theintercept--2020-11-06--As Fox News Support for Trump Wavers, Struggle Breaks Out in Murdoch Family

that could determine the extent of post-election violence in America is breaking into the open , but it ’ s not at the White House or inside the GOP .
It is within the billionaire Murdoch family , the owners of Fox News .
Earlier today , one of Rupert Murdoch ’ s daughters-in-law , Kathryn Murdoch , tweeted out an unprecedented criticism of Fox News and the family ’ s handling of the network in the aftermath of President Donald Trump apparently losing the election .
Responding to CNN anchor Jake Tapper saying that it was time for Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no credible evidence of election fraud , Kathryn Murdoch tweeted , “ I agree with this.
” The Murdoch family , presided over by 89-year-old patriarch Rupert Murdoch , owns Fox News and a constellation of other media properties in the United States and across the world ; the family is the inspiration for the HBO series “ Succession.
” The political bent of Fox News reflects the right-wing orientation of Rupert and his eldest son Lachlan , who now oversees the network as chief executive of its parent company , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ownership of its media properties is a 50-50 split between Rupert on one side and his six children on the other .
The key progeny , when it comes to running the empire , have nearly always been the conservative Lachlan and his younger brother James , who is a centrist .
Kathryn Murdoch is James ’ s wife .
In recent years , she and James have not hidden their political preferences : They made significant donations to the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and later , Joe Biden , once he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , after James lost a succession battle to Lachlan and resigned from his last remaining board position , he issued an oblique criticism of the political direction of the family ’ s holdings , but he did not say anything specific about Fox News and its central role in laundering white nationalist extremism and its related conspiracy theories .
With Trump ’ s apparent defeat , the network and the family are at a crossroads , facing far more critical scrutiny and pressure than they ever have in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this moment , of state broadcasters in unstable countries where an unpopular leader has been voted out of power but refuses to accept the result .
Will the broadcaster be loyal to the defeated leader and claim that the election was rigged — a path that will probably not be successful but would nearly guarantee a higher level of post-election instability than would otherwise occur ?
Or does the broadcaster take the journalistically and morally correct path of reporting the fact that the president really did lose an election that was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to step back for a moment and realize the deformity of this moment .
Due to the unique power of Fox News — alongside Facebook , it is the most prominent platform in the U.S. for spreading right-wing disinformation — a single family with a net worth of approximately $ 17 billion is positioned to decide whether election conspiracy theories will have the media oxygen they need to spread widely and deeply across the country .
It is a concentration of power that has been amassed and abused for decades by the Murdoch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. and other countries too ( the Murdochs are responsible for similar harm in the U.K. and Australia , where they also have significant media holdings ) .
As election results came in and showed Trump on a trajectory to defeat , Fox ’ s coverage has become notably split .
The so-called news side of Fox , which is anchored in its daytime programming with conservative but not delusional journalists like Chris Wallace and Bret Baier , has done a generally straight-up job of reporting the results .
Fox ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cable network to have called Arizona for Biden , a move that infuriated the White House and was apparently a factor that led a crowd of pro-Trump protesters outside a ballot-counting office in Phoenix to chant “ Fox News sucks.
” In a reflection of what would seem to be further evidence of a Murdoch decision to take their media properties in an honest and pragmatic direction , the New York Post , which was one of Rupert Murdoch ’ s early media acquisitions in the United States and has been consistently right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published a series of articles in recent days that are sharply critical of Trump ’ s fraud claims , including a story last night that was headlined , “ Downcast Trump makes baseless election fraud claims in White House address.
” But the primetime hosts at Fox News , especially Sean Hannity , who also functions as a nonofficial adviser to Trump , have not yet shown a change in their pro-Trump cheerleading .
Last night ’ s episode of Hannity ’ s show was particularly egregious , with such guests as Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newt Gingrich angrily repeating the Trump campaign ’ s evidence-free assertions of election fraud .
It was 60 minutes of nationwide conspiracy dissemination , a brutal demonstration of Fox ’ s power to superspread a political virus in America .
And this has led to unusually direct scrutiny of the Murdoch family , whose name has not usually been mentioned in the many years and fountains of media criticism of their network .
In addition to Tapper ’ s monologue , CNN ’ s Brian Stelter put his finger on the Murdochs after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News instructed on-air talent to not refer to Biden as president-elect once he amasses enough Electoral College votes to win .
“ The Murdochs are ultimately responsible , ” Stelter said .
“ Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are responsible for what is on this network in the coming hours.
” Kathryn Murdoch is the only family member to have spoken out since the election .
The Murdoch family holds its intramural activity fairly close , but her tweet , endorsing a call for the family to put country before profit , touches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s main concern : money .
While Rupert and Lachlan have strong conservative political beliefs , the Fox proposition has always been a business one — the family has reaped billions from the network .
In the U.K. in 1997 , the Murdoch media holdings shifted their support to then-Labour Party leader Tony Blair , not for ideological reasons but business ones .
Now , Kathryn Murdoch , in calling for the network to report honestly about election-fraud conspiracy theories in the U.S. , seems to be acknowledging that it would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely because many of Fox News ’ s pro-Trump viewers would be incensed , and a loss of viewers could ultimately affect the network ’ s crucial revenue stream : cable fees .
The question could be asked : After decades of running Fox News as an irresponsible right-wing propaganda machine , why change now , why speak out now , after all that ’ s been done by the network and supported by the family ?
The answer might be that the Murdoch family ’ s run of remarkable impunity could really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny of what they ’ re responsible for .
Kathryn Murdoch had a little-noticed Election Day tweet that hinted at her reputational concerns .
“ What will you tell your children or your future self about the part you played in history ?
” she asked .
Whichever direction the Murdochs take with Fox News in the coming hours and days , their effort to avoid history ’ s judgment , if not the judgment of courts too , is perhaps doomed even if their network reports the truth .
This was noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Media Matters for America .
“ When this is all over , ” he tweeted , “ Everyone should take a respite .
And then , we need to finally do something about the deceitful and destructive force ” that is Fox News .

A behind-the-scenes struggle that could determine the extent of post-election violence in America is breaking into the open, but it’s not at the White House or inside the GOP. It is within the billionaire Murdoch family, the owners of Fox News.
On Friday morning, a day before Joe Biden was declared president-elect, one of Rupert Murdoch’s daughters-in-law, Kathryn Murdoch, tweeted out an unprecedented criticism of Fox News and the family’s handling of the network as President Donald Trump was heading for defeat. Responding to CNN anchor Jake Tapper saying that it was time for Fox and the Murdochs to make clear that there was no credible evidence of election fraud, Kathryn Murdoch tweeted, “I agree with this.”
I agree with this. https://t.co/VgmYiJ0hPU — Kathryn Murdoch (@KathrynAMurdoch) November 6, 2020
Her sentiments appeared to have support within the family, because their media holdings — not just Fox News — began sending out clear signals to President Trump that he should accept defeat. On Friday evening, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page skeptically noted that the Trump campaign “will have to prove” its baseless claims of election fraud, and advised the president to be ready to “concede gracefully.” The article’s headline was “The Presidential Endgame.” On Fox News last night, primetime host Laura Ingraham, a guest at the White House just a few days ago, said the president should exhibit “grace and composure” when the moment comes to admit defeat, which she seemed to feel was coming soon. A graphic displayed during her show stated that one of the three tasks ahead is to “Accept the Results of the Election.” Finally, the front-page headline of Saturday morning’s New York Post seemed to mark a clear turn from the Trump era, blaring out, “Ready, Set… Joe?”
