organizations in the South were biracial. Both blacks and whites held leadership positions in the party.

Beginning in the early 1870s, Southern Democrats in cooperation with terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan began to restrict black suffrage. They did so first through direct violence and intimidation and, later, by passing legislation to effectively disenfranchise black citizens. As a result, the GOP lost its core constituency.

In a recent article, and in our forthcoming book, , we look at Republican state party organizations in the South before the civil rights era. While the GOP consistently lost Southern elections between the late 1870s and the middle of the 20th century, each Southern state had its own Republican Party organization. These organizations focused not on winning elections, but on participating in national conventions and distributing federal patronage when a Republican held the White House.

Polling Data Shows Republican Party Affiliation Is Down As Independents Leaning Toward The Democratic Party Surge

Democrats have a nine-percentage-point affiliation advantage over Republicans at the moment.

Resize icon

The GOP is losing its grip, according to the latest Gallup poll.

The number of Americans identifying as Republicans or as independents who lean toward the GOP dropped to 40% in the first quarter of 2021, compared with the number of Democrats or independents leaning toward the Democratic party hitting 49%. And that nine-percentage-point lead is the greatest Democratic advantage that Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012, when former President Barack Obama was re-elected.

Gallup routinely measures U.S. adults party identification and the political leanings of independents. The latest poll surveyed a random sample of 3,960 U.S. adults by phone between January and March of 2021. And while Democratic Party affiliation actually dropped by one point from the fourth quarter of 2020, to 30% where it has hovered for most of the past eight years the number of Americans identifying as independent rose to 44% from 38% last quarter. And this growing number of independents came at the expense of the Republican party, as 19% of independents said they lean Democrat, compared with 15% leaning Republican. Most of the remaining 11% of independents didnt swing either way.

And several events have happened during those three months that could position the Democratic Party more favorably in voters eyes, the Gallup report noted.

Opinion:

White Male Minority Rule Pervades Politics Across The Us Research Shows

White men are 30% of US population but 62% of officeholders

Incredibly limited perspective represented in halls of power

From county officials and sheriffs to governors and senators, white male minority rule pervades politics in the United States, according to a new report published on Wednesday.

White men represent 30% of the population but 62% of officeholders, dominating both chambers of Congress, 42 state legislatures and statewide roles across the nation, the analysis shows.

I think if we saw these numbers in another country, we would say there is something very wrong with that political system, said Brenda Choresi Carter, the campaigns director.

We would say, how could that possibly be a democratic system with that kind of demographic mismatch?

Two factors perpetuate white male control over virtually every lever of US government: the huge advantage enjoyed by incumbents, and the Republican partys continued focus on mostly white male candidates.

As the US barrels toward a minority-white population within a matter of decades, some believe elected officials will inevitably become more diverse. But that logic is flawed: women have always been half of the country, and they are still chronically underrepresented in government.

Last November, 96% of congressional incumbents held on to their seats, suggesting that officeholders who win their primaries benefit from a similar edge during the general election.

The Gop Is Still The White Party And American Politics Are As Racial As Ever

Chris Roberts, American Renaissance, November 6, 2020

According to exit polls, which are subject to revision, Donald Trumps share of the non-white vote was higher in 2020 than 2016, but the increase was very small.

Group

36 percent

40 percent

Some may be tempted to write about these numbers deceptively: In 2020, Donald Trump won 150 percent of his 2016 share of the black vote. Thats true 12 percent is 150 percent of 8 percent, but its still a small number, and it lacks context. Since 1964, Republican presidential candidates have won between 4 and 15 percent of the black vote. In 2016, Mr. Trump was on the low end of that range; in 2020, he reached its high end. However, it is not exceptionally high, and out of 12 other Republican candidacies since 1964, five did as well as Mr. Trump or better.

Almost every election, conservative Pollyannas claim this will be the year the GOP wins one third of the black vote. This year, like every other, proved them wrong.

Trump is going to win more of the black vote than any Republican in history.

2020 32 percent

As with Georgie W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, two states gave him a big push with Hispanics: Texas and Florida, where a large share of Hispanics live, and where they are most conservative and most likely to consider themselves white. In 2016, candidate Trump won 34 percent of Texas Hispanics; in 2020 he won 40 percent. In 2016, Trump won 35 percent of Florida Hispanics; in 2020 he won 47 percent.

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years ago

Text

What Percentage Of Republicans Are White

Racial Differences In Vote Choice Are Still Huge

youtube

related:Why The Recent Violence Against Asian Americans May Solidify Their Support Of Democrats Read more. »

With all that said, however

Gender Gap In Party Identification Remains Widest In A Quarter Century

Democrats hold formidable advantages among a contrasting set of voters, such as black women, residents of urban communities in the Northeast and people with no religious affiliation.

Johnson Declines Vaccine Most Wisconsin Gop Congressmen Mum

On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson said he had declined the vaccine because he had COVID-19 in October. That’s against the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

What Is Happening To The Republicans

In becoming the party of Trump, the G.O.P. confronts the kind of existential crisis that has destroyed American parties in the past.

Save this story for later.

Content

Shopping

The Changing Composition Of The Electorate And Partisan Coalitions

A majority of all registered voters are ages 50 and older. This is little changed from 2012 , though is much higher than in 2004 or 1996 .

The shares of both parties voters who are ages 50 and older have increased over the past two decades.

Wide Divides In Partisanship Persist By Race And Ethnicity

Some of the largest differences in partisanship continue to be seen across racial and ethnic groups.

The Democratic Party also holds a clear advantage over the GOP in leaned party identification among Hispanic voters , though the margin is not as large as among black voters.

Among English-speaking Asian American voters, 72% identify or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with just 17% who identify with or lean toward the GOP.

Black Leaders Were Gradually Pushed Out

But over time, white-supremacist Republicans known as the Lily-Whites pushed black leaders like Cuney and their white allies known as the Black-and-Tans out of the party.

