logo
New York Times op-ed details how Democrats lost the non-White voters Obama gained

New York Times op-ed details how Democrats lost the non-White voters Obama gained

Fox Newsa day ago
On Thursday, The New York Times published an opinion piece by Dr. Daniel Martinez HoSang, a professor of American studies and political science at Yale University, analyzing how the Democratic Party has lost a sizable portion of the non-White voters that former President Barack Obama brought into the party during his eight-year tenure.
After researching and speaking with minority voters in typical Democratic strongholds like Milwaukee and the Bay Area of San Francisco, HoSang concluded that many of the non-White voters who now support President Donald Trump left the Democratic Party after becoming exhausted by identity politics and worsening economic conditions and crime.
"The rightward drift of minority voters is not a story of just one election. It is a phenomenon years in the making, one that is reshaping the American political landscape. And to understand this movement, you must understand the transformations in the places they are happening," HoSang wrote.
According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, Trump has made up extensive ground with Hispanic voters, Black voters and Asian voters.
The poll found that Trump significantly closed the gap on Hispanic voters, with 51% of them going to former Vice President Kamala Harris, and 48% going to Trump, a significant shift from the 2020 presidential election, when Trump fell behind with Hispanic voters to former President Joe Biden, 61%-36%.
The president also made significant gains with Black and Asian voters, boosting his support among Black voters from 8% in 2020 to 15% in 2024, and among Asian voters from 30% to 40%.
One former Obama voter HoSang spoke to, Orlando Owens from Milwaukee, said that he joined the Democratic Party because he was Black, but was eventually disaffected after becoming tired of the party's identity politics and empty promises.
"When you get your food stamp review, you have to go give shot records, school records, blood type. You almost have to get absolutely naked to get a $50 increase. But you have people coming to this country who have no documentation who are staying in hotels for two years, for free? How is that right?" he questioned. "A lot of Black people have already heard the promises from the Democrats. And nothing was delivered."
HoSang argued that the foreclosure crisis, opioid epidemic and chronic funding shortfalls have "created cracks in the bedrock of Democratic support" in cities like Milwaukee, and yet, "Democrats have largely doubled down on promising relatively modest policy reforms meant to speak to the interests of voters of color."
"Disappointed in the party that they saw as presiding over these profound economic shifts, nonwhite voters found that the institutions where many of them found their political identities — churches, unions, clubs — have been in decline," HoSang reported.
With many of these typical community pillars in decline, HoSang contends that voters of color today are being influenced by new forces, such as right-wing podcasts, influencers and social media.
"The narrative emerging from this wave of new media is a compelling one to disaffected communities of color; it captures the very real struggles they experience and repackages them as proof that Democratic policies have failed them," he argued.
In San Francisco's Bay Area, another issue has swayed their heavily Asian-American population away from the Democratic Party — crime.
HoSang spoke with one Bay Area resident, Nancy Yu Law, who voiced her frustrations about the city's crime problem that has made running her four stores in Chinatown much more taxing.
"I have four stores in Chinatown. My store was broken into two times. At my gift shop, they took money and they took one tablet. My boba shop was broken into and vandalized. In those years, it was really unsafe. A criminal is a criminal. Elected officials did not stand up to say that," she told HoSang. "It felt like there's nothing you can change in California, so we were all just complaining. When I ask my friends, what do you think of President Trump? They are all pretty satisfied."
The Yale professor visited Turning Point's AmericaFest conference last December where he spoke with several young working-class Black women who were part of conservative influencer Candace Owen's Blexit movement.
He noted that there was very little evidence of "buyer's remorse" when it came to Trump, and that many of the Blexit members he spoke with worldviews were "far more heterodox, guided less by ideological rigidities and more by their aspirations to build lives of dignity for themselves and their communities."
In closing, HoSang felt that many of the minority voters he spoke with were politically driven by the realities that their racial communities face, such as collapsing social structures, economic uncertainties and "a sense that the status quo is untenable."
"Absent a solution to these core problems, appealing to disaffected voters of color on their racial identity alone has rung hollow. Grappling with the complexity of their frustrations, anxieties and hopes will determine the next political chapter of this country," he concluded.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The former NBC host blasted the former president's son for a series of media appearances in which he blasted Joe Biden's critics.
The former NBC host blasted the former president's son for a series of media appearances in which he blasted Joe Biden's critics.