The Murdoch family, presided over by 89-year-old patriarch Rupert Murdoch, owns Fox News and a constellation of other media properties in the United States and across the world; the family is the inspiration for the HBO series “Succession.” The political bent of Fox News and other media outlets reflects the right-wing orientation of Rupert and his eldest son Lachlan, who now oversees the network as chief executive of its parent company, Fox Corporation. But the family’s ownership of its media properties is a 50-50 split between Rupert on one side and his six children on the other. The key progeny, when it comes to running the empire, have nearly always been the conservative Lachlan and his younger brother James, who is a centrist.
Kathryn Murdoch is James’s wife. In recent years, she and James have not hidden their political preferences: They made significant donations to the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and later, Joe Biden, once he became the Democratic Party nominee. Earlier this year, after James lost a succession battle to Lachlan and resigned from his last remaining board position, he issued an oblique criticism of the political direction of the family’s holdings, but he did not say anything specific about Fox News and its central role in laundering white nationalist extremism and its related conspiracy theories.
With Trump’s defeat, the network and the family are at a crossroads, facing far more critical scrutiny and pressure than they ever have in the United States. Fox is in the position, at this moment, of state broadcasters in unstable countries where an unpopular leader has been voted out of power but refuses to accept the result. Will the broadcaster be loyal to the defeated leader and claim that the election was rigged — a path that will probably not be successful but would nearly guarantee a higher level of post-election instability? Or does the broadcaster take the journalistically and morally correct path of reporting the fact that the president really did lose an election that was not rigged against him? In the 24 hours leading up to Biden surpassing 270 Electoral College votes on Saturday, the Murdoch properties showed added evidence of taking the latter path.
It is useful to step back for a moment and realize the deformity of this moment. Due to the unique power of Fox News — alongside Facebook, it is the most prominent platform in the U.S. for spreading right-wing disinformation — a single family with a net worth of approximately $17 billion is positioned to decide whether election conspiracy theories will have the media oxygen they need to spread widely and deeply across the country. It is a concentration of power that has been amassed and abused for decades by the Murdoch family, and has caused immense damage in the U.S. and other countries too (the Murdochs are responsible for similar harm in the U.K. and Australia, where they also have significant media holdings).
Photo: Michael Nigro/Sipa USA/AP
As election results came in and showed Trump on a trajectory to defeat, Fox’s coverage became notably split earlier this week. The so-called news side of Fox, which is anchored in its daytime programming with conservative but not delusional journalists like Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, has done a generally straight-up job of reporting the results. Fox’s data team is still the only cable network to have called Arizona for Biden, a move that infuriated the White House and was apparently a factor that led a crowd of pro-Trump protesters outside a ballot-counting office in Phoenix to chant “Fox News sucks.”
In a reflection of what would seem to be early evidence of a Murdoch inclination to take their media properties in a pragmatic direction, the New York Post, which was one of Rupert Murdoch’s first media acquisitions in the United States and has been consistently right-wing under his decades of ownership, published two articles on Thursday that were sharply critical of Trump’s fraud claims, including a story that was headlined, “Downcast Trump makes baseless election fraud claims in White House address.”
But the primetime hosts at Fox News, especially Sean Hannity, who also functions as a nonofficial adviser to Trump, did not move as quickly to change their pro-Trump cheerleading. Thursday night’s episode of Hannity’s show was particularly egregious, with such guests as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich angrily repeating the Trump campaign’s evidence-free assertions of election fraud. It was 60 minutes of nationwide conspiracy dissemination, a brutal demonstration of Fox’s power to superspread a political virus in America. While Ingraham altered her position on Friday night, Hannity did not modulate his they’re-stealing-the-election tune.
And this has led to unusually direct scrutiny of the Murdoch family, whose name has not usually been mentioned in the many years and fountains of media criticism of their network. In addition to Tapper’s monologue, CNN’s Brian Stelter put his finger on the Murdochs after news broke that a memo circulated at Fox News on Friday instructed on-air talent to not refer to Biden as president-elect once he amassed enough Electoral College votes to win (Fox denied the CNN report). “The Murdochs are ultimately responsible,” Stelter said. “Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are responsible for what is on this network in the coming hours.” On Saturday morning, as Fox’s pivot became more apparent but hardly complete, Stelter pointed to Ingraham’s shift and Hannity’s intransigence, saying there is a “giant tug of war” at Fox right now.
Read Our Complete Coverage Election 2020
Kathryn Murdoch is the only family member to have spoken out since the election. The Murdoch family holds its intramural activity fairly close, but her tweet, endorsing a call for the family to put country before profit, touches on what might be the family’s main concern: money. While Rupert and Lachlan have strong conservative political beliefs, the Fox proposition has always been a business one — the family has reaped billions from the network. In the U.K. in 1997, the Murdoch media holdings shifted their support to then-Labour Party leader Tony Blair, not for ideological reasons but business ones. Now, Kathryn Murdoch, in calling for the network to report honestly about election-fraud conspiracy theories in the U.S., seems to be acknowledging that it would not be a revenue-enhancing position. Many of Fox News’s pro-Trump viewers would be incensed, and a loss of viewers could ultimately affect the network’s crucial revenue stream: cable fees.
The question could be asked: After decades of running Fox News as an irresponsible right-wing propaganda machine, why change now, why speak out now, after all that’s been done by the network and supported by the family? The answer might be that the Murdoch family’s run of remarkable impunity could really be over as there is now greater scrutiny of what they’re responsible for. Kathryn Murdoch had a little-noticed Election Day tweet that hinted at her reputational concerns. “What will you tell your children or your future self about the part you played in history?” she asked. And after Biden was declared president-elect on Saturday, she tried to publicly implant herself even more firmly in the anti-Trump resistance, tweeting out, “We did it!!!”
Whichever direction the Murdochs take with Fox News in the coming hours and days, their effort to avoid history’s judgment, if not the judgment of courts too, is perhaps doomed even if their network reports the truth now that Trump’s defeat is official. This was noted by Angel Carusone, the chief executive of Media Matters for America. “When this is all over,” he tweeted, “Everyone should take a respite. And then, we need to finally do something about the deceitful and destructive force” that is Fox News.
Updated: Saturday, Nov. 7, 11:05 a.m.
This article was updated with new information about Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post shifting further away from President Trump’s unfounded claims of election fraud.
Updated: Saturday, Nov. 7, 2:50 p.m.
This article was updated to reflect that Joe Biden has been declared president-elect of the United States.


theintercept--2020-11-06--Democrats Waste No Time Punching Left in the Wake of Biden’s Win

having won the most votes in Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania , the former vice president is on track to secure the 270 Electoral College votes he needs to win the presidential election .
Throughout Tuesday and Wednesday , President Donald Trump held leads in all three states , but as votes from Milwaukee , Detroit , Philadelphia , and other urban areas were counted , Biden climbed ahead .
On Friday morning , after Biden overtook Trump in the Pennsylvania vote count , Decision Desk HQ called the race for Biden .
At the same moment that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests were putting Biden over the top , House Democrats were locked in a tortured , three-hour conference call on Thursday .
Centrist after centrist lambasted the party ’ s left for costing it seats in the lower chamber and threatening its ability to win the Senate .
It created a surreal juxtaposition : Had progressive organizing on the ground around left-leaning issues driven registration and turnout for Biden where he needed it , or had it hurt the party more broadly ?
Or was it both ?
Spanberger won a narrow victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself from the party ’ s progressive wing .
She is once again locked in a close count , but appears to again have the upper hand , poised for reelection .
It has not diminished her rage toward the left .
On the call Thursday , Spanberger vented not at “ abolish ICE ” but at “ defund the police , ” the slogan that gained mainstream currency following the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police .
Rep. Conor Lamb , whose special election victory in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave , backed Spanberger up .
“ Spanberger was talking about something many of us are feeling today : We pay the price for these unprofessional and unrealistic comments about a number of issues , whether it is about the police or shale gas , ” Lamb said .