Percent Of Republican Men Have Favorable View Of White Nationalists

Benjamin Fearnow, Newsweek, July 31, 2021

A Morning Consult national tracking poll of 2,000 registered U.S. voters was released Friday and found that voters overall reject white supremacist groups by overwhelming percentages.

Seventeen percent of Democrat men in the survey said they have some form of favorable view of white nationalist groups.

Only 7 percent of overall registered U.S. voters said they have a favorable view of white supremacistsseveral percentage points lower than so-called white nationalists.

Percent Of Republican Men Have Favorable View Of White Nationalists: Poll

youtube

A new poll shows that nearly a quarter of Republican men surveyed said they have either a very or somewhat favorable view of white nationalists in America today, while a double-digit percentage of the GOP male voters have a “very favorable” view of white nationalist groups.

But among Republican-leaning male voters, 23 percent responded that they have a favorable view of white nationalist groups. Eleven percent of Republican men surveyed said they have a “very favorable” view while 12 percent said they are only “somewhat” favorable to white nationalists in the United States.

Seventeen percent of Democrat men in the survey said they have some form of “favorable” view of white nationalist groups.

Only 7 percent of overall registered U.S. voters said they have a favorable view of white supremacistsseveral percentage points lower than so-called white nationalists.

National Polls Show Lower White And Older Support For Trump

When Will Republicans Face Demographic Reality

The Republican Party Is Getting Even Whiter

The House’s only black Republican will not seek re-election.

Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

Representative Will Hurd applauds before NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addresses a Joint Meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill.

Keep this site free and open for all to read…

Discrimination Against Whites Needs More Attention Say About Half Of White Republicans In 3 Southern States

Newsweek reached out to both presidential campaigns for additional remarks Sunday afternoon.

Republicans Can Govern Without Winning A Majority That Threatens Our Democracy

Southern Black Voters Used To Support Republicans

Polling Data Shows Republican Party Affiliation Is Down As Independents Leaning Toward The Democratic Party Surge

Democrats have a nine-percentage-point affiliation advantage over Republicans at the moment.

Resize icon

The GOP is losing its grip, according to the latest Gallup poll.

And several events have happened during those three months that could position the Democratic Party more favorably in voters eyes, the Gallup report noted.

Opinion:

White Male Minority Rule Pervades Politics Across The Us Research Shows

youtube

White men are 30% of US population but 62% of officeholders

Incredibly limited perspective represented in halls of power

From county officials and sheriffs to governors and senators, white male minority rule pervades politics in the United States, according to a new report published on Wednesday.

White men represent 30% of the population but 62% of officeholders, dominating both chambers of Congress, 42 state legislatures and statewide roles across the nation, the analysis shows.

I think if we saw these numbers in another country, we would say there is something very wrong with that political system, said Brenda Choresi Carter, the campaigns director.

We would say, how could that possibly be a democratic system with that kind of demographic mismatch?

Last November, 96% of congressional incumbents held on to their seats, suggesting that officeholders who win their primaries benefit from a similar edge during the general election.

The Gop Is Still The White Party And American Politics Are As Racial As Ever

Chris Roberts, American Renaissance, November 6, 2020

According to exit polls, which are subject to revision, Donald Trumps share of the non-white vote was higher in 2020 than 2016, but the increase was very small.

Group

36 percent

40 percent

Almost every election, conservative Pollyannas claim this will be the year the GOP wins one third of the black vote. This year, like every other, proved them wrong.

Trump is going to win more of the black vote than any Republican in history.

2020 32 percent

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-percentage-of-republicans-are-white/

0 notes

totalconservative · 4 years ago

Text

New Post has been published on Total Conservative News

New Post has been published on http://totalconservative.com/georgia-launches-250-investigations-into-voter-fraud-claims/

Georgia Launches 250 Investigations Into Voter Fraud Claims

At a press conference on Monday, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced that the state is diligently chasing down legitimate claims of voter fraud, working hard to determine the validity of those claims and to prevent further illegitimacy from spoiling the upcoming Senate runoff races due to take place in January.

While Raffensperger was unequivocal about the state’s determination to expose and prosecute voter fraud, he took issue with some of the claims being made about the 2020 election. He didn’t specifically name any of the “dishonest actors” spreading “massive amounts of misinformation,” but he did lambast them for “exploiting the emotions of many Trump supporters with fantastic claims, half truths, misinformation, and frankly, they are misleading the president as well.”

He continued: “As we move forward in the process, we will, as we always have been, we will continue to investigate credible claims of illegal voting and violation of state election law. There are currently over 250 open cases from 2020 and we have 23 investigators to follow up on that. Some of these include, a charge Gwinnett County that absentee ballots outnumber absentee envelopes. This is the kind of specific charge that our office can investigate and ascertain the truth.”

Raffensperger said that as important as it is for Georgia officials to uncover fraud in the 2020 election, it is no less essential to make sure that fraud does not taint the Senate runoffs.

“That is why I’m announcing an investigation into third party groups working to register people in other states to vote here in Georgia,” he said. “We have opened an investigation into a group called America Votes who is sending absentee ballot applications to people at addresses where they have not lived since 1994; Vote Forward, who attempted to register a dead Alabama voter, a woman, to vote here in Georgia; The New Georgia Project, who sent voter registration applications to New York City, at Operation New Voter Registration Georgia, who is telling college students in Georgia that they can change their residency to Georgia and then change it back after the election.”

This is a point worth paying attention to, by the way. Knowing they are completely exempt from critical media coverage, Democrat activist groups are passionately trying to basically bus voters into Georgia for the runoff elections, hoping that they can get around the letter of the law by registering them as residents. If Republicans were pulling this scheme, you would hear the howls as far away as the moon. Democrats, though, know they can get away with anything.

After all, they just did.

0 notes

dailynewswebsite · 4 years ago

Text

The clothes make the candidate: The sartorial politics of this year’s key Senate races

Conservative go well with? Examine. Rep tie? Examine. Mitch McConnell seems each inch a senator. Scott Applewhite/Getty

When Richard Nixon praised his spouse’s “respectable Republican material coat” in his 1952 Checkers speech, her garments weren’t the purpose.