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The former NBC host blasted the former president's son for a series of media appearances in which he blasted Joe Biden's critics.

Former NBC host Chuck Todd says Hunter Biden isn't doing himself—or Democrats—any favors with his media tour. The wayward member of the Biden family sat down for two interviews—with Andrew Gallaghan's popular Channel 5 podcast last weekend, and then with former Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison on the At Our Table podcast on Tuesday—going off on an expletive-laden rant against his father's detractors and opening up about his alcohol and drug addictions. 'I don't think this does Hunter Biden any good. I don't think this does Joe Biden any good. It certainly doesn't do the Democratic Party any good,' Todd said Friday on his podcast, adding that he's generally an advocate for going to therapy, 'but let's not do it public. Try to deal with your issues amongst yourself.'

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Time​ Magazine

time17 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.

Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it
Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it

The Hill

time17 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it

There is seemingly no worthwhile accomplishment or good deed authored by President Trump that the left will give him credit for achieving. That in and of itself speaks to the bottomless pits of partisanship and rhetorical poison some have eagerly embraced in the 'Age of Trump.' Unfortunately for the Democratic Party as a whole, such anger-fueled denial has a spillover effect that hurts the party's electoral chances. In speaking with former high-level Democrats, I am told that one of the main reasons Trump sailed to victory last November was because almost the entirety of the Democratic and far-left echo chamber mortgaged its energy and treasure seeking to demonize Trump rather than addressing the solvable real-world problems plaguing their constituents and fellow Americans. But at what cost is this coming to the Democratic Party or, more importantly, Americans looking to it for desperately needed help? Don't take my word for it. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban recently laid into Democrats for having no policy or strategy beyond 'Trump sucks.' 'We picked the wrong pressure points,' said Cuban on 'Pod Save America.' 'It's just 'Trump sucks.' That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. 'Trump sucks.' Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win! It's just not! Because it's not about Trump — it's about the people of the United States of America — and what's good for them! And how do you get them to a place where they're in a better position, and it's less stressful for them.' Cuban — who a growing number of Democrats believe might make a credible presidential candidate in 2028 — is correct. When will it be peak 'theater of the absurd' for that echo chamber? When do working-class and disenfranchised Americans once again matter to it? When does national security once again matter to it? When does the performance art — aimed at literally just a few thousand entrenched elites living in bubbles — stop? If you only got yours information from that echo chamber, you would believe that Trump never accomplished anything; never built anything; was never successful; never made a correct decision; and never had a worthwhile instinct. Ever. And that was before he became president. Since Trump became president, inhabitants of that echo chamber have seemingly been in a constant state of rage. One of the issues that has most made them apoplectic is Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a 'woke,' in-the-tank for the left organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won't. Instead, they — like the Pulitzer Prize Committee — proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right. In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing. Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he got the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it 'premature.' Obama himself felt so self-conscious about getting the award that he gave serious thought to skipping the ceremony. Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said, 'Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for.' Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn't anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule. Again, it seems that, for the left, Trump should never be given any credit for anything. No matter how patently obvious that he deserves it. Even about keeping the peace and saving lives. For years prior to him becoming president — when many powerful Democrats courted his friendship and money — Trump spoke out against the war in Iraq and the needless waste of lives, something he continued to do as president. Just as he has done about the war in Ukraine. Did those calls against war and to save hundreds of thousands of lives ever register with the Nobel Committee? What about in 2020 when Trump created the Abraham Accords, an agreement that normalized relations between Israel and Arab countries? Again, in 2009, the committee awarded Obama the award for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.' Except, that is not what he did — and yet, he still got the award. Trump established the Abraham Accords — and was ignored by the committee. In 1998, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for 'their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.' Okay, let's compare. Just recently, Trump was instrumental in preventing all-out war between India and Pakistan. Two nuclear-armed nations. Is that more valuable to the world than finding a 'peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland?' Apparently not to the committee. In 2019, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to Abiy Ahmed 'for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.' Again, earlier this year, Trump brokered a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. While much of the mainstream media sought to bury the accomplishment, surely the committee knew of it. Mark Cuban was correct to call out the Democrats for only having one failed campaign policy. Trump is correct to call out the Nobel Prize Committee for its obvious and shameful bias. Brokering peace and saving lives should always be recognized — no matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store