“ These issues are too serious for the people we represent to tolerate them being talked about so casually.
” But Lamb ’ s criticism of his party colleagues goes to the heart of the flaw in the argument .
Lamb wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or other members of the Squad .
Rather , it was Lamb who went to a Black Lives Matter protest and took a maskless photo with a ( white ) woman holding a “ defund the police ” sign .
His GOP opponent hammered Lamb for it .
Most centrist politicians think of politics as top-down — a strategy that ’ s decided upon and then implemented .
But “ defund the police ” — whatever one thinks of the slogan — came from the protest movement that grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messaging department of the Squad Central Committee .
Democrats actually benefited from a surge in voter registrations amid the protests , as noted by Tom Bonier , head of the major Democratic data firm TargetSmart .
Party leader James Clyburn , the Democrat from South Carolina whose endorsement of Biden launched him to the nomination , warned on the call that if Democrats ran on Medicare for All and other progressive issues , they would lose the upcoming Georgia Senate special elections that will determine control of the upper chamber and dictate whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of implementing a legislative agenda .
( Alaska ’ s Senate seat , a contest between Republican Sen. Al Sullivan and independent challenger Al Gross , is still up for grabs .
While Sullivan is currently ahead , the count of the remaining 44 percent of votes — absentee ballots — won ’ t begin until Monday . )
Even so , progressives defended a number of Republican-leaning seats .
Democratic Rep. Katie Porter won reelection by 8 points in California ’ s 45th District , covering Orange County and Irvine , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Rep. Mike Levin , who flipped the 49th District two years ago , won reelection , beating his Republican opponent by 12 points .
Both are co-sponsors of the Medicare for All bill in the House , as are Jared Golden in Maine , Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona , Josh Harder in California , and Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania , who all won reelection in swing districts .
And Rep. Tom Malinowski also defended his northern New Jersey district with an 8-point win , again holding onto a district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Report had rated both Porter and Malinowski ’ s districts as R+3 , and Levin ’ s as R+1 .
Democrats insisting that progressive issues are losing policies have yet to articulate what their winning agenda would be , now that getting Trump out of the White House is no longer the mission .
As attention will shift to the Georgia special elections , can Democrats rally the troops simply to help Biden confirm slightly more progressive cabinet nominees ?
What is the Democratic agenda that the party can pledge to voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special election ?
From the progressive perspective , it ’ s an easy question to answer , and Ocasio-Cortez has made the argument herself repeatedly : It ’ s better to have Democrats in control so that the left can push them to be better , whereas Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has shown himself immune to protest from the left .
But that ’ s not a message from the party itself .
And if Democrats don ’ t find a message — or insist on spending the next few weeks attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little chance of winning the Senate .
Mike Siegel , a Democrat who ran and lost as a populist progressive in suburban Texas , said on this week ’ s Deconstructed podcast that without a persuasive message coming from the top of the ticket , he was unable to convince disaffected voters that he was serious about fundamental change .
Without the Senate , Biden will be a badly hobbled president , the kind that is routinely dealt a blow in the first midterm .
While Spanberger and Lamb may be angry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as will dozens of their colleagues who first won in 2018 .
In 2022 , they may look back on this election fondly if they don ’ t deliver something for the people who elected them .
forward by centrist Democrats are the flip side of the same political vision that Trump used to fuel his base .
In nearly every one of his rallies this fall , he singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar for attack , arguing that she was so toxic in Minnesota that she would deliver the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same claim about Rep. Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and about the rising strength of the left in Philadelphia , which he singled out during the first presidential debate , claiming that “ bad things happen in Philadelphia.
” Yet Trump ’ s hopes were dashed .
“ He effed around and found out , ” said Omar on Deconstructed when asked about Trump ’ s strategy of demonizing her to win suburban votes .
Indeed , not only did margins for Democrats expand in the suburbs in Minnesota , but Omar ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden to the win .
The same is true of the suburbs of Detroit and Philadelphia , where strong left organizing catapulted Biden past Trump in two of the three states that were crucial to the incumbent ’ s 2016 victory , and a third ( Minnesota ) that the Trump campaign hoped desperately to flip .
In the late summer , as the GOP was knocking on a million doors per week in August , the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee resisted a return to in-person canvassing — even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a safe way to do so — and advised their surrogates to do the same .
In Minneapolis and Detroit , Omar and Tlaib both rejected the advice of the Biden campaign and instead sent volunteers to persuade people not just to come out to vote for their member of Congress — after all , they had effectively no GOP competition in their general elections — but to do their part in ousting Trump by voting for Biden .
In Philadelphia , where leftist candidates have romped over the past four years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community that saw two of their leaders elected to the state House on Tuesday , unions and organizers spent the final stretch of the campaign knocking doors in areas where voters felt ignored by the Democratic Party .
It ’ s too early to know precisely what effect the progressive canvassing operations and organizing had on the vote , as that will require a deeper dive into the data to determine how many irregular or first-time voters were pushed to the polls .
Turnout surged everywhere — Biden garnered more votes than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s clear , at minimum , that Trump ’ s high-profile attacks against Omar and Tlaib did not deliver him those states , and there is preliminary evidence that their operations were disproportionately beneficial to Biden .
In Detroit , voter turnout reached its highest point in decades , election officials reported , even as the city ’ s population has declined by 10,000 since 2016 , and 3,000 people in Wayne County , which includes Detroit , died from Covid-19 .
Overall in the county , Biden won 587,000 to 264,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though more are still left to be counted .
Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in the city of Detroit by about 1,000 votes , but outperformed her by 67,630 votes throughout the entire county ; that bump helped put him over the top in a state that Clinton lost by some 10,700 votes .
With about 90 percent of the votes in her district counted , Tlaib already has more than 220,000 votes , having beaten her Republican opponent by some 170,000 votes and counting .
That ’ s a significant jump from 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously held the seat , won it with fewer than 200,000 votes .
Oakland County , the suburbs outside Detroit , also went strongly to Biden .
Clinton netted roughly 54,000 votes there in 2016 , but Biden won it by 110,000 votes .
Tlaib faced competitive primaries , which they won comfortably , and they never really stopped campaigning into the general election .
Their teams worked together , swapping notes on how to safely canvas in a pandemic , and also worked closely with Rep. Mark Pocan , the co-chair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Madison , Wisconsin .
Omar ’ s team made 1.4 million attempts to reach out to voters through phone , text , or in person .
They knocked on more than 150,000 doors , hitting everyone in the district more than twice on average , according to Jeremy Slevin , Omar ’ s communications director .
A record 400,000 people voted in the district , netting Biden 253,000 votes .
Biden visited St. Paul , but not Minneapolis , where his wife Jill Biden visited early last month .
Omar ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters when Minnesota started early voting in September , the Washington Post reported .
They knocked throughout October and up to Election Day , especially targeting voters who sat out in 2016 .
Omar was also one of the only Democratic Farmer-Labor Party candidates to continue canvassing , the Star Tribune reported .
Tlaib ’ s campaign focused on voters who turned out in 2012 and stayed home in 2016 , and knocked 16,000 doors in the six weeks leading up to Election Day .
They made close to 150,000 calls and sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail .
“ Our message was more about Democrats up and down the ballot , ” said Tlaib ’ s Communications Director Denzel McCampbell .
In Philadelphia , Reclaim Philadelphia , a progressive group focused on working-class issues founded in 2016 by local organizers , has helped grow a squad of their own in state and local office .
Two Reclaim Philadelphia alums , Nikil Saval , who helped found the group , and Rick Krajewski , previously a staff organizer , won their elections to the state House on Tuesday .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city — including Saval and Krajewski ’ s campaigns , other local elected officials , and unions — knocked 370,000 doors in the weeks leading up to Election Day .