Quite, Nixon drew a direct line from a coat to the values he proclaimed – frugality, integrity, public service – to counter accusations of monetary impropriety.

Nixon understood that garments are the story we inform about ourselves. Psychologist Dan McAdams’ work on narrative identification highlights the significance of the tales we inform about ourselves to our capacity to make sense of our place on the planet.

For a lot of – significantly public figures – clothes is a extra intentional, outward manifestation of their story, or narrative identification: It reveals who they need to be, the model of themselves they need the world to see.

For politicians, clothes is a option to challenge authenticity, or consistency with a super sort. Perceptions of authenticity give voters confidence in candidates’ integrity, persuading them that candidates will fulfill marketing campaign guarantees as soon as elected.

It’s worthwhile contemplating the message candidates ship via their costume. Towards what ideally suited will voters measure them? The style selections displayed in three of this 12 months’s high-profile U.S. Senate races present some illustrative contrasts.

The household of Richard and Pat Nixon, after he received the GOP nomination for president in 1960. Bettmann/Getty Photos

Decisions totally different for incumbents, challengers

As an organizational theorist who researches authenticity and social analysis, I discover that we decide others – imperfectly – based mostly on how carefully we really feel their picture matches their message.

Most political challengers discover it simple to challenge authenticity via costume. They will tailor their wardrobe to focus on themes from their campaigns and private histories. This guides voters’ understanding of who the candidate is and what they stand for.

The wrinkle: Sending a message with clothes is inherently trickier for incumbents as a result of their workplace constrains the picture they will challenge. A gubernatorial candidate can put on denims and boots to the state honest, however as soon as put in within the Capitol, they’ll extra typically be seen in a go well with. A fast Google Picture seek for a present candidate and the incumbent they’re difficult reveals a near-universal fact: As soon as elected, the candidate’s most seen public picture is that of the workplace they maintain.

This implies that whereas a candidate will be genuine to their distinctive marketing campaign message, the incumbent is extra more likely to be genuine to their workplace, as an alternative.

Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly is usually seen in bomber jackets. ActBlue

Clothes as a marketing campaign message

In Arizona, Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly – astronaut, husband of former Consultant Gabby Giffords – goes tieless in sports activities jackets or a bomber jacket.

His informal look telegraphs that he’s not a Washington insider. By referencing his navy and NASA background, he tasks the experience wanted to take an knowledgeable stance on nationwide safety and the authority to take a robust place on local weather change, a serious space of analysis at NASA.

Kelly is difficult incumbent Republican Sen. Martha McSally, a former Air Power pilot and Afghanistan veteran. She favors streamlined fits and sheaths, typically in daring reds, her hair a lot sleeker than in earlier campaigns. As a result of McSally’s costume reveals no trace of her background, she could also be sending the message that her navy expertise doesn’t outline her.

GOP Sen. Martha McSally in one in all her streamlined fits. Ross D. Franklin/AP

In Maine, Democratic Speaker of the Maine Home of Representatives Sara Gideon is usually seen at work in double-stranded pearls with a costume or a contemporary, tailor-made jacket. Her marketing campaign supplies present her together with her younger household in informal jackets – as soon as in a Patagonia model, a gaffe within the house state of L.L. Bean. She later eliminated the Patagonia brand from the photograph. Gideon’s relatable, chic-mom vibe suggests to voters that well being care and schooling could also be matters of precise dialog at her kitchen desk slightly than summary coverage points.

Maine Democrat Sara Gideon, who’s difficult GOP Sen. Susan Collins, in a photograph from her marketing campaign web site. Gideon marketing campaign website

Gideon faces incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, who hails from Caribou, Maine, a metropolis of seven,600, the place her household based a lumber enterprise in 1844. Collins wears fits in deep, saturated colours, often with a pop of pink, and costly coats of the type not typically seen in rural areas. Her model is that of a Washington insider, belying nothing of her background or Down East values.

Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, in one in all her strongly coloured fits. Win McNamee/Getty

Lastly, distinction Senate Majority Chief Mitch McConnell, a Republican, with Democratic challenger Amy McGrath, battling for this Kentucky Senate seat. McConnell, on Capitol Hill since 1984, prefers darkish, well-cut fits and basic, jewel-toned ties, typically with a varsity stripe.

Senate Majority Chief Mitch McConnell, trying like a senator in a well-tailored go well with. Alex Wong/Getty Photos

McConnell’s costly garments make it clear how far he has come from his childhood in Alabama and Georgia, when his household “virtually went broke” coping with the results of his bout with polio.

McGrath is a former Marine fighter pilot and Afghanistan veteran. She favors open-collared shirts and flight jackets and is usually seen together with her three younger youngsters. Marketing campaign pictures typically function her in navy gear, giving voters the impression that she has credibility to talk on international coverage and veterans’ points.

Amy McGrath, who’s difficult Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is a veteran who typically wears open-collared shirts and flight jackets. McGrath marketing campaign web site

The straitjacket of incumbency

Every challenger is ready to current a picture in line with each their marketing campaign platforms and their private histories. Their clothes presents a totally elaborated identification assertion – with out saying a phrase.

In distinction, the incumbents’ virtually uniform-like clothes offers voters little perception into both their personas or coverage positions. Their tailor-made silhouettes point out their membership within the political class, making individuation troublesome.

Observe that every incumbent’s marketing campaign web site additionally focuses far more on their incumbency than discrete coverage points.

Incumbency creates an authenticity bind: Incumbents can’t challenge each their workplaces and themselves concurrently.

That is maybe most constraining within the U.S. Senate, the place the principles of decorum are significantly sturdy. Most senators, with the notable exception of Kyrsten Sinema, stick with darkish, severe fits and ties. Members of the Home are allowed extra idiosyncrasies – assume Jim Jordan’s rejection of jackets or Matt Gaetz’s colourful wing suggestions.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

However senators have a tendency towards what sociologists name homophily, or flocking with related others. The consequence: They costume extra alike over time.

