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.”

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    I think it has been debunked that a woman or person of color is why we lost. Key to note: Anyone who was a true sexist racist piece of shit was already core maga and never, ever going to vote for any Democrat.

    People must remember that nobody has polled higher against Trump – ever – than Michelle Obama. IF she wants to run (and a big if), she would win. Just need a tad bit more charisma.

    (If anyone has any evidence whatsoever beyond speculation or shoddy N=2 statistics, I’m all ears, but I have not found evidence).

    • MartianRecon@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Uh dude like more than 5% of the party didn’t show up, and a bunch of male Democrats that identify as Latin or African American didn’t vote for her because she was a woman.

      Both Kamala and Clinton were two of the most qualified people to have run for president, and they were fucking beaten by the worst candidate in the history of politics.

      I don’t want to risk it.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

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

        Uh, dude show me your evidence this was the reason lol.

        I’m going to give you a hint: You won’t find it. This is straight up bull fucking shit and 100% speculative.

        I highly advise you not to make such blatant non-sequitur fallacies devoid of any supportive data. I can think of at least a half a dozen other reasons for why people voted or didn’t vote the way they did that actually has data with infinitely less distance to connect the dots than what you’re doing right now.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          We don’t know the why, but it was a big swing among men of color:

          https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-racial-analysis-of-2024-election-results/

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

          Without some very careful probing via polls, getting to the why is going to be harder, most likely. Not too many people are just going to be absolutely candid about being sexist.

    • edible_funk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      When was that debunked? How? If you genuinely think misogyny and misogynoir weren’t part of why Hillary and Kamala lost then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        Go ahead and sell me that bridge because there is a complete and total lack of evidence to support the claim. Can’t really prove a counterfactual. Others made the claim she lost because of this; when asked for evidence, they always come up short.

        Counterpoints:

        • Biden polled worse than Harris at the end. (White Guy polling worse than Black Woman). Hence the switch in the first place, even Biden agreed!

        • Michelle Obama has always polled higher than anyone against Trump (Black Woman polling better than White Guy).

        Sexists bigots were already core Republican voters never voting for any D no matter who. The battle was lost elsewhere.

        • edible_funk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          Oh so you’re just operating under the assumption that nobody who would otherwise vote for a democrat is sexist or racist in one of the most overtly provably sexist and racist countries on earth. But go ahead and claim that racism and misogyny aren’t incredibly relevant factors in every election. There are more undecided/moderate/non voters that are racist and misogynistic than there are republicans. It’s fucking stupid to pretend that wasn’t a factor. Don’t be fucking stupid.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days ago

            Still no evidence, and an increased propensity for aggression and ad hominems substituting said total lack of evidence, I see. Lots of fingers-in-ear denial and deflection as well.

            Certainly aren’t convincing me of anything, lol.

            I win.

            • edible_funk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Like a pigeon playing chess you knock over the pieces, shit all over the board and think you won. Good job pigeon.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                12 days ago

                hahah buddy, I checkmated you two comments ago; you just haven’t realized it yet.

                Pee-wee chess, though, I get it. Still learning.

                • edible_funk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  12 days ago

                  You’ve got serious “racism was solved until Obama” energy. Par for the course with the likes of you.

                  • lennybird@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    12 days ago

                    There you go with the fallacies again… What is this, Pokemon of fallacies? Trying to catch 'em all or something?

                    Well you’ve caught strawman.