That included West/Southwest Philly Votes , the unions Unite Here and Service Employees International Union , campaigns for State Rep. Elizabeth Fiedler , and City Council Members Kendra Brooks and Jamie Gauthier .
The 215 People ’ s Alliance , another local grassroots group , made a total of 35,000 calls and texts to Philadelphia voters , and provided 5,650 meals to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the People ’ s Kitchen , a local food security project .
National groups like For Our Future and Changing the Conversation knocked doors in Philly as well .
Organizers with West/Southwest Philly Votes , a partnership between Krajewski and Gauthier ’ s campaigns , knocked 20,000 doors between October 3 and Election Day , an effort that took about 345 three-hour volunteer shifts .
Members from SEIU ’ s Local 32BJ joined that effort , said Rachie Weisberg , field director for West/Southwest Philly Votes .
Reclaim partnered with the campaigns for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Amanda McIllmurray , Reclaim Philadelphia political director and Saval ’ s campaign manager .
Together with PA Stands Up , a coalition of grassroots organizing groups that grew out of a response to the 2016 election , 8,000 volunteers across local groups made just under 7 million calls , sent just under 2 million texts , and reached 400,000 voters statewide .
SEIU members also held their own canvass , knocking 70,000 doors statewide , 30,000 in Philadelphia , and 20,000 in surrounding suburbs .
They also knocked doors in Allegheny , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other areas and made 2 million calls statewide .
The most significant push came from Unite Here , a hospitality workers union that deployed hundreds of members to knock on 300,000 doors in Philadelphia between October 1 and Election Day , the largest such operation targeting Black and Latino workers in the city .
Statewide , the union knocked 575,000 doors .
They got 60,000 people in Philadelphia to pledge to vote for Biden , 30,000 of whom did not vote in 2016 .
( Trump won the state by 44,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw the effects of everything that ’ s happened since 2016 , with police brutality , right — with Covid-19 and with the pandemic in general , ” said Brahim Douglas , vice president of Unite Here Philadelphia ’ s Local 274 .
“ We wanted to engage our neighbors in places where typically , folks don ’ t go to , ” he said , like his neighborhood in North Philadelphia and where hopelessness as a result of the pandemic is prevalent .
“ This stuff affects our communities , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , he lost his 21-year-old niece to the coronavirus ; her 1-year-old daughter had also contracted the disease .
“ In the Black and brown communities , Covid has affected — here in Pennsylvania — a lot of us .
And we have a president that took that stuff for granted , and I think that ’ s the hurtful part .
”

With Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan now squarely in Joe Biden’s corner, the former vice president has secured the 270 Electoral College votes he needs to win the presidential election. Throughout Tuesday and Wednesday, President Donald Trump held leads in all three states, but as votes from Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other urban areas were counted, Biden climbed ahead. On Friday morning, after Biden overtook Trump in the Pennsylvania vote count, Decision Desk HQ called the race for Biden.
At the same moment that those votes from heavily progressive cities beset by protests were putting Biden over the top, House Democrats were locked in a tortured, three-hour conference call on Thursday. Centrist after centrist lambasted the party’s left for costing it seats in the lower chamber and threatening its ability to win the Senate. It created a surreal juxtaposition: Had progressive organizing on the ground around left-leaning issues driven registration and turnout for Biden where he needed it, or had it hurt the party more broadly? Or was it both?
The fiercest criticism was leveled by Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA official who won an upset victory in rural and suburban Virginia in 2018. Her victory was symbolic, in that she toppled Dave Brat, the tea party upstart who had himself toppled Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, presaging Trump’s rise a year later. In 2018, Brat accused Spanberger of endorsing and being in league with, by dint of her party identification, Medicare for All, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi — even though she theatrically distanced herself from all three, as well as former President Barack Obama. Her rousing defense — “Abigail Spanberger is my name!” — earned her a viral clip at a debate with Brat:
My goodness! You're about to find out who Abigail @SpanbergerVA07 is and why she's running. Dave Brat sure did! "Abigail Spanberger is my name!" #VA07 pic.twitter.com/ELvBnUcpWs — Mark Herring (@MarkHerringVA) October 16, 2018
Spanberger won a narrow victory and spent 2019 and 2020 further distancing herself from the party’s progressive wing. She is once again locked in a close count, but appears to again have the upper hand, poised for reelection.
It has not diminished her rage toward the left. On the call Thursday, Spanberger vented not at “abolish ICE” but at “defund the police,” the slogan that gained mainstream currency following the protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.
Rep. Conor Lamb, whose special election victory in 2018 was a bellwether of the coming blue wave, backed Spanberger up. “Spanberger was talking about something many of us are feeling today: We pay the price for these unprofessional and unrealistic comments about a number of issues, whether it is about the police or shale gas,” Lamb said. “These issues are too serious for the people we represent to tolerate them being talked about so casually.”
But Lamb’s criticism of his party colleagues goes to the heart of the flaw in the argument. Lamb wasn’t forced to defend defunding the police because of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or other members of the Squad. Rather, it was Lamb who went to a Black Lives Matter protest and took a maskless photo with a (white) woman holding a “defund the police” sign. His GOP opponent hammered Lamb for it. Most centrist politicians think of politics as top-down — a strategy that’s decided upon and then implemented. But “defund the police” — whatever one thinks of the slogan — came from the protest movement that grew out of Minneapolis, not from the messaging department of the Squad Central Committee.
Democrats actually benefited from a surge in voter registrations amid the protests, as noted by Tom Bonier, head of the major Democratic data firm TargetSmart.
One more note. In May and June, when Dem voter registration had bottomed out due to the pandemic and GOPs were outregistering Dems, it was the George Floyd/BLM demonstrations that created a huge Dem voter reg spike. pic.twitter.com/Y3YXbJk4Ol — Tom Bonier (@tbonier) November 6, 2020
Party leader James Clyburn, the Democrat from South Carolina whose endorsement of Biden launched him to the nomination, warned on the call that if Democrats ran on Medicare for All and other progressive issues, they would lose the upcoming Georgia Senate special elections that will determine control of the upper chamber and dictate whether Biden and the Democrats have the possibility of implementing a legislative agenda. (Alaska’s Senate seat, a contest between Republican Sen. Al Sullivan and independent challenger Al Gross, is still up for grabs. While Sullivan is currently ahead, the count of the remaining 44 percent of votes — absentee ballots — won’t begin until Monday.)
Even so, progressives defended a number of Republican-leaning seats. Democratic Rep. Katie Porter won reelection by 8 points in California’s 45th District, covering Orange County and Irvine, which she flipped in 2018. Further south, Rep. Mike Levin, who flipped the 49th District two years ago, won reelection, beating his Republican opponent by 12 points. Both are co-sponsors of the Medicare for All bill in the House, as are Jared Golden in Maine, Ann Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Josh Harder in California, and Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania, who all won reelection in swing districts. And Rep. Tom Malinowski also defended his northern New Jersey district with an 8-point win, again holding onto a district he flipped in 2018. Cook Political Report had rated both Porter and Malinowski’s districts as R+3, and Levin’s as R+1.
Democrats insisting that progressive issues are losing policies have yet to articulate what their winning agenda would be, now that getting Trump out of the White House is no longer the mission. As attention will shift to the Georgia special elections, can Democrats rally the troops simply to help Biden confirm slightly more progressive cabinet nominees? What is the Democratic agenda that the party can pledge to voters to inspire them to vote in that January special election?
From the progressive perspective, it’s an easy question to answer, and Ocasio-Cortez has made the argument herself repeatedly: It’s better to have Democrats in control so that the left can push them to be better, whereas Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has shown himself immune to protest from the left. But that’s not a message from the party itself.
