this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
333 points (97.2% liked)

politics

31093 readers
2620 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The California governor described White House reporters as ‘sycophants’

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

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

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have some insight as to why. As someone who canvassed, who actively spoke to Hispanic activists for Trump in person no less. Though I'll leave that alone considering its anecdotal nature unless you're interested.

Statistically, these groups -- men across the board -- are significantly less educated and thus susceptible to misinformation. They were explicitly targeted from GamerGate and onward.

If you break down exit-polling, you'll find a key factor in predicting how someone voted was in fact their education attainment and less so their gender or skin color.

Does that mean they were less likely to vote for Harris? Yes, but it also means they'd be less likely to vote for any Democrat. More importantly, those who are actual bigots voting on pretenses of skin color or sex were core maga already.

Put it another way: An Old White Guy Joe Biden was polling worse than Harris. At the same time, Reuters polling has always shown Michelle Obama -- female person of color -- to poll higher against Trump than literally anyone. Ever.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I'd be curious as to how the numbers might shake out if it is for a generic male candidate and a generic female candidate...again, might be hard to determine, as people are not as likely to be honest about it.