Incumbents’ sartorial constraints could enchantment to voters preferring a candidate with a demonstrable observe file, nevertheless it offers valuable little perception into the incumbent’s private historical past or governing priorities. The perfect sort to which these incumbents are genuine, subsequently, is that of senator.

Garments could not decide this 12 months’s winners, however the authenticity considerations that made Pat Nixon’s coat a strong picture nonetheless play a vital position in politicians’ lives. To a big extent, the clothes makes the candidate – if not the incumbent.

Jo-Ellen Pozner doesn’t work for, seek the advice of, personal shares in or obtain funding from any firm or organisation that might profit from this text, and has disclosed no related affiliations past their tutorial appointment.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/the-clothes-make-the-candidate-the-sartorial-politics-of-this-years-key-senate-races/ via https://growthnews.in

#Growth News

0 notes

abcnewspr · 5 years ago

Text

ABC NEWS PRESENTS SPECIAL COVERAGE OF THE DISPARITIES IN RACE AND CLASS AMID THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC

‘Pandemic – A Nation Divided’ Begins Tomorrow, May 20, Across All ABC News

ABC News announced today it will present special coverage for three days across ABC News to examine the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities amid the coronavirus pandemic. “Pandemic – A Nation Divided” kicks off on Wednesday, May 20 with new stories about how the virus has heightened racial/ethnic and socioeconomic divides coast-to-coast. The most recent statistics are troubling: in the nation’s capital, Latinos have been seven times more likely to be infected with coronavirus than white residents; black residents in Chicago are nearly three times more likely to die than white city residents and in Georgia 80% of COVID-19 hospitalizations are African Americans; in New York City African Americans are twice as likely to die of the virus than white residents and in New York State, of the 21 zip codes with the most new COVID-19 hospitalizations, 20 have greater than average black and/or Latino populations.

“As the COVID-19 global pandemic became a black, brown and working class epidemic in America, we quickly recognized there was an urgent need to tell more stories from these communities,” said Marie Nelson, SVP of Integrated Content Strategy, ABC News. “It is incredibly heartening to see every corner of ABC News think big and deeply for a cohesive examination of the many sobering stories that have made the racial and class divide, stemming from this pandemic, more apparent across this country.”

The latest ABC News reporting on COVID-19 is available here: https://abcnews.go.com/alerts/coronavirus.

MaryAlice Parks serves as Supervising Producer on “Pandemic – A Nation Divided.”

This special coverage between May 20-22 includes:

“Nightline”

Co-anchor Juju Chang will give a glimpse into the pandemic’s epicenter in the U.S. – the Bronx. As she walks neighborhood by neighborhood, Chang will connect the dots about public housing, close quarter living, food deserts and underlying health hazards. She talks to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a NYC bus driver who has lost co-workers to the virus and now works double shifts because thousands of his colleagues are out sick and a young city council member raised in public housing. “Nightline” also meets a local Latino doctor working to expand testing.

Co-anchor Byron Pitts will bring viewers to central Mississippi, where an immigrant, who was detained in massive raids that targeted local meat processing plants in early August, opens up about the hazardous conditions and outbreaks inside the area’s poultry plants and detention centers. He says he and other detainees say they asked for PPE for weeks before receiving any. “Nightline” talks to Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba and Dr. Charles Robertson, who works at one of the largest hospitals in the state and has built 170 ventilators of his own design.

Correspondent Deborah Roberts will shine a light on the suburbs of Chicago where a family with mixed immigration status live in a multi-generational home. One family member works at an Amazon warehouse, another at a meat-packing plant, and their story displays the risk of going to work and the complications and limitations of trying to social-distance at home. “Nightline” also speaks with other Amazon center employees who have been calling for safer working conditions, fearful that they could bring the virus home.

“World News Tonight with David Muir”

Chief National Correspondent Matt Gutman travels to Navajo Nation, the reservation spanning the corners of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, that has lost more of its citizens in the pandemic than many states with experts predicting their peak is yet to come. “World News Tonight” speaks to Native doctors who are battling the virus that has ravaged their people and distributing food and medicine. The report examines how the Navajo are fighting to keep traditions alive amidst some of the strictest lockdown measures in the country and features one hard-hit multi-generational family that lost relatives and even their home.

Correspondent Alex Perez reports from the streets of Chicago, a city facing two public health crises: COVID-19 and continued gun violence. Despite safer at home measures, the city has experienced an uptick in crime. “World News Tonight” follows an outreach worker in the Roseland area, who is part of Chicago CRED, a frontline group working to break the cycle of violence in the community and now informing the public about the seriousness of the pandemic, and visits a testing center performing approximately 100 tests a day in a mostly African American and Latino neighborhood. In addition, an emergency room physician paints a real picture of racial disparity in COVID-19 cases in city hospitals.

Correspondent Adrienne Bankert visits the Bronx to report on how community groups like East Side House Settlement are helping families find solutions to the challenges they’re facing during the COVID-19 crisis including remote learning, food shortages, and job insecurity. Bankert interviews Daniel Diaz, Executive Director of East Side House Settlement, about how the organization has given out free hotspots as well as more than 230 tablets to students in its community so they can continue their learning. Diaz also shares the various other ways the nonprofit has pivoted from workforce/education development to filling even the most basic needs for residents including distributing food weekly, making remote health and safety check-ins on families and students and helping pay some residents’ bills. “World News Tonight” also highlights some Bronx families willing to give an inside look at how they’re tackling distance learning and their plans for the summer and concerns as the fall 2020 school year quickly approaches.

“Good Morning America”

Senior National Correspondent Paula Faris will report on the role that The Boys and Girls Club has played in offering child care to essential workers.

Multi-Platform Reporter Rachel Scott will interview leaders at Howard University who are offering free coronavirus tests in especially hard-hit communities in the nation’s capital.

“The View”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will discuss the racial disparity in COVID-19 cases plaguing communities across the country when he joins the co-hosts on Thursday.

“Pandemic: What You Need to Know”

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves will address the deep racial divide in cases and the explosion of cases near detention centers, prisons and meat-packing plants.