And if Democrats don’t find a message — or insist on spending the next few weeks attacking its left flank — then they have little chance of winning the Senate. Mike Siegel, a Democrat who ran and lost as a populist progressive in suburban Texas, said on this week’s Deconstructed podcast that without a persuasive message coming from the top of the ticket, he was unable to convince disaffected voters that he was serious about fundamental change. Without the Senate, Biden will be a badly hobbled president, the kind that is routinely dealt a blow in the first midterm. While Spanberger and Lamb may be angry, it appears that both will still win, as will dozens of their colleagues who first won in 2018. In 2022, they may look back on this election fondly if they don’t deliver something for the people who elected them.
Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib encourages a resident to vote in the upcoming presidential elections in Detroit, on Oct. 18, 2020. Photo: Rebecca Cook/Reuters
The fears put forward by centrist Democrats are the flip side of the same political vision that Trump used to fuel his base. In nearly every one of his rallies this fall, he singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar for attack, arguing that she was so toxic in Minnesota that she would deliver the state’s suburbs to him. He made the same claim about Rep. Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and about the rising strength of the left in Philadelphia, which he singled out during the first presidential debate, claiming that “bad things happen in Philadelphia.”
Yet Trump’s hopes were dashed. “He effed around and found out,” said Omar on Deconstructed when asked about Trump’s strategy of demonizing her to win suburban votes. Indeed, not only did margins for Democrats expand in the suburbs in Minnesota, but Omar’s strength in Minneapolis also helped power Biden to the win.
The same is true of the suburbs of Detroit and Philadelphia, where strong left organizing catapulted Biden past Trump in two of the three states that were crucial to the incumbent’s 2016 victory, and a third (Minnesota) that the Trump campaign hoped desperately to flip.
In the late summer, as the GOP was knocking on a million doors per week in August, the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee resisted a return to in-person canvassing — even though it had become apparent that there was a safe way to do so — and advised their surrogates to do the same.
In Minneapolis and Detroit, Omar and Tlaib both rejected the advice of the Biden campaign and instead sent volunteers to persuade people not just to come out to vote for their member of Congress — after all, they had effectively no GOP competition in their general elections — but to do their part in ousting Trump by voting for Biden. In Philadelphia, where leftist candidates have romped over the past four years, thanks in part to a robust organizing community that saw two of their leaders elected to the state House on Tuesday, unions and organizers spent the final stretch of the campaign knocking doors in areas where voters felt ignored by the Democratic Party.
It’s too early to know precisely what effect the progressive canvassing operations and organizing had on the vote, as that will require a deeper dive into the data to determine how many irregular or first-time voters were pushed to the polls. Turnout surged everywhere — Biden garnered more votes than any presidential candidate in history — but it’s clear, at minimum, that Trump’s high-profile attacks against Omar and Tlaib did not deliver him those states, and there is preliminary evidence that their operations were disproportionately beneficial to Biden.
In Detroit, voter turnout reached its highest point in decades, election officials reported, even as the city’s population has declined by 10,000 since 2016, and 3,000 people in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, died from Covid-19. Overall in the county, Biden won 587,000 to 264,000, a net of 323,000 votes, though more are still left to be counted. Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in the city of Detroit by about 1,000 votes, but outperformed her by 67,630 votes throughout the entire county; that bump helped put him over the top in a state that Clinton lost by some 10,700 votes.
With about 90 percent of the votes in her district counted, Tlaib already has more than 220,000 votes, having beaten her Republican opponent by some 170,000 votes and counting. That’s a significant jump from 2016, when John Conyers Jr., who previously held the seat, won it with fewer than 200,000 votes.
Oakland County, the suburbs outside Detroit, also went strongly to Biden. Clinton netted roughly 54,000 votes there in 2016, but Biden won it by 110,000 votes.
In Minnesota, Omar’s district saw explosive growth in turnout, with more than 400,000 people casting votes. The district netted Biden more than 250,000 votes in a state he won by just 232,000. And despite Trump’s hopes, the suburbs did not recoil at Omar, giving Biden a bigger margin than Clinton won there.
In Pennsylvania, where ballots are still being counted, Biden outperformed Clinton in Philadelphia’s suburbs, including Montgomery, Chester, Bucks, and Delaware counties — giving him a crucial boost even as voter turnout in the city of Philadelphia dropped. In other parts of the state, he flipped back to blue the counties of Eerie and Northampton, which both voted twice for Obama before flipping for Trump.
Congressional candidate Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, joined by Democratic Senate candidate Tina Smith, D-Minn., speaks during a get-out-the-vote event on the University of Minnesota campus on Nov. 3, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Both Omar and Tlaib faced competitive primaries, which they won comfortably, and they never really stopped campaigning into the general election. Their teams worked together, swapping notes on how to safely canvas in a pandemic, and also worked closely with Rep. Mark Pocan, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who represents Madison, Wisconsin. Omar’s team made 1.4 million attempts to reach out to voters through phone, text, or in person. They knocked on more than 150,000 doors, hitting everyone in the district more than twice on average, according to Jeremy Slevin, Omar’s communications director. A record 400,000 people voted in the district, netting Biden 253,000 votes. Biden visited St. Paul, but not Minneapolis, where his wife Jill Biden visited early last month.
Omar’s campaign hired dozens of organizers to turn out voters when Minnesota started early voting in September, the Washington Post reported. They knocked throughout October and up to Election Day, especially targeting voters who sat out in 2016. Omar was also one of the only Democratic Farmer-Labor Party candidates to continue canvassing, the Star Tribune reported.
Tlaib’s campaign focused on voters who turned out in 2012 and stayed home in 2016, and knocked 16,000 doors in the six weeks leading up to Election Day. They made close to 150,000 calls and sent 100,000 text messages and 100,000 pieces of mail. “Our message was more about Democrats up and down the ballot,” said Tlaib’s Communications Director Denzel McCampbell.
In Philadelphia, Reclaim Philadelphia, a progressive group focused on working-class issues founded in 2016 by local organizers, has helped grow a squad of their own in state and local office. Two Reclaim Philadelphia alums, Nikil Saval, who helped found the group, and Rick Krajewski, previously a staff organizer, won their elections to the state House on Tuesday. A coalition of local and national groups in the city — including Saval and Krajewski’s campaigns, other local elected officials, and unions — knocked 370,000 doors in the weeks leading up to Election Day. That included West/Southwest Philly Votes, the unions Unite Here and Service Employees International Union, campaigns for State Rep. Elizabeth Fiedler, and City Council Members Kendra Brooks, a WFP council member, and Jamie Gauthier. The 215 People’s Alliance, another local grassroots group, made a total of 35,000 calls and texts to Philadelphia voters, and provided 5,650 meals to voters and poll workers with help from the People’s Kitchen, a local food security project. National groups like For Our Future and Changing the Conversation knocked doors in Philly as well.
Renee Wilson, a member of service industry union Unite Here, canvases for Joe Biden in Philadelphia on Nov. 2, 2020. Photo: Rachel Wisniewski/Reuters
There were a number of virtual organizing operations as well. The Working Families Party’s $1.5 million Vote Today Program netted 93,400 conversations about early voting, 76,900 commitments, and more than 2,000 newly registered voters in Philadelphia. They recruited just under 500 volunteers for the effort, which extended to protests and dance parties at “count every vote” protests on Wednesday and Thursday. Nuestro PAC, a group that worked to turn out the Latino vote, run by former Bernie Sanders adviser Chuck Rocha, spent $2.1 million on bilingual outreach over the last four months.
?@NuestroPAC spent 2.1 Million dollars over 4 months talking to 98,000 persuadable #Latinos in #Pennsylvannia vía bilingual TV, radio, digital and 621,000 pieces of mail. Those blue areas in E Pa are ALL Latino stronghold. Thank you all for trusting me! Latinos deliver PA! pic.twitter.com/E7QqwuWaOx — Chuck Rocha (@ChuckRocha) November 6, 2020
Organizers with West/Southwest Philly Votes, a partnership between Krajewski and Gauthier’s campaigns, knocked 20,000 doors between October 3 and Election Day, an effort that took about 345 three-hour volunteer shifts. Members from SEIU’s Local 32BJ joined that effort, said Rachie Weisberg, field director for West/Southwest Philly Votes.
Reclaim partnered with the campaigns for Krajewski and Fiedler to knock doors, said Amanda McIllmurray, Reclaim Philadelphia political director and Saval’s campaign manager. Together with PA Stands Up, a coalition of grassroots organizing groups that grew out of a response to the 2016 election, 8,000 volunteers across local groups made just under 7 million calls, sent just under 2 million texts, and reached 400,000 voters statewide.
SEIU members also held their own canvass, knocking 70,000 doors statewide, 30,000 in Philadelphia, and 20,000 in surrounding suburbs. They also knocked doors in Allegheny, in the Western part of the state, and other areas and made 2 million calls statewide.
The most significant push came from Unite Here, a hospitality workers union that deployed hundreds of members to knock on 300,000 doors in Philadelphia between October 1 and Election Day, the largest such operation targeting Black and Latino workers in the city. Statewide, the union knocked 575,000 doors. They got 60,000 people in Philadelphia to pledge to vote for Biden, 30,000 of whom did not vote in 2016. (Trump won the state by 44,000 votes that cycle.)
“We saw the effects of everything that’s happened since 2016, with police brutality, right — with Covid-19 and with the pandemic in general,” said Brahim Douglas, vice president of Unite Here Philadelphia’s Local 274. “We wanted to engage our neighbors in places where typically, folks don’t go to,” he said, like his neighborhood in North Philadelphia and where hopelessness as a result of the pandemic is prevalent.
“This stuff affects our communities,” said Douglas, referring to Covid-19. Last month, he lost his 21-year-old niece to the coronavirus; her 1-year-old daughter had also contracted the disease. “In the Black and brown communities, Covid has affected — here in Pennsylvania — a lot of us. And we have a president that took that stuff for granted, and I think that’s the hurtful part.”
Update: November 7, 2020
The article and headline have been updated to reflect Biden’s official Electoral College win.


theintercept--2020-11-06--Nonwhite Voters Are Not Immune to the Appeal of Right-Wing Populism

the city of Toronto , one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world and a supposed bastion of liberalism , elected a man widely considered to be a racist as its mayor .
Rob Ford was a vulgar and incoherent oaf , a former city councilor who clashed with his colleagues in public and went on racist tirades against seemingly every minority group .
But when Ford successfully ran for office , it wasn ’ t on the wave of a white backlash against diversity , as one might have expected .
Instead it was immigrants and minorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insulting , who helped power his run .
Not only that , for all his unapologetic crudity — probably even because of it — they loved him .
“ He ’ s drug-addled , overweight and uneducated — yet he ’ s the mayor .
In this against-all-odds success story , Ford is the anti-hero .
He says things that the disenfranchised wish they could say , ” noted a 2014 magazine profile in Toronto Life about the mayor ’ s surprising popularity with minorities .
“ Nobody sticks up for people like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” an inebriated Ford was once recorded saying , before , somewhat contradictorily , launching into a string of racial slurs and adding , “ I ’ m the most racist guy around .
I ’ m the mayor of Toronto.
” I was living in Toronto at the time and witnessed Ford ’ s rise .
While the media fell over themselves to brand him as a racist , a title which he sort of embraced , Ford shocked them by drawing his most enthusiastic support from the immigrant-heavy , working-class suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folk hero .
Many of my friends were supporters .
To this day , several still fondly recall impromptu marijuana-smoking sessions with the then-mayor after running into him at gas stations or outside fast-food restaurants in the city .
Although Ford was born into a wealthy family , people overlooked that , along with his hard-drug use , constant slurs , and general incompetence , to embrace him as an accessible everyman .
( For the record : I did not share this sentiment . )
The more the media condemned him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his supporters .
Ford didn ’ t offer much in terms of policies or good governance , but his outlandish personality represented an “ upraised middle finger , ” as Toronto Life put it , against what many people felt was an arrogant , hypocritical , and morally self-satisfied establishment .
but recall the story of Ford , who passed away from cancer four years ago , while watching reactions to exit polls from the 2020 U.S. presidential election .
To the shock of many , the polls appeared to show increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such polls can be inaccurate and it ’ s worth waiting to draw firm conclusions .
The current numbers , however , suggest that after years of what many viewed as Trump ’ s obvious racism , he drew more Black and Latino voters in this race than he did in his 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton .
The data , collected by Edison Research and published in the New York Times , also suggests that , in addition to marginal increases among Latinos and Black people , Trump drew around a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to undermine the claim that his politics appeal solely to a narrow group of white nationalists .
Joe Biden still won strong majorities across all nonwhite demographics , as Democratic politicians consistently have for many years .
In key urban areas like Philadelphia , Milwaukee , Atlanta , and Phoenix , voters of color seemed to be decisive in pushing Biden to a likely victory in the election .
Yet given how much Trump seemed to embody the definitive racist candidate , and how strongly progressives have been betting on long-term demographic change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s worth asking how Trump managed to even marginally increase his appeal to nonwhite voters after four years of reckless and divisive politics .
To put it another way : How did a seemingly open racist manage to maintain and even increase his support among Black , Latino , and other voters of color ?
One reason may be that , for a lot of nonwhite voters , Trump simply did not fit their definition of racism .
The understanding of what constitutes racism is often different across class lines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very ambiguous concepts like “ tropes ” and “ dogwhistles.
” Even when Trump makes what seem like obviously racially coded claims about immigration or crime , it ’ s not clear that people of color feel he ’ s talking about them personally .
Trump seems glad to embrace Black and Latino supporters , for example , as long as they seem to fit with a certain image of success and conservatism .
Racial categories , of course , are complex , and clear racial voting blocs are a myth .
Letting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of color represent any type of political monolith might itself be progress .
Trump , for instance , appears to have benefited greatly from Cuban American support in Florida ’ s Miami-Dade County , a community that is coded as Latino , frequently identifies as white , and seems to have prioritized its anti-socialist politics above much else .
Liberal politicians , for their part , have relished in using accusations of racism to establish their own bona fides as the true friends of people of color — and deserving of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t always work out .
Many people of all backgrounds feel disillusionment with a ruling establishment that is incapable of improving their lives and who they believe are sneering down at them culturally — a stereotype the right-wing media pushes relentlessly .
The satisfaction of electing an outlandish candidate just to watch them freak out might just seem worth it .
years ago , Trump gleefully employs almost every racial trope in the book , regularly stomping on the delicate rhetorical pieties of elite discourse in America .
His behavior seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly among the college-educated , who are locked in a political and cultural death match with noncollege-educated white people .
But Trump ’ s general behavior does not seem to have harmed him in the same way with nonwhite voters .
“ Perceptions of Trump as racist seem to be a core driving force pushing whites toward the Democrats .
Why would the opposite pattern be holding among minority voters — i.e .
the very people the president is purportedly being racist against ?
” wrote Musa al-Gharbi , a professor of sociology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article for NBC News published just before the election .
“ It may be that many minority voters simply do not view some of his controversial comments and policies as racist .
Too often , scholars try to test whether something is racist by looking exclusively at whether the rhetoric or proposals they disagree with resonate with whites .
They frequently don ’ t even bother to test whether they might appeal to minorities , as well.