Jonathan Nez, President of Navajo Nation, will discuss how the virus has threatened their communities, and Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Randall Woodfin will highlight his economic plan for bringing his city back.

Dr. Monica Goldston, CEO of Prince George's County Schools, will add her thoughts on how to make sure no low-income and minority children in Maryland get left behind.

A profile of Fawn Weaver, an inspiring African American woman owner of a whiskey distillery, will feature how she pivoted her company to respond to the crisis.

“ABC News Live Prime” with Linsey Davis

Anchor Linsey Davis will explore how the virus has set back residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods struggling to get out. She looks closely at one Brooklyn neighborhood where a child mourns the loss of his mother who died in a hospital struggling to stay open. This child who will now have to be raised by his grandmother now faces a future uncertain because the school he attends doesn’t know if it will reopen in the fall.

Correspondent Diane Macedo will profile the struggles of an Illinois and Texas family with mixed immigration status who are trying to wade through COVID-19 benefits that appear to have left many of them out.

Scott will examine the COVID-19 experience on one of the wealthiest and poorest neighborhoods in our nation’s capital.

Roberts will spotlight black leaders who have stepped up as the cavalry to save their own neighborhoods.

ABC News and GMA Digital

ABCNews.com will pay tribute to thought leaders and pioneers who have been lost to COVID-19, offer a look at how the black church in America will rebuild after losing so many members of clergy and provide a close examination of how minority-small businesses are struggling to get federal economic relief.

A feature on Asian American-owned small businesses will give an inside look into the unique economic realities and hardships they’re facing.

Original produced video pieces will feature experts offering reasons for long-standing health and economic disparities in the country and next steps.

GoodMorningAmerica.com will feature and profile graduating seniors, extraordinary young men and women of color, who overcame incredible odds.

FiveThirtyEight

A new investigative project will launch that analyzes testing site availability and breaks down how access to COVID-19 testing varies by race, income and more.

“This Week with George Stephanopoulos”

The Powerhouse roundtable will discuss voting and voting access, as well as new polling about the uneven toll of the virus and anxieties about getting back to work.

ABC Audio

“Start Here” podcast hosted by Brad Mielke will explore the intersection of COVID-19 and race through health and the pre-existing conditions that lead to greater sickness, the lack of resources for vulnerable populations and the potential for skepticism of medical care in general; the economic impact on families; and how this crisis has shaped communities for the long term and could exacerbate historic inequities and where things could land a generation from now.

Special editions of the daily radio special and podcast “COVID-19: What You Need to Know,” hosted by Correspondent Aaron Katersky, will be released each day. In addition to answering questions about the virus itself, the special editions will examine how COVID-19 affects different communities unevenly.

This Friday ABC Audio will also release a special edition of the radio newsmagazine and podcast “Perspective,” hosted by ABC News Radio Anchor Cheri Preston. The hour-long program will focus entirely on issues of race and ethnicity, and how some groups have been more at risk during the pandemic.

ABC NewsOne

The affiliate news service of ABC News will offer stations a report from Multi-Platform Reporter Alex Presha on the challenges minority-owned small businesses are facing in the time of the pandemic and his interview with NAACP President Derrick Johnson. NewsOne will also provide resources for ABC stations to support their coverage of this issue. NewsOne provides news content and services for more than 200 ABC affiliates and international news partners.

ABC Owned Television Stations

On Wednesday, 6abc/WPVI-TV Philadelphia will contribute to the Pandemic: A Nation Divided special with anchor Nydia Han airing a report on the racial discrimination faced by the Asian American community and the support to extinguish racism, and reporter George Solis presenting a digital reporter’s notebook from the perspective of a Hispanic American reporter and the impact on his community. And, on Thursday, WLS-TV Chicago will air an investigative report on Cook County to examine the health complications more likely experienced by African Americans and the increased likelihood of Latinx communities to contract the disease.

On Wednesday, ABC7/KABC-TV Los Angeles will host a virtual town hall, “Race and Coronavirus: A SoCal Conversation,” featuring Veronica Miracle and Los Angeles-based doctors and leaders to discuss how the virus has affected the health and finances of racial and ethnic groups and contributed to the rise of discrimination.

On Thursday, ABC13/KTRK-TV Houston will host its second virtual Town Hall to discuss the racial impact of COVID-19, focusing on the Asian American Community. Hosted by ABC13’s Eyewitness News reporter Miya Shay, the town hall coincides with the observance of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) Heritage Month to discuss the disparate challenges of COVID-19 faced by the 7% of Houstonians that identify as AAPI. KTRK-TV Houston’s first virtual town hall (5/7/20) featured Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

The virtual town halls are the latest in a series of community offerings across the owned markets: WABC-TV New York hosted an Instagram Live Town Hall ‘Coronavirus Pandemic Impact on African Americans: Mortality, Messaging and Money’ (4/29/20); KABC-TV Los Angeles exclusively streamed the Minority Health Institute Virtual Town Hall on the Impact of COVID-19 in African American Communities (4/30/20); WPVI-TV Philadelphia hosted a Town Hall about The Virus of Hate (5/14/20), and KGO-TV San Francisco hosted three-part “Bay Area Conversation about Race & Coronavirus.” All town halls are available for streaming on digital and the stations’ connected TV apps across Amazon FireTV, Android TV, Roku, and tvOS.

Additionally, stations continue to report the disparate impacts from COVID-19 that exist within communities with previous notable coverage including WTVD-TV Raleigh-Durham's broadcast of a half hour report called The Racial Divide on the financial, health, and educational disparities resulting from the pandemic (5/7/20), WABC-TV New York’s “Upclose with Bill Ritter” that recently featured New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, “Tiempo” and “Here and Now” public affairs programs, and WPVI-TV Raleigh-Durham's story on uncovering the challenges in the Latinx community.

For more information, follow ABC News PR on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

-- ABC –

0 notes

louisfeatharry · 7 years ago

Text

why am i watching this live coverage of the alabama senate race... i’m going to throw up

2 notes · View notes

pakberitatv-blog · 7 years ago

Photo

https://goo.gl/3WGMzd

باون سینیٹرز 11 مارچ کو ریٹائر، سینیٹ الیکشن کا انتخابی شیڈول 2 فروری کو جاری ہوگا

الیکشن کمیشن نےسینیٹ کے انتخابات کروانے کا اعلان کر دیا ، انتخابی شیڈول 2 فروری کو جاری کیا جائے گا، 11 مارچ کو چیئرمین سینٹ رضا ربانی سمیت سینیٹ کے104میں سے 52 ارکان ریٹائرڈ ہو جائیں گے،چیف الیکشن کمشنر نے سینٹ الیکشن شیڈول کی منظوری دےدی۔ سینیٹ انتخابات کیلئے چاروں صوبوں، اسلام آباد اور فاٹا سے آر او اور ڈی آر او کے ناموں کو حتمی شکل دے دی گئی، 2 فروری کو شیڈول جاری کر دیا جائے گا، الیکشن مارچ میں ہوں گے۔

پنجاب اور سندھ سے 12،12، خیبر پختونخوا اور بلوچستان سے 11،11 اور اسلام آباد سے 2 ، فاٹا سے 4 سینیٹرز ریٹائر ہوں گے،

پیپلز پارٹی کے 26 سینیٹرز میں سے 18 ، مسلم لیگ ن کے 27 میں سے 9 سینیٹرز ، پی ٹی آئی کے کل 7 میں سے ایک، عوامی نیشنل پارٹی کے5 ، ایم کیو ایم کے4 سینیٹرزریٹائر ہوجائیں گے، ریٹائرہونیوالوں میںعبدالرحمان ملک ، دائود خان اچکزئی ، آغا شاہزیب درانی ،احمد حسن، عطا الرحمان، اورنگزیب خان، عائشہ رضا فاروق،بیرسٹر مرتضیٰ وہاب ، باز محمد خان، فروغ نسیم ، فرحت اللہ بابر،حاجی سیف اللہ خان بنگش ،حمزہ،ہدایت اللہ ،ہلال الرحمان،الیاس احمد بلور،کامل علی آغا،کامران مائیکل،کریم احمد خواجہ ،خالدہ پروین،ملک نجم الحسن،مولانا حافظ حمداللہ ،مولانا تنویر الحق تھانوی، رضا ربانی (چیئر مین)،میر اسراراللہ خان زہری، اعظم سواتی،محمد اسحاق ڈار،مفتی عبدالستار، ، محسن لغاری، صالح شاہ، طلحہ محمود،محمد یوسف،محمد ظفراللہ خان ڈھانڈلہ،مختیار احمد دھامرا،مشاہد حسین ،نسیمہ احسن،نسرین جلیل،نوابزادہ سیف اللہ مگسی،نثار محمد،نزہت صادق،عثمان سیف اللہ خان،روزی خان کاکڑ،سردار فتح محمد حسنی،سعود مجید،سحرکامران،ساحل سید، سردار ذوالفقار علی خان کھوسہ،مظفر حسین شاہ، آصف سعید کرمانی،تاج حیدراور زاہدہ خان شامل ہیں، الیکشن کمیشن نے سینٹ انتخابات کیلئے ریٹرننگ افسروں اور پولنگ افسروں کی تقرری کا نوٹیفکیشن جاری کردیاہے۔ اسلام آباد کیلئے ایڈیشنل سیکرٹری (ٹریننگ) الیکشن کمیشن ریٹرننگ افسر ہوں گے جبکہ ڈپٹی ڈائریکٹر(سمز) ڈپٹی ڈائریکٹر( کوارڈ)، پرائیویٹ سیکرٹری ایڈیشنل سیکرٹری(ٹریننگ) سٹاف افسر سیکرٹری الیکشن کمیشن اور ڈرا فٹسمین پولنگ آفیسرز مقرر کئے گئے ہیں۔ چاروں صوبائی الیکشن کمشنرز نے سینٹ انتخابات کیلئے ریٹرننگ افسر مقرر کردئیے ہیں، پنجاب میں شریف اللہ، سندھ میں محمد یوسف خٹک، خیبرپختونخوا میں پیر مقبول احمد، بلوچستان میں نعیم مجید ریٹرننگ افسر ہوں گے۔ پنجاب میں فرید آفریدی، عبدالحمید،رائے سلطان بھٹی اور محمد زبیر کمال پولنگ افسر ہوں گے، سندھ میں رشید بھٹی، سائیں بخش چز، علی اصغر سیال، سید نعیم حیدر، سید یوسف اور امتیاز کلہوڑو پولنگ افسرہوں گے۔ خیبرپختونخوا میں شہزاد احمد، خوشحال زادہ، سید ظہور شاہ، نویدالرحمن، سہیل احمد، ریاض خٹک کو پولنگ افسر مقرر کیا گیا ، بلوچستان میں چوہدری ندیم قاسم ،محمد احسن، عبدالواحد، ندیم اصغر، نذیر احمد، محمد وسیم پولنگ افسر ہوں گے۔

0 notes

ericfruits · 6 years ago

Text

If the Democrats retake the Senate, they will do it with moderates

IN A year that has seen huge numbers of women and minority candidates step forward for the Democrats, the party’s hopes of retaking the Senate may rest on the shoulders of a 74-year-old white man in a pinstripe suit. Phil Bredesen (pictured above, right) served two terms each as Tennessee’s governor and Nashville’s mayor; he is running against Marsha Blackburn, a staunchly conservative eight-term congresswoman, for the seat that Bob Corker’s retirement has left open. Although Donald Trump won Tennessee by 26 points, and the state last elected a Democrat (Al Gore) to the Senate in 1990, polls have shown a surprisingly close race.