” “ Yet when they do , ” al-Gharbi wrote , “ the results tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like immigration , policing , and crime often appears to resonate with Black and Latino voters at least as much as conservative white voters — sometimes they even receive it more warmly .
Both groups , along with a significant chunk of Asian Americans , also lean conservative on some issues , particularly religion , compared with white progressives who make up much of the Democratic voting coalition .
All this , though , has not translated into majority support for the Republican Party — at least not yet — but it should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about taking nonwhite voters for granted .
Earlier this year , al-Gharbi wrote another article about the excessive comfort liberal elites have developed about their role in defining the politics of race and racism in America : The elites assume that they are the ones who defend people of color against racism .
The way that some liberals have allegedly employed the subject to undermine class-based appeals is only part of the story , al-Gharbi argued in the piece , appropriately titled , “ Who Gets to Define What ’ s Racist ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outsized role in defining racism in academia , the media , and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘ racism ’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities , ” al-Gharbi wrote .
“ Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color , efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘ good ’ whites.
” In electoral politics , the picture tends to be more muddled , on account of several factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the charges against Trump as a racist are not just coming from educated white elites : Many of the activists , politicians , and ordinary people sounding the alarm about the president are themselves people of color from nonelite backgrounds .
Yet there is a logic to al-Gharbi ’ s critique .
For Democratic politicians , flush with self-confidence on these issues , it makes obvious sense to define “ racism ” in whatever way seems to give them an advantage over Republicans .
This seems to be part of the impetus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes to issues involving people of color , even when the people of color in question don ’ t always seem to share the same perspective .
the arbiters of what is and isn ’ t racist , liberals might risk politicizing the accusation and taking power away from people of color — the people who actually suffer from discrimination — thus reducing a truly serious issue into a political weapon to settle scores with other elites .
This type of politicized use of racism accusations risks harming minorities by draining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes really do need to defend their rights and dignity from assault .
To some extent , you can look for an example of the same phenomenon when it comes to how the accusation of anti-Semitism is used to deflect legitimate critiques of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel .
It is difficult to know what motivated the people of color who supported Trump this election .
It ’ s possible , for example , that his strongman appeal resonated with men for whom gender had more salience than racial identity in their voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have the opportunity to counter any such cultural influences with policies that would make a material difference in people ’ s lives .
The thin gruel of symbolic racial identity politics offered by the Democrats is not doing much to help minorities , and many of them are not going to keep accepting it forever .
Measures like an increased minimum wage and Medicare for All would reduce racial inequalities in significant , tangible ways while also appealing to the white working class , who would benefit from the same measures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sidestepped the more ambitious of these universal economic programs in favor of identity-based appeals that they hope will do just enough to get them through the gate .
That approach is showing serious morbid symptoms at this point .
The Democrats may have dodged the bullet this time , just narrowly , but liberals should consider the position they could have be in today were they not running against a proudly incompetent opponent presiding over a historic public health and economic disaster .
None of this is to say that Democrats should throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe define them as a party .
The effort to fight racial injustice itself comes from a good place and should not be abandoned .
And , in my own humble opinion , Trump is indeed a racist .
This is evidenced not only by his words , but by the cruelty and indifference he has often shown to nonwhite people in the U.S. and abroad .
People from racialized backgrounds who choose to ignore this are making a huge mistake .
But American liberalism also needs to walk and chew gum at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for universal uplift , while upholding the fact that people of all backgrounds in American society have equal rights and dignity .
It might be helpful to democratize our attitude toward racial justice — especially in opposition to some elite liberals who are trying to politicize anti-racism for their own purposes .
If racism were treated as a mistake that people make and can be rectified , not a moralistic label that defines them , then it could take some of the heat out of the endless culture war that can lead possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and obscure shared economic interests .
Mercy and a recognition of universal human frailty are good sentiments to bring forward to our discussion of social ills like racism and misogyny .
When Rob Ford died in 2016 , thousands of people of all backgrounds marched in the streets in a genuinely emotional outpouring of grief for an incompetent , foul-mouthed , crack-smoking politician who was also , according to the public record , a racist .
Ford , however , was at the end of the day just the mayor of a city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was elected to the most powerful job in the world — the president of an entire country in which millions of people , not a few of them minorities , are clearly clamoring for a strongman .
The unsettling results of this election should dispel any assumption that demographic change will inevitably rescue us from such a fate .
Despite the likelihood of Trump ’ s defeat in the presidential election , now more than ever , the liberal establishment looks feeble in the face of grave national challenges .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rework a policy approach that appeals to a sustainable majority coalition of Americans .
If this close election tells us anything though , it ’ s that time is running out .

In 2010, the city of Toronto, one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world and a supposed bastion of liberalism, elected a man widely considered to be a racist as its mayor. Rob Ford was a vulgar and incoherent oaf, a former city councilor who clashed with his colleagues in public and went on racist tirades against seemingly every minority group. But when Ford successfully ran for office, it wasn’t on the wave of a white backlash against diversity, as one might have expected. Instead it was immigrants and minorities, the very people Ford was supposedly insulting, who helped power his run. Not only that, for all his unapologetic crudity — probably even because of it — they loved him.
“He’s drug-addled, overweight and uneducated — yet he’s the mayor. In this against-all-odds success story, Ford is the anti-hero. He says things that the disenfranchised wish they could say,” noted a 2014 magazine profile in Toronto Life about the mayor’s surprising popularity with minorities.
“Nobody sticks up for people like I do, whatever the race,” an inebriated Ford was once recorded saying, before, somewhat contradictorily, launching into a string of racial slurs and adding, “I’m the most racist guy around. I’m the mayor of Toronto.”
I was living in Toronto at the time and witnessed Ford’s rise. While the media fell over themselves to brand him as a racist, a title which he sort of embraced, Ford shocked them by drawing his most enthusiastic support from the immigrant-heavy, working-class suburbs where he was considered something of a folk hero. Many of my friends were supporters. To this day, several still fondly recall impromptu marijuana-smoking sessions with the then-mayor after running into him at gas stations or outside fast-food restaurants in the city. Although Ford was born into a wealthy family, people overlooked that, along with his hard-drug use, constant slurs, and general incompetence, to embrace him as an accessible everyman. (For the record: I did not share this sentiment.)
The more the media condemned him, the better Ford looked in the eyes of his supporters. Ford didn’t offer much in terms of policies or good governance, but his outlandish personality represented an “upraised middle finger,” as Toronto Life put it, against what many people felt was an arrogant, hypocritical, and morally self-satisfied establishment.
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford signs autographs for kids after the official launch of Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games, at Nathan Phillips Square on July 11, 2014. Photo: Carlos Osorio/Toronto Star/Getty Images
I couldn’t help but recall the story of Ford, who passed away from cancer four years ago, while watching reactions to exit polls from the 2020 U.S. presidential election. To the shock of many, the polls appeared to show increased nonwhite support for President Donald Trump. Such polls can be inaccurate and it’s worth waiting to draw firm conclusions. The current numbers, however, suggest that after years of what many viewed as Trump’s obvious racism, he drew more Black and Latino voters in this race than he did in his 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton. The data, collected by Edison Research and published in the New York Times, also suggests that, in addition to marginal increases among Latinos and Black people, Trump drew around a third of all Asian voters — certainly enough to undermine the claim that his politics appeal solely to a narrow group of white nationalists.
Given how much he seemed to embody the definitive racist candidate, it’s worth asking how Trump managed to even marginally increase his appeal to nonwhite voters.
Joe Biden still won strong majorities across all nonwhite demographics, as Democratic politicians consistently have for many years. In key urban areas like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Phoenix, voters of color seemed to be decisive in pushing Biden to a likely victory in the election.