During an evening spent answering questions submitted by an overwhelmingly supportive audience, progressive worries rose like balloons—and Mr Bredesen wielded the pins. What would he do about health-insurance firms who deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? The problem is not with insurance companies, said Mr Bredesen (a former health-insurance company boss); they have a business to run. How would he protect DREAMers? Both parties bore responsibility for their plight. Did he believe that black lives matter? Of course, but being a police officer was also a dangerous job. Since he said he would work with the president when he did something good, could he name one thing? Deregulation sounded good, and by the way, he was sorry America had withdrawn from the TPP.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

To win a majority in the Senate, Democrats need a net gain of two seats (because the vice-president breaks Senate ties, a 50-50 split leaves Republicans in control). The party has no right to be even contemplating such an outcome. Every two years a third of the Senate is elected. The way the calendar falls, in 2018 Democrats ought to be in the brace position. The party is defending 26 seats—including those of Angus King and Bernie Sanders, two independents who caucus with the Democrats—compared with the Republicans’ nine. The strong economy ought to be helping the president’s party. And yet Mr Trump is so unpopular that Democrats have a chance of winning their majority.

Frog kissing

A handful of Democrats are in the Bredesen mould: candidates who look competitive despite the fact that Mr Trump won their states comfortably. Mr Bredesen describes the strategy in states like Tennessee thus: “If this is a race between Marsha Blackburn and me, I’ll win it. If this is a race between a Democrat and a Republican…I’ll lose that race.” Asked how he keeps national attention to a minimum, he looks across the table at your correspondent, not quite smiling: “By spending a minimum amount of time talking to you.”

Apart from Tennessee, the Democrats’ best hopes of making gains are probably in Arizona and Nevada. In Arizona, Martha McSally had to tack right to win the Republican primary occasioned by Jeff Flake’s retirement; her opponent, Kyrsten Sinema, grabbed the centre. And in Nevada, Dean Heller is among the least popular incumbent Republican senators.

If November brings not just a wave but a tsunami, other gains are possible. In Texas Beto O’Rourke’s preternatural political gifts and hard work have forced Ted Cruz into a tougher campaign than he probably expected. Unfortunately for the upstart, there are a lot more Republicans than Democrats in Texas. Unfortunately for Mr Cruz, he has appeared craven in begging for the president’s support (Mr Cruz once called Mr Trump “a pathological liar”). There is even a narrow path to victory for Mike Espy in Mississippi. First, increase turnout from African-Americans. Then hope his opponent is Chris McDaniel, a divisive neo-Confederate who might just disgust enough white voters, as Roy Moore did in Alabama late last year.

It is not hard to see how Democrats could win two seats from this selection. Their greater difficulty lies in holding on to what they have already.

Democrats will retain most of the seats they have in states Hillary Clinton won. Only New Jersey and New Mexico could give them a nasty surprise. Mr Trump lost New Jersey, which last elected a Republican to the Senate in 1972, by 14 points. But Bob Menendez, running for his third full term, was indicted on federal corruption charges three years ago. His trial ended in a hung jury. He lost nearly 40% of the vote to an obscure opponent in this year’s primary. Mr Menendez’s Republican challenger, Bob Hugin, has been close in some polls. In New Mexico, which Mr Trump lost by eight points, Gary Johnson—a Libertarian candidate and a popular ex-governor—could win by attracting Republicans and a critical mass of moderate Democrats disenchanted with Martin Heinrich, the Democratic incumbent. The other 14 seats in this category look fairly safe.

There are plenty of other ways for the party to drop a seat or two, however. The most likely losses are where Democratic incumbents are running in states that Mr Trump won in 2016.

Mr Trump took the bellwether states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, but Bob Casey, Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow, the states’ respective Democratic incumbents, all enjoy comfortable polling leads. Tammy Baldwin’s lead in Wisconsin is slightly shakier, but still solid. Mr Trump won Montana and West Virginia by wide margins, but the Democratic incumbents there, Jon Tester and Joe Manchin respectively, are farther ahead than either demography or their states’ political leanings suggest they should be.

In North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp is running headlong into Mr Trump’s high approval rating in her state, though that could falter if manufacturers and soyabean farmers feel pain from tariffs. Joe Donnelly clings to a slim lead in Indiana and Claire McCaskill is tied in Missouri, both states which supported Mr Trump by wide margins. It is fairly likely that the Democrats will lose at least one of these, offsetting possible gains elsewhere.

And then, in a category all by itself, there is Florida. Mr Trump won the Sunshine State narrowly. Rick Scott, a two-term Republican governor with deep pockets, is trying to unseat Bill Nelson, the uninspiring Democratic incumbent, in what may become the most expensive Senate race in history. Democrats could hold what they have already and pick up a seat in Trump country yet, if Florida again has the final say, still fall short of their majority.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "No fairy tale"