Yet given how much Trump seemed to embody the definitive racist candidate, and how strongly progressives have been betting on long-term demographic change as a point in their favor, it’s worth asking how Trump managed to even marginally increase his appeal to nonwhite voters after four years of reckless and divisive politics. To put it another way: How did a seemingly open racist manage to maintain and even increase his support among Black, Latino, and other voters of color?
One reason may be that, for a lot of nonwhite voters, Trump simply did not fit their definition of racism. The understanding of what constitutes racism is often different across class lines, especially when we’re talking about very ambiguous concepts like “tropes” and “dogwhistles.” Even when Trump makes what seem like obviously racially coded claims about immigration or crime, it’s not clear that people of color feel he’s talking about them personally. Trump seems glad to embrace Black and Latino supporters, for example, as long as they seem to fit with a certain image of success and conservatism.
Racial categories, of course, are complex, and clear racial voting blocs are a myth. Letting go of the idea that immigrants or people of color represent any type of political monolith might itself be progress. Trump, for instance, appears to have benefited greatly from Cuban American support in Florida’s Miami-Dade County, a community that is coded as Latino, frequently identifies as white, and seems to have prioritized its anti-socialist politics above much else.
Liberal politicians, for their part, have relished in using accusations of racism to establish their own bona fides as the true friends of people of color — and deserving of those demographics’ reflexive political support. It doesn’t always work out. Many people of all backgrounds feel disillusionment with a ruling establishment that is incapable of improving their lives and who they believe are sneering down at them culturally — a stereotype the right-wing media pushes relentlessly. The satisfaction of electing an outlandish candidate just to watch them freak out might just seem worth it.
Trump supporters during a rally on West Gray Street in Houston, Texas, on Nov. 3, 2020. Photo: Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images
Like Rob Ford years ago, Trump gleefully employs almost every racial trope in the book, regularly stomping on the delicate rhetorical pieties of elite discourse in America. His behavior seems to have alienated some white voters, particularly among the college-educated, who are locked in a political and cultural death match with noncollege-educated white people. But Trump’s general behavior does not seem to have harmed him in the same way with nonwhite voters.
“Perceptions of Trump as racist seem to be a core driving force pushing whites toward the Democrats. Why would the opposite pattern be holding among minority voters — i.e. the very people the president is purportedly being racist against?” wrote Musa al-Gharbi, a professor of sociology at Columbia University, in a prescient article for NBC News published just before the election. “It may be that many minority voters simply do not view some of his controversial comments and policies as racist. Too often, scholars try to test whether something is racist by looking exclusively at whether the rhetoric or proposals they disagree with resonate with whites. They frequently don’t even bother to test whether they might appeal to minorities, as well.”
“Yet when they do,” al-Gharbi wrote, “the results tend to be surprising.”
Conservative rhetoric about issues like immigration, policing, and crime often appears to resonate with Black and Latino voters at least as much as conservative white voters — sometimes they even receive it more warmly. Both groups, along with a significant chunk of Asian Americans, also lean conservative on some issues, particularly religion, compared with white progressives who make up much of the Democratic voting coalition. All this, though, has not translated into majority support for the Republican Party — at least not yet — but it should be a serious warning sign to Democrats about taking nonwhite voters for granted.
For Democratic politicians, it makes obvious sense to define “racism” in whatever way seems to give them an advantage over Republicans.
Earlier this year, al-Gharbi wrote another article about the excessive comfort liberal elites have developed about their role in defining the politics of race and racism in America: The elites assume that they are the ones who defend people of color against racism. The way that some liberals have allegedly employed the subject to undermine class-based appeals is only part of the story, al-Gharbi argued in the piece, appropriately titled, “Who Gets to Define What’s Racist?”
“White elites — who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities,” al-Gharbi wrote. “Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.”
In electoral politics, the picture tends to be more muddled, on account of several factors. For instance, it is clear that the charges against Trump as a racist are not just coming from educated white elites: Many of the activists, politicians, and ordinary people sounding the alarm about the president are themselves people of color from nonelite backgrounds.
Yet there is a logic to al-Gharbi’s critique. For Democratic politicians, flush with self-confidence on these issues, it makes obvious sense to define “racism” in whatever way seems to give them an advantage over Republicans. This seems to be part of the impetus behind constantly embracing new renovations of language when it comes to issues involving people of color, even when the people of color in question don’t always seem to share the same perspective.
A Trump supporter gestures as a group gathers to show support for the president on Oct. 23, 2020 in Scranton, Pa. Photo: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images
In deeming themselves the arbiters of what is and isn’t racist, liberals might risk politicizing the accusation and taking power away from people of color — the people who actually suffer from discrimination — thus reducing a truly serious issue into a political weapon to settle scores with other elites. This type of politicized use of racism accusations risks harming minorities by draining the power of a concept that they sometimes really do need to defend their rights and dignity from assault. To some extent, you can look for an example of the same phenomenon when it comes to how the accusation of anti-Semitism is used to deflect legitimate critiques of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.
It is difficult to know what motivated the people of color who supported Trump this election. It’s possible, for example, that his strongman appeal resonated with men for whom gender had more salience than racial identity in their voting decisions. But it is clear that Democrats have the opportunity to counter any such cultural influences with policies that would make a material difference in people’s lives.
The thin gruel of symbolic racial identity politics offered by the Democrats is not doing much to help minorities, and many of them are not going to keep accepting it forever.
The thin gruel of symbolic racial identity politics offered by the Democrats is not doing much to help minorities, and many of them are not going to keep accepting it forever. Measures like an increased minimum wage and Medicare for All would reduce racial inequalities in significant, tangible ways while also appealing to the white working class, who would benefit from the same measures. Instead, for years, the Democrats sidestepped the more ambitious of these universal economic programs in favor of identity-based appeals that they hope will do just enough to get them through the gate. That approach is showing serious morbid symptoms at this point. The Democrats may have dodged the bullet this time, just narrowly, but liberals should consider the position they could have been in today were they not running against a proudly incompetent opponent presiding over a historic public health and economic disaster.
None of this is to say that Democrats should throw out the issues and values that they believe define them as a party. The effort to fight racial injustice itself comes from a good place and should not be abandoned. And, in my own humble opinion, Trump is indeed a racist. This is evidenced not only by his words, but by the cruelty and indifference he has often shown to nonwhite people in the U.S. and abroad. People from racialized backgrounds who choose to ignore this are making a huge mistake. But American liberalism also needs to walk and chew gum at the same time: supporting economic programs for universal uplift, while upholding the fact that people of all backgrounds in American society have equal rights and dignity.
It might be helpful to democratize our attitude toward racial justice — especially in opposition to some elite liberals who are trying to politicize anti-racism for their own purposes. If racism were treated as a mistake that people make and can be rectified, not a moralistic label that defines them, then it could take some of the heat out of the endless culture war that can lead possible allies to retreat into a defensive posture and obscure shared economic interests. Mercy and a recognition of universal human frailty are good sentiments to bring forward to our discussion of social ills like racism and misogyny.
When Rob Ford died in 2016, thousands of people of all backgrounds marched in the streets in a genuinely emotional outpouring of grief for an incompetent, foul-mouthed, crack-smoking politician who was also, according to the public record, a racist. Ford, however, was at the end of the day just the mayor of a city. Trump, on the other hand, was elected to the most powerful job in the world — the president of an entire country in which millions of people, not a few of them minorities, are clearly clamoring for a strongman.
The unsettling results of this election should dispel any assumption that demographic change will inevitably rescue us from such a fate. Despite the likelihood of Trump’s defeat in the presidential election, now more than ever, the liberal establishment looks feeble in the face of grave national challenges. There is still an opportunity to figure things out and rework a policy approach that appeals to a sustainable majority coalition of Americans. If this close election tells us anything though, it’s that time is running out.