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

liesofthepatriarchy · 8 years ago

Quote

On the subject of whether it is worthwhile for POC to try to talk to whites about racism, this man broke it down perfectly. And I agree with every point he elucidated: "Nope. Not in the least. As far as "why?" Let me count the ways... 1) They don't even know what racism is. - They are incapable of even recognizing it. Can't properly define it. And don't even understand the basic functions, impacts, or consequences of it. Trying to talk to a white person about dismantling *any* form of racism is like trying to strategize with a 5 year old on the most efficient way to cook a Thanksgiving dinner for 100 people when the child doesn't even know how to boil water properly. I mean... you can technically do it, of course. But... really? That's silly. 2) They hate us. - People like to talk about how "nobody is born racist" and shit... so what? That has ZERO influence on real life. The culture that a person is born in HIGHLY dictates a large portion of a person's viewpoint on the world. The "white culture" AND America at large are both racist, anti-PoC cultures. White people are *born* into a racist culture, system, and usually families. So, yeah. While white people aren't born racist... functionally, they are. All of them. In all practicality, white people are born into racism... in all of its forms. They are literally bred for it. This is leads to... 3) The culture and system is specially designed for *them.* - White folks (the old, dead ones) customly designed and built America for white folks and white folks only. It benefits them in every single way possible. Quite frankly... white folks aren't giving that up. Not without a fight. They may talk the talk, but they aren't walking this walk. Speaking of which... 4) They aren't about this life. - Justice, Righteousness, Decency... they don't have a grasp of these concepts. Sure, they know the words, but they have no functional understanding of any of these concepts. White people operate on a COMPLETELY different set of principles... if you can call it that... than we do. White people operate on a principle I like to call "What I Can Get Away With." Let me explain: The foundation of their principle is this Legality. And it operates, simplistically, like this: "If it is illegal, it's wrong. If it is legal, it's right." Now, this isn't in stone, as it is very much fluid. But this IS their starting point. For example, when talking about a racist person, it's alllllllways some white person, somewhere, that has to point out that "Well, being racist isn't illegal!" 😑 No shit, sherlock. Fuck does that have to do... nevermind. Don't want to get sidetracked. This is already going to be long enough as it is. Anyways... To them, being racist - as much as they can understand it at least - isn't even a "bad" thing. Because it isn't illegal. I mean, yeah. They will *say* it's bad, sure. Because they live in a century where it is, on paper, looked down upon. But they don't really think or feel that it is. That's why you will have so many of them voting for people like David Duke down in New Orleans a few decades back, or Donald Trump today. Racism just isn't *that bad* to white folks. Largely because they never experience any of the negative repercussions of racism; only the positive aspect of it, which of course, only benefits white people. So that was the first layer. The second layer of 'What I Can Get Away With' is: What the opposing force can prove vs. what they can't prove. This is what keeps housing discrimination, racist hiring/firing practices, police gangster murders, the indoctrination system (most call it "public school), institutionalized racism, systemic racism, and the in-between racist bits alive, healthy, and well. Because they are hard to prove. And if we can't prove it, we can't properly fight it. But even still, like in the cases of Philando Castile, Tamir Rice, and Eric Gardener, to name a few, we CAN sometimes definitively prove that something racist happened. Of course, this leads me to the 3rd layer of "What I Can Get Away With." And that is: What they can and cannot prosecute me with and win. Easy enough to explain. Considering the fact that they control all law enforcement gangsters, lawyers, judges, jails, prisons, Governors, Mayors, other state positions, Senate, House of Representatives, military, most multi-billion dollar companies, most multimillion dollar companies, etc., etc., etc... well, we are pretty much screwed in that department. Far more often than not. But it makes life so very easy for them. And absolves them of all responsibility for anything bad that happens to the "other" people. So that is, in simple format (because there layers to this shit. Layers upon the layers that I mentioned already), is their functioning principle: "What I Can Get Away With." Not a flashy name for it, I know. But when something THIS damaging functions THAT we'll for a dominating group, it doesn't have to be. Alright. Moving on. 5) They are not responsible people. - White folks take little-to-no responsibility for their shit. Even when they are 100% wrong and can't dispute it? They will tell us, straight up, "Fuck you. Now shut up and take it." Two Examples: All of the treaties america has broken with the Indigenous people. And then, 2) The destruction and massacre of Black Wall Street. After that went down, the city of Tulsa had a meeting about what to do about the murders and destruction. Of course, as usual, there was this one (or two) anomaly(ies) (white people) that were like: "Hey, we need to rebuild that area and comp the surviving Black folks. It's the right thing to do!" And of course, also as usual, the other 98% of the white folks was like: "Man, fuck that. They shouldn't have been successful while minding their business anyways. Besides, do you know how bad it could have gotten if their children inherited all of that and built up on it?? Why, there would be chaos in the streets! Nuh, uh. Fuck them. We are covering this up. No news articles, no new coverage, and deny, deny, deny. Say there was an accident and that just a FEW hundred niggers died and call it a day. Dismissed." And that was the story from then on out, for year, until it no longer was and the truth came out. Of course, even then, white folks were still like "Eh. Fuck y'all, still." Until the 2000s, when the statute of limitations expired and the city of Tulsa could no longer be sued. A Tulsa, Oklahoma police thug came out an "openly admitted" to the events of that "tragic and fateful night" and such. And even offered up some bullshit apology followed up with "I hope we can heal from this now." White people are so fucking irresponsible. No way can they fight against a system that spoils them rotten. White people are always talking about "moving forward" but only at the cost of Black folks losing out on what is rightfully due to us. Hiding behind the "Well, I didn't do it, the dead white folks did. Get what you're owed from them." mantra. They don't want progress. They want to definitively get away with the shit they have done to us. But as long as we speak on their abuse, they can't put it behind them. And this leads me to... 6) They aren't going to put in the work. - And their history shows this. White folks want to be trusted, but they don't want to earn that trust. They fail to have any understanding on how the world functions outside of their whiteness. You see... Black people and other minorities distrust (and many hate or strongly dislike) white people because of the shit they actually DID. Because of things that were DONE. TO us. BY them. They EARNED our distrust. But they have NOT earned our trust. Black Wall Street, Slocum Massacre, Sweet Auburn, Rosewood Massacre, Tuskegee Expiaments, Chicago Race Riots, the lands stolen from Black people in places like Birmingham, Kentucky, Pierce City, Missouri, Ocoee, Florida, Holmes County, Mississippi, and Sweet Water, Alabama (just to name a few), Pig Laws, Black Codes, Jim Crow era- these, and more, are ACTIONS, and I mean BIG actions, that has EARNED every bit of distrust and dislike toward them. And they have ZERO record of doing the opposite. (And, no. Two or three white people donating to a charity for a tax break doesn't measure up against even a SINGLE Black life. Or Indigenous life. Or Hispanic life. Etc. Two or three hundred white folks participating in a march doesn't mean SHIT at this level that I am talking about. Appreciated? Sure. But that's still BARELY a drop in the preverbial bucket. Barely.) White people ain't doing this work. They have no investment in it, not even the most basic understanding needed to get started, and nothing to gain from it. And, yeah, there are your anomalies here and there. Obviously I'm not talking about those 8 or 9 hundred people or so. So any bleeding heart that made it this far can take a breath and prevent your "not all white people" mantra. I don't want to hear it. Those are just a FEW reasons why I think that talking to white folks about this is an utter waste of time. I respect those that try. But I'm not doing it. Too much work for too little (none) reward."

#whitesupremacy #racism

18 notes · View notes